1993-04-29

Mr. Charles A. Langlois (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and to Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 41 petitions.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Preceedings.]


[Stage Direction]
18TH REPORT OF CANADIAN NATO PARLIAMENTARY ASSOCIATION
Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 34, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 18th report of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association concerning the NAA annual standing committee meeting which was held in Portugal from March 26 to 28, 1993.


Mr. Doug Fee (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-103, an act to provide for the repeal of the Land Titles Act and to amend other acts in relation thereto, with one amendment.



HOUSE MANAGEMENT


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I have the honor to present the 89th report of the Standing Committee on House Management, concerning the members at large to serve on committees in the Departmental envelope.
With leave of the House, I intend to move for concurrence in this report later this day.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings.]




Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, with leave of the House, I move:
That the 89th report of the Standing Committee on House
Management, tabled earlier today, be concurred in.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. parliamentary secretary have unanimous consent to put the motion?


Mr. Dingwall:: Madam Speaker, in view of what has transpired on previous occasions I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would just give a brief description of the contents of the report as he did yesterday with regard to the 88th report.

April 29, 1993
Routine Proceedings


Charles A. Langlois: With great pleasure, Madam Speaker. The 89th report of the House Management Committee recommends changes to the list of members at large to serve on committees in the Departmental envelope. In a few moments the Clerk will read the changes proposed in this 89th report.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: If consent is given and since the report has been presented, I will ask the clerk at the table to please read the text of the report so that members may know its contents. I will then put the question on the motion.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Ronald J. Duhamel (St. Boniface):: Madam Speaker, in this first instance I have petitioners who ask the government to remove the GST on books and learning materials. They point out that it has hurt students, artists, publishers and the industry generally. They also point out that it does not contribute to increased productivity of our society in general. The petitioners feel it is counterproductive to the development of Canadian society.


Ron J. Duhamel: Madam Speaker, in this other petition the petitioners ask Parliament to ensure that the CRTC carefully regulates the use of foul language in radio and television programming.
The petitioners also ask that the whole aspect of violence be examined carefully. They point out that it is not necessary to do that in order to entertain or inform, whether it be in English, French or any other language.

In the latter case, I have petitioners who are asking Parliament to ensure that proper language is used on radio and television. They also ask Parliament to ensure that acts of violence are not allowed on radio and
television because they say it often goes against what they are trying to do in raising their families.


Mr. Ross Harvey (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I also have the honour to rise pursuant to Standing Order 36 and present a petition signed by numerous Albertans, principally from Calgary but from Edmonton and other centres as well. I just noted now one person from Helena, Montana. It must be the first time that person at least has ever petitioned the Canadian House of Commons.
In any event, the petitioners point out that if implemented the North American free trade agreement will result in further restrictions being placed on the ability of Canada's federal, provincial and territorial governments now and in the future from assisting Canadian industry, conserving Canadian natural resources for Canadian benefit and advancing needed social programs.
Therefore the petitioners call upon this House to reject the proposed North American free trade agreement. They recommend to the government that it use the termination clause to end the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement.


Mr. Alex Kindy (Calgary Northeast):: Madam Speaker, I have here 10,000 signatures on a petition in memory of all children who have suffered at the hands of others.
We have formed this petition to stress our belief that the penalties in respect of child molesters and child murderers are far too lenient in this country.
The petitioners strongly request that this petition be heard as the people's voice to reinstate capital punishment for child murderers and to stiffen penalties for child molesters. If we cannot protect our children from people who commit these heinous crimes, then who will? The petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation against this type of offender.
I also have a series of petitions from thousands of other petitioners in memory of Shannon Dawn Morris-sette-Bird and all children who have suffered at the hands of others. This petition is also a request for capital
April 29, 1993

punishment for child murderers and stiffer penalties for child molesters.
I have another series of petitions from thousands of petitioners in memory of Corinne "Punky" Gustavson and all children who have suffered at the hands of others.
The petitioners have formed this petition to express their beliefs that the penalties with respect to child molesters and child murderers are far too lenient in this country. They strongly request that this petition be heard as the people's vote to reinstate capital punishment for child murderers and to stiffen penalties for child molesters. If we cannot protect our children from the people who commit these heinous crimes, then who will? Therefore the petitioners call upon Parliament to enact legislation against this type of offender.
Again I present petitions from thousands of petitioners in memory of Corinne "Punky" Gustavson. They strongly request stiffer penalties for child molesters and capital punishment for child murderers.
All those petitioners are from Calgary, Alberta.
These petitioners request that convicted sex offenders be housed with the general prison population and not be given special treatment.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, Question No. 455 will be answered today .


Mr. MacWilliam: With respect to the "Canada, Buy Into It" campaign, (a) what was
the total cost of phase I of the campaign (b) what is the projected
cost of phase II of the campaign (c) how much of the cost of phase I
on the campaign was attributed to paid advertising?


Mr. Peter L. McCreath (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International TYade):: With respect to the "Canada, Buy Into It" campaign, the breakdown is as follows:
Routine Proceedings
(a)	$4.45 million total cost phase I
(b)	$.672 million total cost phase II
(c)	$3,864 million attributed to paid advertising phase


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to called starred Questions Nos. 428 and 446?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Questions Nos. 428 and 446.


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I ask that starred Question No. 428 be printed without being read.

*


Mr. Nowlan: With respect to Hollis Harris, president of Air Canada, is he (a) a Canadian citizen and, if not, what is the status of his immigration (b) is he qualified to work in Canada under the Designated Occupations List for Immigrants (c) is he working in Canada under any section of the free trade agreement and, if so, what section?


Hon. Bernard Valcourt (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: The Privacy Act prevents the Minister of Employment and Immigration from discussing the details of immigration cases. Therefore, the government cannot provide the details of Mr. Harris' status other than to say that the Minister of Employment and Immigration is responsible for ensuring that all foreign workers working in Canada meet the requirements of the Immigration Act as it pertains to foreign workers; that responsibility has been fulfilled in this case; and, Mr. Harris' employment does not come within the auspices of the free trade agreement.


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, if

Routine Proceedings
starred Question No. 446 could be made an Order for Return, that return would be tabled immediately.

*


Mr. Duhamel: Since November 21,1988, what has been the total procurement by the federal government (a) in the province of Manitoba (i) per year and (ii) by department (b) in the United States (i) per year and (ii) by department?
Return tabled.


Charles A. Langlois: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


David Charles Dingwall: Point of order, Madam Speaker. Before the parliamentary secretary asks that all questions stand I want to indicate to you, Madam Speaker, and to the parliamentary secretary that time on the clock is running out. The House is due to close on June 23. There was Easter break when the House was adjourned for approximately seven days.
However, when one looks at questions on the Order Paper I just want to bring to the attention of the Chair something I think is quite important. Questions Nos. 307, 317, 318, 326, 386, 387, 404, 406, 421, 422, 423, 446, 448, 464 in the name of the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and question No. 465 are well over a year old.
As the appropriate identification to the question so states, the response is to be provided within a 45-day period. We have gone well beyond that on many of the questions. I raise this point along with other questions Nos. 467, 472, 475, 484, 486, 488, 493, 502, 503, 504, 505 and 506.1 raise these matters while keeping in mind that we do have a short period of time. Members wish to have answers to those questions. The government is grossly negligent in not responding to those questions, which within the purview of the Standing Orders it must do within 45 days.
A number of the questions that I referred to, and I want to be fair to the parliamentary secretary, have just been asked in the last number of weeks by members on this side of the House.
I wish to serve notice to the parliamentary secretary that I will raise this subject matter again on Monday of next week. I would hope that at a bare minimum the questions that have gone well beyond the 45-day limit will be responded to by the appropriate ministers or the appropriate action pursuant to the Standing Orders will be followed by the parliamentary secretary.
I realize the parliamentary secretary is a very active, learned and experienced colleague. He has done a superb job as a parliamentary secretary. However he better start talking to those members on the front bench who have been ragging the puck. I would hope that he would get some answers forthwith from these ministers who have been grossly negligent, unlike previous ministers of the Crown. I refer to the former Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am glad this was a point of order and we did not enter into debate.


Mr. Blaikie:: Madam Speaker, briefly on the same point because I am sure the hon. member from Winnipeg would like to get on with the opposition day motion, and we would all love to hear him.
The fact is this matter that is raised by the opposition House leader deserves more attention than it has been getting. I would remind the Chair and hon. members that the 45-day limit was put in place at the time of the reforms of the House and the Standing Orders in the mid-1980s as a kind of trade off in return for members not being able to ask as many questions as they used to be able to ask.
There was a time when members were able to ask an absolutely limitless number of questions and the government at that time felt this was putting a burden on them. The trade off was that members would not be able to ask an infinite number of questions but in return the questions they did ask would be answered within a defined period of time.
What do we do about a government that shows routine contempt for the Standing Orders in this respect? These questions are to be answered within 45 days. That is what the Standing Orders say. It poses a problem for parliamentary reform when we run into a situation in which the government simply ignores not only the spirit of parliamentary reform, it has done that, but the letter of parliamentary reform. It is actually required to answer
April 29, 1993

these questions within 45 days and it is routinely not doing so.
I would ask the Chair to take this matter under consideration and perhaps at some point consider making a comment as to what the House should do to protect itself from a government that so blatantly neglects and acts in contempt of its own Standing Orders.


Alex Kindy: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker. I have a few comments on the same topic. I think it is unacceptable for the government not to answer within the prescribed period as ordered by Parliament. I would like to know whether the Chair could perhaps explain to the government that there is no double standard. If the Standing Orders apply to individual members, they should also apply to the government.
Ministers are members of Parliament, and if they want Parliament to respect them, they should obey the Standing Orders as ratified by Parliament.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Chair takes this very seriously. In fact, the matter was referred last week to the Standing Committee on House Management, and I expect we will get a reply very shortly. Meanwhile, the parliamentary secretary has enumerated a list of questions which have been answered today. Regarding question No. 446, which happens to be one of the questions referred to by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, if the House agrees to have this question made an Order for Return, that return will be tabled immediately.
As for question No. 428, with leave of the House, it will be printed without being read. Is it agreed?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. members:: Agreed.
Supply



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) moved:: That this House condemns the lack of leadership, the evasion of accountability and responsibility and the inadequate credibility of the Minister of National Defence that have exposed members of the Canadian forces on difficult and sensitive peacekeeping missions to unnecessary vulnerability and that contribute to the gravity of national fiscal problems by her persisting in the acquisition of enormously expensive equipment designed for missions no longer contemplated.
He said: Madam Speaker, one of the phrases that I have long remembered was said by Thomas Paine, the American revolutionary. He said: "We have in our power to begin the world all over again. The birth day of a new world is at hand". It is probably the ultimate axiom of our time when we see the incredible changes going on. I have thought of those words many times when I have watched the change in the cold war, the major progress we have made in reducing nuclear weapons, the enormous sense of human aspiration as it breaks out around the world to establish new democratic market economies and political systems. It has been a really exhilarating time.
History has a way of playing cruel games. This new freedom has also brought with it some tragic and gut-wrenching events. We have added the awful words "ethnic cleansing" to our vocabulary. We have seen scenes of genocide and massacres we thought we would never again witness in this world.
There is no question we are living in a time that has to bring out the best of leadership in defining a new world order, in defining a new sense of the rule of law, and redesigning and rethinking many of our basic premises and policies and ways of doing things.
Canadians have been right at the epicentre of these changes. As a result of our past experience and the reputation that was won by a variety of diplomats and governments and peacekeepers we have been seen as a country that is able to respond to these new challenges and has been asked to do so.

April 29, 1993
Supply
It also means that some very tough choices have to be faced. The world is not the way it was. The kind of interventions that are taking place in Bosnia, Cambodia and Somalia have created a brand new generation of peacemaking requirements. We really are living in what the historians would call a defining moment when there must be a new set of judgments, ideas, and directions formulated. It must be done in openness, in a democratic way, with the full consent of the governed so that people will understand what those changes mean, the implications for them, so that they are able to support and provide a consensus in terms of moving into this area, at times a treacherous but fascinating world, and so that Canada can play a role of distinction, honour and integrity.
What have we received instead? We have received paeans of praise to the old way of doing things, retrenchment in the status quo, evasion, arrogance, indifference, and sometimes downright lying and misleading.
It has been one of the worst moments for Canadians in terms of looking for leadership and getting instead a ducking, bobbing, weaving, hiding attitude from the Minister of National Defence. She is not prepared to face up to either the responsibilities of office or the greater responsibilities of leadership.
Consider the case of the fundamental priorities of our defence security system. It did not take analysis of great depth to recognize that increasingly the responsibilities of peacemaking will hit the centre of our security strategy and the ability of Canada to respond in a multilateral international way to a variety of conflicts, both military responses and responses of our aid workers and others to help build societies, which is very much at the centre of our foreign policy requirements.
That means a basic rescaling of where we spend our money, where we put our priorities, how we train our people, and where we allocate our resources. Look at what has happened. In the defence policy announced a short while ago we cut our ground forces by 35 per cent to the point where we do not have adequate people on the ground to supply and maintain a peacekeeping presence.
At the same time as we were cutting our peacekeeping commitments, as we were slashing our capacity and ability to meet these new demands, what was the government doing? It was committing $5.8 billion to a
helicopter program that was designed 10 years ago, when the cold war was at its height, to chase Russian subs across the north Atlantic. Probably the only thing Russian subs are carrying these days is grain from port if they can get the fuel to move.
Have we made any attempt to rethink that problem? Have we made any effort to reanalyse that kind of priority to determine whether there should be a more effective and more realistic contemporary way of spending our defence dollars? Not a bit.
The defence minister, the apostle of the new politics, has been most vociferous in saying that we shall not change, to the point where she has become ludicrous and absurd.
The other night on television in an interview when asked why it was that we were now spending $5.8 billion for a piece of military equipment that no longer had a use she said that we have to be concerned about those subs the Iranians have.
That really made Canadians shudder. All of a sudden we are going to spend $5.8 billion scarce defence dollars, because the Iranians may be buying a sub or two and Canada must stand on guard, as opposed to all of the other defence demands around the world which are crying for it. What is the defence minister doing? We are having to call up reservists and quickly put them into precarious situations with 90 days' training and without the proper equipment. These helicopters have become the sacred cow.
This apostle of the new politics who has said that we must open up our eyes and ears to listen refuses to listen to the majority of Canadians who in the majority say that we should stop that program and do something better with the money.
This is the new politics? It is a kind of inbred arrogance that says: I do not have to listen to anybody because I know what is best. Is that the new kind of new politics we can expect? See no evil, hear no evil, think no evil. Do not think at all is the byword of the new politics.
It is far more serious because we are putting our reputation and our capacity on the line because at the present time we have not undertaken any kind of open debate in this House about the new peacekeeping priorities. We have not had any kind of position paper from the government on what it means in terms of reallocating defence expenditures. We have made no
April 29, 1993

effort whatsoever to involve Canadians in a series of debates about Canada's international role. We must ask ourselves tough questions about how far and in what way we want to commit our troops and under what kind of rules and under what kind of mandate.
Look at the result. We commit troops in Bosnia into a highly vulnerable situation with a confused, ambiguous mandate, mission statement, rules of engagement, in effect making our troops a trip-wire for some possible attack. We say we will respond then, instead of ensuring that in this horrible, nasty situation taking place in Bosnia with the massacre of thousands of people, we are not prepared to invite Canadians to become part of the debate, to say we have some tough choices. The old humanitarian peacekeeping mission is not working.
What is the point of bringing supplies to people if they are going to be bombarded the next day and massacred in their beds? Everybody is ducking that responsibility, the Europeans, the Americans. Everybody is shying back.
It is shameful we are not prepared to engage Canadians in a serious debate about these crucial issues. Nothing has been brought into this House. The minister has refused to come to the committee. It has been a total stonewall.


An hon. member:: That is not true. She is coming to committee on May 5.


Lloyd Axworthy: Next week. We are told she is coming to speak on the helicopters and not on peacekeeping.
We are in a situation where the minister of defence has to be on top of the job 24 hours a day because our troops are in the most vulnerable, precarious position that they have been in since the Korean war, and where is the minister?
How often is she in the House, a day or two a week maybe? She says she is on the end of the phone. Members opposite should have heard the chief of defence staff yesterday when he was announcing the terms of the new board of inquiry. He said: "I have been thinking about things I should have been doing for the last couple of weeks".
Supply
When he was asked: "What does the minister think?", he said: "I don't know. We did not have a chance to talk about it." Is that continual examination and brainstorming and responsibility? The minister was off stomping and shopping somewhere, getting those photo ops out.
I have no quarrel with the minister running for the leadership. That is her business and she is welcome to it. But if it means that you avoid the responsibilities of your office in the meantime, you are not living up to your oath of office. That is something I do not think Canadians are prepared to accept.
Now we have a board of inquiry which will be looking at things like training and preparation for our peacekeeping troops. We were asking questions in this House several months ago of the same minister.
The minister at the time said: "Observe. There is no need to do that. Absolutely ridiculous. We are all set. Don't worry about it." Now we have a board of inquiry examining those very same questions because the minister was negligent in addressing those issues right at the beginning before the troops were sent. She neglected to establish rules of engagement, mission objectives and proper and adequate information for those troops to make sure the decisions are the right ones.
We have to go through this board of inquiry and all the information and problems that it has given rise to because the job was not done when it should have been done.
This brings me to the issue of Somalia which has been an ongoing matter of real concern to the troops themselves, the Canadian people and Parliament. All it needed was honesty. All it needed was being forthright. All it needed was to be up front. All it needed was to say: "We have got problems here. Here is how we are going to handle it."
Instead, what do we get? We get evasion, misdirection, negligence and now as we found out yesterday, being downright misled. I want to make sure that people understand this, that there can possibly be no greater sin committed by any minister than not telling the truth.


Mr. Andre:: Evidence?

April 29, 1993
Supply


Lloyd Axworthy: Here comes the evidence. Yesterday in the testimony of the chief of defence staff he said that on March 18 the minister of defence was informed that an investigation looking at the criminal aspects of a death in a Somalia camp was under way, that is a homicide. The minister denied categorically in the House that she knew anything about any homicide taking place.


Harvie Andre: That is untrue.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is not untrue, we have the records to prove it.


Harvie Andre: When did she deny that?


Lloyd Axworthy: That is exactly the case. For two weeks the minister said she knew nothing about it but she knew there was an investigation going on. The investigation report says, and the House leader probably is not aware as he is not about most things, of the exact statement that was being made-


Charles A. Langlois: You are wasting the time of the House. If you think you will be elected on that issue, you're gone.


Lloyd Axworthy: We are gone, sure. We are really gone, that is right.
The minister said deliberately that she knew nothing about any homicide investigation. The chief of defence staff said yesterday that on March 18 the minister knew that an investigation had been requested to look at the criminal aspects of a death in Somalia, homicide in other words. There are two different versions, the minister's and the chief of defence staff's. From my point, I believe the chief of defence staff, not the minister.
This motion is specifically on the question of whether at a very precarious, sensitive time in the history of this country we are getting the kind of leadership that we need and deserve. Canadians deserve honesty from their ministers, but the government is seized by what I would call the Al-Mashat disease. When in trouble, duck. When put to the law, hide. When asked to live up to responsibilities, evade. Those are the real issues that are at stake.
How do we ensure that our forces that are valiantly and courageously performing their duties around the world are getting the leadership at the top that they
need? We know the House leader and others have attempted to characterize this as an attack on the troops. They are trying to say-


An hon. member:: That is what it is.


Lloyd Axworthy: But they are wrong. Clearly it is an attack on the lack of confidence, leadership and forthrightness of the minister who should be on top of that portfolio.
The primary responsibility of the House is to make sure that the decisions being made are the right ones, so they can be carried out the right way; that we do not have people put in vulnerable positions and have no one at the other end of the phone; that we have a serious debate in the House so Canadians know what is going on; and that we do not have a serious question about where we put our defence resources to get the most effective use, all which have been denied, all which have been turned back. Canadians deserve to have an open system of government, an honest system of government and a democratic system of government.
We have received none of those qualities of leadership from the present minister of defence. Instead, the problems were made worse and the kind of a clear mandate has not been given to our Armed Forces to make the changes that are necessary, to prepare themselves for the new world that we are in and to make sure that Canadians are in agreement with that. It would seem to me that even at this very important time with all the political sky-jumping going on around us we cannot afford to have these sins of omission on the part of the minister. We cannot afford to have absentee leadership. We need to have people who are working, thinking and reacting on a full-time, effective basis.
Members opposite said that this was all because there was a leadership campaign. They are wrong. The only problem with the leadership campaign is that apparently it distracts the minister from her real duties. However, it does not mean to say that at any other time the same minister would not be under the same questioning by members of this House, by members of the public and by members of the media because of a lack of performance of duty. It is just that the opportunities to raise those
April 29, 1993

questions are so seldom and infrequent. That is also part of the problem.
The resolution we have put forward is an attempt to open up that debate, to start raising a series of questions on the following: how we can redesign our defence and security policy to meet new conditions; how we can begin to try to focus the minds of this government and this minister on the real responsibility, which is this important defining moment in the history of this country in terms of the role we play around the world; and how we can provide a significant leadership and direction to the United Nations and to the peacekeeping forces in a way that will continue the honour we have won in the past.
However, we cannot do it and it will not happen unless Canadians are involved, unless this Parliament is fully apprised and unless we have a government with something serious and significant to say.
We hope the debate today will just be the beginning of other debates. We can open this question up for a full-scale examination so that ultimately we can define for this country an effective defence and security role in a way that will enjoy the consent of the government.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I would like to make two comments with respect to the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre and then pose a question to the member.
First, let me comment on his remarks respecting the EH-101 helicopter contract. For those who do not know, in 1982 and 1983 the Liberal government of the day considered the Canadian Patrol Frigate Program. Very much a part of that program was the addition of a helicopter component once the ships were operational. The decision was made then that the Patrol Frigate Program and the acquisition of helicopters went hand in hand. That is simply an extension of the equipment of our Canadian naval force.
There are important industrial spin-offs to places like the Halifax shipyards. Across this country workers will benefit from this contract. More important, it is endorsed by every military official in the country as far as I am aware. My question is for the hon. member. Does he stand in contradiction to our military experts who have requested this additional equipment to make the Cana-
Supply
dian patrol frigate operative and effective as a defensive force? Does he stand in contradiction to those officials?
Let me make this second comment and ask an additional question with respect to the control of the Canadian forces. For decades, for generations, we have had in force in Canada the National Defence Act enacted by this very Parliament of Canada. It is the governing law with respect to the Canadian Armed Forces, as my friend the admiral is well aware. That is a code of discipline and conduct different from that which prevails in civilian lives across this country. For generations as part of the British parliamentary tradition we have used legislation to control and govern the Canadian forces.
Is the member now suggesting that we throw out the processes and procedures of the National Defence Act, that we forget about the code of military conduct and discipline and that we apply a totally different code of conduct to the activities of those who are in extremely difficult situations in places like Somalia at the request of the Government of Canada and for the benefit of the Canadian people? Does he want them now governed by a different code of conduct? Is he going to simply throw out the rules and introduce ad hoc judgments in light of what he sees as a difficult situation not for him but particularly for the Canadian Armed Forces?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, I would be glad to reply to the questions. In part the answer was contained in the member's opening statement.
The decision on frigates was made in 1982, 11 years ago, when there was still a cold war on and when the priority objective for our security under the NATO arrangement was to provide anti-submarine patrols in the north Atlantic.
I want to inform the hon. member that things have changed since then. The Berlin Wall has come down. The Soviet empire has disintegrated. Russian subs are tied up in their home fleets, not moving. We just announced a month ago a new program of aid and assistance to the very Russians whose subs we thought we are going to try to chase. Yet there has been no attempt whatsoever in the meantime by this government to come to grips with that new reality. It is still looking

April 29, 1993
Supply
back 10 years ago. It is looking through the rear-view mirror.
All we are asking is for the minister of defence to say that there is a new reality. Let us open it up. Let us review it. Let us see how we can reconfigure what we have. That is what is called leadership, not sticking one's head in the sand, not looking through the rear-view mirror, not having some nostalgia for the old cold war but saying it is time to make some change. Let us do it in an open, honest, analytical way, especially at the same time they are cutting substantially from the ground forces so that they cannot provide the proper operational complement to meet the new requirement under the peacekeeping challenges that we face.
The government under the Minister of Finance is slashing away at the defence budget, which he has a right to do, but instead of saying let us cut back on equipment that is obsolescent in terms of today's reality what do they cut back? They cut back on the very component of our defence establishment that is in high demand: our capacity to provide peacemaking, peacekeeping troops. That is what was cut by this government, not the helicopters. That is why we are saying it is about time we had a minister of defence who understood those questions.
On the second question, yes, the National Defence Act is the basic law that governs our armed forces. If the hon. member read section 45 in terms of setting up boards of inquiry, he would see there is nothing in section 45 that says they must be secret. Nothing whatsoever says that a board of inquiry must be secret. It is at the discretion of those who set up the board as to whether or not it is secret. There is nothing in the act that requires it. It is at the discretion of the minister and the minister decided to make it secret.
We have heard the defence from the minister and the House leader that it had to be secret because it might impinge upon criminal investigations. The chief of the defence staff in his statement yesterday said it would not involve criminal investigations. It is going to involve questions of training, deployment and preparation. It has nothing to do with the criminal aspects of it.
Why is it not going to be open so that Canadians can understand the preparation, training, development, lack of discipline and so on that is there? That argument was
simply shot out of a silo by the admiral. The government is going to have to find another reason to defend why that inquiry must be secret.
When we look at the statements made yesterday by the two military men from Somalia who have raised these charges publicly we realize they have put their careers on the line. They have taken a very courageous stand because they saw something they thought was wrong. They deserve an open inquiry. They deserve to have the open forum in which their testimony can be properly looked at without fear of a closed door intimidation occurring. That is the basic principle of justice.
The Supreme Court has said it is publicity and the glare of the public that make for good law and good judgment, except, it appears, when it comes down to investigating this very serious matter, when the apostle of the new politics says it is better to have an inquiry behind a closed door.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the hon. member seems to think this inquiry will somehow not do its job, will somehow be corrupted and will produce irrelevant results by having its inquiries in camera.
I wonder if he would identify which of the members of the inquiry he feels would be involved in these inferred partisan inappropriate activities. He is suggesting it cannot be done honestly.
Is it Major-General de Faye, Brigadier-General Addy, Brigadier-General Emond, Professor Harriet Critchly or Mr. Stephen Owen? Which of those, or all of them, is he in essence accusing of being incapable of conducting a proper inquiry because they would keep it in confidence?
I could not believe he would stand and say that it is appropriate for physicians who have made observations in respect to the homicide to discuss the details in public while a criminal investigation is going on. I find it absolutely astounding that the hon. member would say such a thing. Does he not understand the criminal justice system, the presumption of innocence, the fact that people might at the end of the day have to face a court and have rights? The hon. member's partisanship is a little extreme. Attacking the minister is understood in
April 29, 1993

partisan rant but he is going after the credibility of these individuals.
I heard him say that the frigates are irrelevant today. I wonder how he would patrol or exercise sovereignty over the largest coastline in the world. The frigates are irrelevant without helicopters.
Finally I wonder why he said the Berlin Wall came down. It came down in 1989. In 1990 a committee of this House on which his party had two representatives unanimously recommended that the Sea King helicopters be replaced as planned and as soon as possible to avoid costly stop gap measures. Is the Liberal Party in favour of costly stop gap measures? Has it denounced the members of its party? This decision was taken after the Berlin Wall fell.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, first let me point out that I do not have the same paranoid personality as the hon. House leader who always thinks that somebody is up to no good. That has been the hallmark of this member in his career in the House. He always looks for the worst in individuals.
What I do believe in and what I do insist on is an open process. We should make sure that it is a open democratic process. I thought the minister of defence felt the same way. I read with great interest her opening statement when she announced her leadership. "This is going to be new politics: open, democratic".


An hon. member:: Transparent.


Lloyd Axworthy: Transparent. On the very first test of that commitment she shuts it down and goes back to the old Tory way of making decisions behind closed doors and trying to manipulate the process along the way. It has nothing to do with the individuals, but I will let the hon. minister worry about that because he enjoys that kind of ad hominem attack. That is his style. It is not mine.
Second, let us talk about the position of the doctors. Apparently the minister still does not understand that the terms of reference released yesterday do not include the criminal investigation. It was deliberately excluded. The chief of defence staff said they were looking at training, problems of discipline and potentials of racism. Those were the issues the chief of defence staff identi-
Supply
fied as needing to be looked at. Presumably the gentlemen who had the courage to speak out were not allowed to do so through official circles. They wrote to their wives and spoke out to the media. They would still like the same forum.
One final answer in completion. I never said the frigates were irrelevant. I said the defence policy of the government was irrelevant. That is what I said. There is a very big difference. Instead of trying to come to grips with the transition and required changes to adapt and respond, to have better coastal patrol, to have better drug interdiction and these kinds of things, and instead of re-equipping and redesigning the logistics of our defence forces and training to meet that, there has been nothing said.
We are still buying 35 helicopters to intercept Russian subs tied up in port waiting, I suppose, for the Prime Minister's assistants to get to them so they can buy some fuel. That seems to be a total contradiction of what the government is about. It does not know what the left hand is doing or what the right hand is doing.


Mr. John Brewin (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity afforded by the motion being put by my colleague to the right to have a discussion in this House about defence policy in general. For the last 10 days or so we have been hearing a lot of specifics and we will have further opportunity for discussion, perhaps during this debate and certainly during Question Period.
The debate gives us an opportunity to discuss in more general terms the conduct of the defence department and the way in which it is being administered by the government and the current Minister of National Defence.
Several of my colleagues from the defence committee are in the House. Sometimes I do not agree with them, but I do want to say it is a very valuable committee of this House and I think it is working hard to tiy to get at some of the issues. As this Parliament is in its final days, one of the things that might be reflected upon for the next Parliament of Canada is that the committees could be made far more valuable and useful and could be consulted by the government much more effectively. I have noticed that many of the decisions of the committee are

April 29, 1993
Supply
m
simply disregarded by the government and it proceeds to make decisions without the benefit of the work done by the committee and the members on the committee.
The recent events in Somalia reveal however some very serious problems in the administration of defence policy and the operations of the defence department in this country. It reveals that the Department of National Defence and the minister first of all have completely mishandled the public information side of the issues that have emerged recently in Somalia.
Earlier my friend gave some details. We have had some in Question Period. The fact remains that the information has come out in dribs and drabs. There clearly has been a cover-up and I suppose that is a pejorative term. What it means is that the public of Canada and the government itself and conceivably the minister, and certainly Parliament, have not been given information that is critically important to the various functions that we have, including the overseeing of that very important and very difficult job that our peacekeepers are doing there.
Even now we are not sure we have all the information and the inquiry that is being set up is not going to get at the heart of the matter as I see it.
The department and the minister have also, as is revealed in the Somalian affair, failed to impose effective discipline on our forces there, putting the Canadian peacekeeping reputation at risk and at jeopardy.
It was very clear from last night's television that the soldiers who were interviewed did not understand the rules of engagement and the rules applying to the use of force as described yesterday in Ottawa by the chief of defence staff. Right on television they were misstating the rules. They do not understand them. From all accounts the discipline in that area has probably fallen apart simply because the government failed to act, starting as early as February 17 when it had information that it should have moved quickly to deal with and that appears to have led to at least two or three tragedies that followed. There is the failure of the government to impose discipline and the failure of the Department of National Defence.
The department and the minister have also clearly failed to train and prepare our forces for that very difficult assignment. That is coming out in the information we are hearing day by day.
General MacKenzie and other witnesses coming before the defence committee, including the chief of defence staff, have tried to suggest to us that there is no need for training beyond combat training. I will talk about that a little more extensively in a minute.
It is now clear that that is a complacent, misguided policy which has led to tragedy in Somalia and has led to a blot on the reputation of our peacekeepers. This government and the Minister of National Defence are specifically responsible to Parliament and to Canada for that failure.
What we have seen with the Minister of National Defence since she took on those responsibilities in January is something which we in British Columbia had seen before.
Contrary to the image that has appeared in certain photographs of the minister, she is cautious, inflexible, conservative, rigid and defensive in her approach to her duties.
In the last four months we have not seen one significant initiative toward change in the administration of the Department of National Defence at a time when the change facing the world, particularly the defence forces, is dramatic.
When she took over her office the very first statement she made was to adopt the policy of the purchase of the $5.8 billion EH-101 helicopters. She did not blink for a second. She adopted that and has rigidly defended it ever since in the face of mounting evidence that not only the Canadian people disagree with it but it is a misguided and stupid policy.
There has been no change in the spending patterns of the department. It talks of cutbacks but the reality is what is being cut back are hopes and expectations of additional spending. The Department of National Defence is one of the few departments which has continued its spending unchanged through all the recent budgets of this government.
There has been no review of defence policy initiated by this minister. There has been no change in defence policy, defence structure in face of reports of the Auditor General, in face of clear change. Of the other countries throughout the whole western alliance and throughout the world, this is the one Department of National
April 29, 1993

Defence which, under this administration, is staying rigid and unchanged in the face of changing world conditions.
We hear nothing, not a word about base closings. The government has had a report from the defence committee and from a special task force established by the previous Minister of National Defence to set out a system for closing bases. It is universally conceded that we have far more bases than we need now in the face of changing conditions.
Yet the government and this minister have failed to make one single step in the direction of closing bases and rationalizing expenditures in that area. All sides of this House at least as evidenced by the defence committee agree in a non-partisan way on a system that should be used. That is, communities should be consulted. Communities should be supported where bases are to be closed.
There should be a logical step-by-step process that we all agree to for closings to happen in the interests of the Canadian taxpayer and rationalizing defence. We agreed on a system to take it out of partisan politics but the Minister of National Defence has done nothing. Not a step has taken place under her administration.
There has been no restructuring whatever of Canadian defence forces under her administration, not even a start. We are still living with a structure of defence forces established in the Second World War and probably its antecedents go back to the First World War. There is not a change.
There have been no changes in purchasing policy despite a savage attack by the Auditor General on the system within the Department of National Defence. This has cost Canadians billions of dollars in wasted money. There is no change in the reserve program.
There is not a sentence of change in the reserve program despite an equally savage attack by the Auditor General on that program. He said that it is misconceived, the training is hopeless, the purchase and planning of it is hopeless and the product at the end is not what we are supposed to be getting for the billions of dollars.
In face of evidence before the defence committee, he said that a reserve program conceived during the period of the cold war makes no sense in a period in which our primary role of our defence forces is peacekeeping. We have quite different requirements. There is no sense of
Supply
innovation or change. If it is happening internally, we are certainly not hearing about it and the products are not different.
What we say is that the government must move. Let me try in the limited time that I have to indicate some areas where I think we need change. Let me first focus and take a little time on peacekeeping training. What it appears has been happening is that within the Department of National Defence the line is we do not need any changes in peacekeeping training, that we have these wonderful peacekeepers who have done a good job for the last 40 years and we do not have to change and try to understand in a new way what training should be.
Yet we also have within the Department of National Defence some voices which have tried to get across a different perspective. We also have had voices from outside, such as General Clayton Beattie who has come before our committee and come before the Senate committee and made a powerful case that there must be a new approach to training and orientation of our peacekeepers, that combat training alone is not enough, that the limited orientation that we give to our defence forces when they go overseas in difficult situations is not enough.
As I said earlier, the Somalian events have demonstrated the tragedy that has occurred because of the rigid, inflexible and complacent approach of the Department of National Defence.
Let me quote the minister herself in what I am afraid is a rather typical arrogance of the minister that she knows better than anybody else, the put-down of those who might have a different view. She said when interviewed in Halifax in February on the issue of peacekeeping training: "The idea of a peacekeeping training centre is a wonderful idea for most people who do not know anything about peacekeeping. But I have had discussions with senior members of the Canadian military who are a bit perplexed as to what you would teach people but the normal skill of a good combat-ready military".
She apparently did not talk to General Beattie, she did not talk to General Urquhart, she did not talk to-and I might be confusing his rank-Colonel Houghton. If I do him a disservice I apologize to him. Let me quote from a July 1991 report that should have been in her hands and she should have asked for and she should have read. It
18648	COMMONS DEBATES	April 29,1993
Supply
says as follows: "However, with peacekeeping as a high profile task of the Canadian Forces it is essential that the wishes of the United Nations now expressed in their training guidelines and in the SOPs for various missions be met as completely as possible".
I have been informed that in fact even now the UN training guidelines and the guidelines such as they are in Canada have not been complied with.
The member went on to say: "There has been in the Canadian forces a prevailing attitude that we need do very little in the way of preparation of our peacekeepers because of the basic militaiy skills already learned. Unfortunately, this attitude is causing difficulties in competing with other peacekeeping contributors which are paying attention to the expressed wishes of the United Nations and which are gradually upgrading their peacekeeping skills. The result is that a Scandinavian reserve officer who receives a grounding in the subjects listed in the UN training guidelines could easily be a more knowledgeable, more sophisticated peacekeeper at the start of his tour of UN duty than his Canadian counterpart. If we resist acceptance of the guidelines for refresher training as well as for knowledge specifically related to UN staff work such as mission orientation and negotiating skills we will begin to fall behind. Training must be given and appropriate authority."
In light of what we have been learning in the last week or so about Somalia, it is also fascinating to note the conclusion and recommendation includes that an understanding of the use of force be part of the training manuals and training program.
A further point: "The above subjects, including the understanding of the use of force, are not covered in any Canadian army military training".
Earlier the department had the benefit of a memorandum which also was highly critical of the level of training and made a series of very specific useful recommendations.
The key point here is that our peacekeepers, who are clearly person for person among the best in the world, have been let down by the administration of the Department of National Defence.
It was very revealing when they came before the defence committee. Many of the senior officers did not even seem to understand the kind of training or what training was all about. They did not understand the idea of working with the development assistance workers who have been in the field to give them some serious idea of what needs to meet. They have learned to deal with culture shock and the difficulties imposed by being dropped in the middle of a different culture with different ways of doing things and trying to understand local customs in a systematic way so the mission can be fulfilled.
In the course of all the excitement over the last week about what has happened in Somalia I got a call from London from the African rights group which monitors human rights. It will be issuing a report on Friday which will outline its findings but I was given a summary.
In the summary it notes that Operation Restore Hope had the stated aim of creating a secure environment for the delivering of humanitarian relief. It notes that there has undoubtedly been an improvement in the delivery of bulk food aid while extortion rackets and looting of food convoys have dramatically declined. This improvement is offset by a general decline in security throughout southern Somalia. The security for international relief areas has markedly worsened, restricting relief operations in rural areas.
It goes on to note how the Somalis themselves have been marginalized and how the whole program of development of an agricultural system there has been set back. It notes how many areas of importance to the ultimate success of Operation Restore Hope have been undermined.
They have been undermined in my view and I think in the view of African rights because our government and other governments have not approached the mission there with an understanding of its total impact. It has been treated as a military intervention. The broad long-term objectives of that mission have been forgotten.
Certainly from all accounts our peacekeepers have been very valuable in terms of building schools and hospitals and so forth. But in the broader picture we and other countries neglected the area for years. It appears that there has been almost no consultation with experts

April 29, 1993

in development assistance to turn the experience we have had there into a positive long-term benefit for the people in that community and country.
Let me quickly touch on other areas. In the area of equipment it is very important first of all to note that the evidence we have had before the defence committee is that our equipment for our peacekeepers and for those who are undertaking their roles in Canada is more than adequate.
The government has in fact provided good equipment for our forces. It is the height of folly to pay for billions of dollars of extra equipment, not for peacekeeping but to fight a war in Europe that is not going to happen. NATO has now recognized that war is not going to happen and is no longer preparing for it.
We need to look at a whole new approach to the reserve program. We have to follow the guidelines of the United Nation's development report which said that every member nation must cut its defence spending by 3 per cent a year to release funds to deal with the new security problems created by poverty around the world and the environmental difficulties the globe faces.
We need to shake up headquarters. We have more generals than we have tanks. We have more senior officers than we need. We have a senior officer structure than would cover more- Madam Speaker, you are indicating that my time is up.
Let me just say in conclusion that we need a new structure in government to integrate the work of the Department of National Defence, the Department of External Affairs, CIDA, the Coast Guard and the RCMP. We need a new National Defence Act. We need to recognize that the proud tradition of our forces must now be served by a constructive and positive approach to change. I would ask the government to work with all sides in this House, listen to the approach taken by the defence committee and begin to build a new defence policy that is in keeping with the changes in our times.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, far be it for me to bring up anything in the House of Commons pertaining to partisan politics or relationships
Supply
between federal and provincial organizations. I can understand why members of the New Democratic Party are very tender about the relationships at the federal and provincial levels considering the difficulties they now have associating themselves with Premier Rae in the province of Ontario.
I want to remind the member that there is an election taking place in the province of Nova Scotia and we have an opportunity to review the policies of the New Democratic Party as they pertain to Nova Scotia. I do not know if he is aware of all of them, but one of the policies advanced by the New Democratic Party in Nova Scotia is the insistence that CFB Cornwallis remain open as a military base. It has taken the position that it must be maintained in the interest of the area.
I can understand why many people, including myself, have a great deal of sympathy for that position but the member made it clear in his address to the House today that he believes there should be a non-partisan approach to the matter of closure of defence bases. He indicated very clearly that defence bases have to be closed in a fair and meritorious manner and the government intends to judge all this objectively.
I wonder if he has any advice for the New Democratic leader in the province of Nova Scotia on the issue of defence closures. Does he thinks she should insist on the maintenance of CFB Cornwallis regardless of meritorious or objective assessment that should be made?
While he is giving advice to the leader in Nova Scotia, could he comment again on the EH-101 helicopter contract? I have not heard anybody in the labour movement in Nova Scotia or in the New Democratic Party say to cancel the EH-101 helicopter contract, forgo the jobs at the Halifax shipyards and forgo the industrial benefits to IMP Limited that employs over 2,500 people in Nova Scotia. I have not heard a word about cancellation of the EH-101 helicopter.
I can understand why the member wants it cancelled. He has explained himself, as has the Liberal Party. They are against it and I understand the reasons. I want him to stand in this place and give the advice to his friends in Nova Scotia so we will not have the kind of conflict we have over discrepancies in the views of the Ontario New Democrats and the federal New Democrats. He should

April 29, 1993
Supply
tell the leader he wants the EH-101 helicopter contract cancelled and CFB Cornwallis closed.


John F. Brewin: First of all I am glad the hon. member has given me the opportunity to speak about Alexa McDonough. I think she is one of the most outstanding political leaders in our country. She has taken great leadership in Nova Scotia on behalf of ordinary people in Nova Scotia. She is an outstanding person. I know the people of Nova Scotia recognize that and will elect her and her colleagues in the election coming up. She would give Nova Scotia the kind of leadership it deserves and has not had from its current government.
I would add that Alexa has been at the forefront of the effort to ensure that CFB Cornwallis be a peacekeeping training centre. That proposal is endorsed by all parties from Nova Scotia, as I understand it, although the government's approach on that was less than enthusiastic when it came up before the defence committee. We could hardly hear the words peacekeeping centre get out but I understand it is endorsed by all. It makes a lot of sense. We have endorsed it. I have worked for it in the defence committee and continue to do so. It is very clear to me that we should have a peacekeeping training centre at Cornwallis. It is admirably suited for it.
There are also a lot of bases across this country which should be rationalized and closed. There is a process we have recommended for doing that.
We have made our position clear on the EH-101 helicopters as the member has indicated. I think the idea of holding out jobs for people in Nova Scotia as a result of this is a mirage. Those jobs are never going to happen because this project is never going to happen. This government is wedded to it but even the Minister of National Defence is beginning to give off little signals that she is not for it.
If the people in Nova Scotia think that project is safe they should think again. It is a misconceived project. If the people in Nova Scotia want good jobs the first step should be to cancel that project and develop effective job programs for the people of Nova Scotia and the rest of the country. That is one of the most inefficient job
creators one could ever want and there are relatively few jobs in Nova Scotia provided for under it.
We have proposed a number of projects and programs which will provide a much more solid base for the long-term economic future of the people of Nova Scotia. I am very proud of what Alexa McDonough has been saying to the people there.


Alex Kindy: Madam Speaker, I would like to make some comments on peacekeeping.
I was on the defence committee in a former sitting of the House and I would like to say that the world has changed recently. Peacekeeping has changed. We have performed peacekeeping in a very outstanding way in the past but I do not think what is happening right now in Bosnia-Hercegovina is peacekeeping. A holocaust is taking place there. The United Nations forces are there and they cannot prevent this holocaust from happening.
The whole question is whether the United Nations has been efficient in the former Yugoslavia. The answer simply is no. The war has gone on for some time and we have witnessed atrocities of the worst kind. They have certainly been compared to the holocaust that happened during the Second World War and the world sits by and watches.
I think the peacekeeping question is a paramount one. Should we be peacekeepers or peacemakers? President Clinton and even the Prime Minister of Great Britain are now saying that we have to be more aggressive and be peacemakers. Are our forces prepared to do that job? At the present time, as we can see, they are not prepared because they are not sufficient in numbers and they are not protected. They will be the first victims if there is peacemaking in Bosnia.
Another question that I would like to raise is the function of the former General Lewis MacKenzie who was the Commander-in-Chief of the United Nations' forces in the former Yugoslavia. Since he retired I see that he travels around the world. He has been in Somalia and recently in Bosnia.
I have a question for the Minister of National Defence that she should be able to answer. Who is paying for Mr. MacKenzie's trips? Is he a lobbyist? Is he a lobbyist for the Serbian side? These are questions which I think are very legitimate. He has been meeting with Serbs. He has had a special relationship with a Serbian leader in Bosnia. So these are questions that should be answered
April 29, 1993

by the Minister of National Defence. What is Mr. MacKenzie's function? Is he in a conflict of interest situation? He was a commander of the United Nations and now he is a consultant apparently to the Serbians in Bosnia. So these are the questions that arise.
As far as what the member for Victoria was saying, I agree. He mentioned for instance that the defence committee is not being listened to by the government. I think that is somewhat of a tragic situation. Maybe the minister can tell me how she sees the defence committee working in the future to be effective and listened to by the government.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Victoria, there is one minute left.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, it will not take me very long. Change the government.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I rise to respond to what appears on its surface to be a very serious indictment of the conduct of the Minister of National Defence. In another place and time and from a different source, accusations of lack of leadership, evasion of accountability and responsibility and inadequate credibility would be pretty weighty stuff. But in this place, at this time, from the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, as well as the hon. member for Victoria, I know there is not a member on either side of the House who attaches an atom of significance to what is said transparently as nothing more than a partisan rant.
That is what we have been involved in here, a partisan rant. The polls have them petrified so they are off on a partisan rant. That is okay in the sense that this is a partisan operation, except to the extent that innocent third parties are being damaged and important legal proceedings may be prejudiced by the demands being made.
I sat and listened to the hon. member from the New Democratic Party speak but now the New Democrats have deserted the House. Perhaps they are out reading The Globe and Mail. I hope they are. If they do they will see this morning's editorial. It puts very concisely what the minister of defence has been saying and why she has
Supply
been saying that in answers to the questions from the members for Winnipeg South Centre and Victoria and the hon. member from Newfoundland, the defence critic of the Liberal Party. It reads:
If Parliament is often theatre, it is rarely the improvisational kind. When questions arose in Parliament this week over a series of mysterious shootings by Canadian troops in Somalia, MPs reacted with all of the spontaneity of old troupers in the 1,567th performance of The Mousetrap. The usual opposition role in such cases is to demand an inquiry and, when the government agrees, say that it doesn't go far enough-
On Monday, Defence Minister Kim Campbell announced a full military inquiry into the conduct of Canadian soldiers in Somalia - The opposition immediately charged that the inquiry lacked the power to look into the real question: whether Ms. Campbell covered up the shootings. "This is a smoke-screen, and it's hiding the major issue," said Liberal MP Fred Mifflin. "The only thing that has to be investigated is the conduct of the minister. She had information that she didn't give."
A nice line, skilfully delivered, but quite wrong. There are, in fact, two major issues in this case, neither of them connected to what the minister knew and when she knew it. They are: 1) What actually happened in Somalia? Did soldiers of the Canadian Airborne Regiment shoot two Somalis in the back as they fled from a military compound on March 4, as an armed forces doctor has alleged they did? Should the soldiers face murder or manslaughter charges? 2) Do the shootings fall into a wider pattern? Are there, in Ms. Campbell's phrase, "systemic problems" such as racism or poor training in Canada's Somalia force?
The first issue is the responsibility of the military police who are investigating the case. The second falls to Ms. Campbell's inquiry. The difficulty is keeping the two apart. Court decisions in Ontario's Patricia Starr affair and Nova Scotia's Westray mine disaster have established that it is unconstitutional for government inquiries to assign criminal responsibility. That, the courts say, is strictly the role of the courts.
In other words the accusation by the member for Winnipeg South Centre that not having this in public is somehow a cover-up or a smoke-screen is not just absurd from a common sense point of view, there are actually two court decisions verifying it. Two court decisions say that it would be unconstitutional to do what the member for Winnipeg South Centre said should be done.
Small wonder his credibility is sinking as rapidly as it is and that people are looking at any alternative as a preferable one. He engaged in a 20-minute partisan, irresponsible, distorting rant about what in fact is happening and what should happen. He knows it and honest hon. members know it. He stood up and said that what we need is a debate. A debate is an opportunity for

April 29, 1993
Supply
people to put forward ideas, ideas to be heard, challenged and exchanged.
I listened to his entire speech and did not hear any suggestions, any ideas, any positive proposals from the Liberal Party critic on what in fact should be done. Well, maybe one. He said: "No helicopters". I will look into that.
Then he said that we need more permanent troops and that the reserves should not be used in peacekeeping forces. Where should the reserves be used and what have we got reserves for? He says that they are not supposed to be used and that they are inadequately trained. On what basis would he make that assertion? On what basis would be make the assertion that Canadian reserve troops are inadequately trained and cannot do the job that is asked of them? No experience of mine or of anybody I know would verify that bold accusation made by the hon. member.
He criticized DND policy in a general way by saying it was totally inadequate to today's needs, but he did not say what was inadequate about it. I do not know if he knows what the policy is generally. He certainly did not offer any constructive suggestions.
Fundamentally, in terms of DND's operations, its budget is allocated by this House and moneys are appropriated each year for its operations. It has been trying since long before this government came into office to follow a policy of roughly 75 per cent of the annual appropriation to be used for the operations of the military in terms of personnel, operations, maintenance and so on, and about 25 per cent to be used for capital equipment.
The equipment acquisition programs are long scale. There is a tremendous amount of planning. It takes many years to design and develop, to issue contracts and have the equipment built. Goodness knows, Canada has not been exceptionally extravagant in the purchase of military equipment. In fact, we spend as a percentage of our Gross National Product on defence, less than any of the NATO countries, with the exception of Iceland and Luxembourg. I do not know how accurate it was but I read a quote from former Major-General Lewis MacKenzie who said that we have the 125th largest army in the world. It may be an exaggeration but not that much. We
do not spend anywhere near as much on defence as do most countries.
Clearly, what we do is very important and it is necessary for our military to have the proper equipment. The military has looked at the needs and there are needs everywhere. There are needs for new tanks and for new equipment for the army, navy and air force. Every arm of the forces needs new equipment.
In the military's own priorities it has said the important thing to do now is to replace these 35-year old Sea King helicopters because they are no longer adequate to the task. To continue them in the air without tremendous investment in upgrading could, in fact, be dangerous. What is the use of having equipment that absorbs a whole lot of money in terms of maintenance but does not do what is required?
As indicated in an earlier debate, a number of years ago it was decided that the Canadian Navy Maritime Command would acquire frigates. Frigates without helicopters are like aircraft carriers without planes. The helicopter is an absolutely essential ingredient of the frigate. It is its eyes and gives it range. It allows it to patrol much larger sections of the ocean. We have the largest coastline in the world.
Certainly not in my lifetime, hopefully in the lifetime of my kids or grandkids, but even then we do not know that we will reach a situation where countries do not need that. But we do need the capability today to patrol our shores, to exercise sovereignty, not just in terms of Russian submarines, but in all foreign operations within Canadian territorial waters and off our shores. Whether it is for security, fisheries, drug interdiction, or simply for the political reality that if we cannot exercise jurisdiction over our land, our geography, then we cannot really claim to have it.
After careful examination the EH-101 was decided as the way to go. That was approved unanimously by a committee of this House. Members of the committee included two from the Liberal Party and two from the NDP. They all agreed unanimously that this was the way to go.
The opposition says: "It costs too much. It is going to cost $5.8 billion". That is wrong, wrong, wrong. The helicopters will cost $2.4 billion and the additional spare parts, training and so on of the whole program will add another $1.6 billion. That is in 1992 dollars. It can be
April 29, 1993

stretched out over 13 years so that if there is inflation in the time predicted the total cost in these inflated dollars would be $5.8 billion.
If you want to really distort it, why not just talk about the helicopters and what they might cost in terms of dollars in the year 2043? You could probably come up with a figure of $20 billion. On the other side, if you want to make the number low, talk about what it would cost in 1950 dollars. You would probably get it for less than $1 billion.
Are those numbers meaningful in terms of the kind of intelligent debate we are being asked for in this House? Of course not. Those are distorted, warped, ridiculous numbers. What is the alternative?
The Liberals at one time although they do not talk about it now said: "Re-do the Sea Kings". The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, having spoken, is not here to listen to the rest of the debate but I hope he is reading the Winnipeg Free Press of Monday. If he read it he would see-


Mr. Mifflin:: Madam Speaker, I have a point of order.
The hon. government House leader of all people knows that he really should not make reference to those members who are not in the House. I would ask him to take note of that, please.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: The Chair does agree with the hon. member and would appreciate the minister taking notice as well.


Harvie Andre: The article in the Winnipeg Free Press, the home town newspaper of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, states:
No one really knows what Axworthy would do except that he would not buy 50 EH-101 helicopters. He might buy fewer of a different helicopter or might refurbish the Sea Kings and Labradors we now own. Either way, he would not be acting in Canada's best interests. Nor would he be saving us much money-Without proper helicopters many more frigates would be needed to do the same work. Helicopters are cheaper than frigates, both to build and operate-It is simply not true that the new machines cost $100 million each. The $5.8 billion represents the cost of the program, spread over 13 years. About $2.06 billion will be spent on the machines themselves, making the unit cost $44 million. The cost of refurbishing the 31 Sea Kings we own would be $25 million each.
Supply
Therefore, the Liberal Party policy is that we do not buy EH-lOls. What we do is refurbish the Sea Kings for $25 million each. They would last about 10 years. They would then be 47 years old. Who would drive a car to Toronto that was 47 years old, let alone fly in a helicopter 47 years old for goodness' sake?
What the Liberal Party would do is spend this money now. The Liberals would spend that money over seven years. The net result is that for the next seven years the annual cash flow whether you go for EH-lOls or refurbished Sea Kings is the same. There is hardly any saving at all which is the intellectual dishonesty of the members of the Liberal Party.
I saw the leader of the Liberal Party on budget night when he said on being asked how he would cut the budget: "I would get rid of the EH-lOls". If they followed that policy, there would be no savings, zero, none for the next seven years on that policy.
At the end of it all, we would have ancient Sea Kangs incapable of flying and the necessity to buy new helicopters. Does that make economic sense? Only to a fool does that make economic sense, let alone the intellectual dishonesty of claiming that this is how you balance the budget.
What absurdity, what childish absurdity this is. They say: "Take us seriously. We are ready to govern this country". Heaven forbid.
If there was any intellectual honesty in this debate, and I welcome in an election honest debate about what the armed forces should do and what our policies should be, we would not be making silly statements like: "We are going to balance the budget by eliminating the EH-101". We would not be making those kinds of silly statements. It is hard to take anybody seriously who commences his debate on defence policy by making that absurd statement.
The Canadian Armed Forces are doing a magnificent job despite the fact that we have not been excessively generous in terms of their financing. We spend less on defence than most countries of the world, as I indicated. This is so for all the significant NATO countries. They are respected world-wide. Canada has participated in every single peacekeeping action since it started in 1948 or whenever it was.

April 29, 1993
Supply
We are respected because we do a good job. We do a good job because by and large until very recently defence has been a fairly non-partisan thing in this country. By and large there has been a respect on all sides of the House of the role being played by the military and the necessity for us to rise above partisanship when it comes to looking at this important role with respect to the country.
Unfortunately, that partisanship was put aside in the context of a leadership convention in our party and the fact that one of the candidates is the Minister of National Defence. Unfortunately that led to wild exaggeration and extravagant arguments. More dangerously, it has led to suggestions by the hon. member for Victoria for example, and others, that in fact we put aside our long tradition of fairness in criminal examinations and the necessity for the assumption of innocence and allowing the process to proceed in confidence so that reputations are not unnecessarily damaged.
The suggestion is to put all of that aside and that when the Minister of National Defence proceeds in what is a proper way-everybody knows it is a proper way-that that should not be allowed to stand and she should be attacked as covering up and as somehow derelict in her duty because she does not stand up in the House and give all the details of what is going on in respect of that criminal investigation.
It is most disturbing that hon. members would do something like that. Our Standing Orders in this House and the practices say that it is against the rules of the House to ask questions about subjects that are sub judice meaning they are under investigation. No one in this House would ask the Solicitor General to stand up and give the details of a case being investigated by the RCMP knowing that that would deny the rights of those being investigated. Yet that is exactly what the opposition is asking for here. That is exactly what the opposition is asking for in this particular case.


John F. Brewin: I am not.


Harvie Andre: Maybe it is not that hon. member but his colleague from Winnipeg South Centre has been saying exactly that over and over and then again this morning.
He stated, for example, this morning-he came as close as one can without breaking the rules-that the
Minister of National Defence was misleading the House in respect of what she said regarding the March 16 incident. It is incredible. The Minister of National Defence said all she could say as everybody knows. She said she knew about the incident, that an investigation was under way, and that any further comments about it would be in violation of her duties, which resemble those of a judge in respect of this investigation.
She said all she could say. That is established. That is taken by the member for Winnipeg South Centre as somehow being derelict in her duty and for not coming forward and not being forthcoming in all of this information that is asked by him in his pursuit of knowledge and information only. That is absurd. What he is pursuing is an attempt to damage the reputation of the Minister of National Defence and nothing else. That is the pursuit of the member for Victoria and nothing else.
The member for Victoria talked about a report he had on the situation in Somalia and said that the object of that exercise was to create a secure environment. Stripped of the niceties, it was to try to get food to those starving kids we saw on television. That is what it was all about. The situation there had broken down entirely. After a UN resolution, an American-led force went in to try to establish a secure environment so that in fact food could be provided for those who needed it.
He said they did not do it perfectly. His comments are interesting. I have not read that report but he said that in southern Somalia things are not going that well. It is interesting that the Canadian operations are in northern Somalia. Presumably that study did not have anything critical to say about the Canadian operations and that must disappoint the hon. member in that regard.
Madam Speaker, I see you indicating that my time is up.
Let me talk about any objective observer. Indeed an editorial in The Globe and Mail this morning establishes that in regard to the incidents in Somalia the Minister of National Defence's posture and demeanour have been exemplary. It is exactly what is required as established by precedents in the courts. With regard to the Canadian Armed Forces they are behaving properly as they always have. This side of the House disputes absolutely those
April 29, 1993

criticisms levelled directly and indirectly at the Minister of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces.


John F. Brewin: Madam Speaker, the government House leader has read an editorial that he seems to like.
He has misquoted it. Of course it did not say anything about how the Minister of National Defence has handled this in an exemplary way but I guess we will leave the editors of The Globe and Mail to deal with the minister and defend their reputation. He seems to have a propensity to exaggerate when it suits him.


Howard Edward Crosby: I have lost track. We have had debate. Has the period for questions and comments not expired?


Madam Deputy Speaker:: We are just starting the question or comments period. The hon. member for Victoria has the floor.


John F. Brewin: The member should recognize that what he just heard was a speech but it did not sound like it. It was a ramble.
In any event in the course of his ramble the government House leader quoted one editorial. I would like to quote another because I have a certain affection for this particular editorial as the government House leader had
for the one he quoted.
This is The Edmonton Journal of April 23, 1993 under the heading: "A cover-up in Somalia?" I will not read the whole editorial but the part I especially liked went something like this: "The military never did bother to issue the same press release in Canada. If an observant small-town Ontario newspaper reporter had not been on the base at the time Canadians still might not know that five soldiers are under investigation for the fatal beating. Ottawa abuses the public's considerable regard for Canadian peacekeepers with this sort of duplicity. To add insult, government House leader Harvie Andre criticized New Democrat MP John Brewin this week for daring to raise the allegations in the House. 'I am absolutely astounded that the member would malign and slander the Canadian Armed Forces in the way he has just done,' Andre said indignantly. Brewin did not slander the entire peacekeeping operation. He only questioned the profes-
Supply
sionalism of a minority of soldiers involved in the two events. This is his right as a citizen and his responsibility as a member of Parliament".
I first brought to the attention of the House a report about the March 4 death being called a deliberate homicide. We have since had some further corroborative evidence presented that that was in fact the case. There is an investigation going on. I did not mention the name of anyone who was involved. I certainly made no general maligning, insulting or slanderous comments about our Canadian Armed Forces.
In fact I have the highest admiration for the professionalism of our armed forces in Somalia and elsewhere.
I am quite satisfied the Judge Advocate General's branch is proceeding efficiently with respect to the investigation. My complaint from the beginning has been with the neglect by this government of its duties in respect of this, the speed with which it responded to the facts it had available and to the way in which it has handled. This in my view has led to the damage to the reputation of our peacekeepers.
Let me ask the minister to comment on the board of inquiry. I have here in my hands the speaking notes for the chief of defence staff issued yesterday that limits the board of inquiry to looking at the issues respecting the Canadian Airborne Regiment there and further limits the inquiry from looking into the incidents themselves.
In view of that how does the minister justify the approach he had taken that, first, this is properly private? The board is not going to be looking into the issues that led to the criminal investigations at all but rather into something completely different.
Second, how does he justify his verbal assault on members of this side of the House for raising issues which surely he would have to concede are the duty of the members of this House to put before the House?


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, let me first deal with The Edmonton Journal editorial because they have it wrong just as the hon. member has it wrong. The incident in question occurred on March 16.


John F. Brewin: The one I raised was March 4.

April 29, 1993
Supply


Harvie Andre: I am sorry. The incident in question occurred on March 4 in Belet Huen. The press release was posted in Mogadishu on the bulletin board. Listen to this. It was first reported by Radio-Canada and not by this reporter from Pembroke. So the Edmonton Journal in its zeal to criticize this government has the wrong facts as usual. It is not considered a newspaper of record.


Fred J. Mifflin: You will be sorry for that Harvie.


Harvie Andre: No, I live in Calgary. The hon. member is leaving before I get a chance to give him his answer. He asks me a question and then he leaves. For goodness' sake. Gee whiz. The hon. member asked me the question. Then he says: "Treat us responsibly because we are asking information. We want the answers". He asks a question and then he leaves the room.
I think my case is proven. This guy does not give a dam for the truth. What he cares about is maligning the government. The evidence is there. It is self-evident. He asks me a question and then he leaves the room.
Incidentally the answer to his question is that two courts have said that government public inquiries cannot go on when criminal investigations are going on. That is why the inquiry cannot look into those matters and cannot be held in public. It is dealing with aspects of the military with the Canadian Airborne Regiment if you will. Some of the soldiers who are the subjects of the investigation are members thereof. The segregation would be very difficult.
Again I go back to say that it is something improper to suggest that the members of the in camera inquiry cannot be trusted to do the right thing. As I asked the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, I ask him which members of that inquiry are the ones who cannot be trusted to do the right thing if they inquire in camera?
What justification is there for suggesting that we cannot trust their results unless they are done in public? If they are done in confidence without the glare of the cameras why can they not be trusted? I dispute absolutely that these individuals cannot be trusted to carry on a fair, impartial, in-depth and proper inquiry in camera. I dispute absolutely the implied accusation that these people cannot do the job they are asked to do.


Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the hon. House leader a number of things I have trouble understanding since he is here, has spoken and it is relative to the subject.
On April 2 I asked him when the minister had been informed about the March 16 incident that he recalled. This was not a partisan question. I just wanted clarification. I have forgotten and I am not going to quote what the minister said. He knows what he said. He did not answer the question and suggested the minister was doing her job and there was no problem.
The House recessed for Easter and then on April 19 the hon. member may recall the minister responded to a question and said that in fact there had been an unforgivable error, I think were the words she used, in communications within the Department of National Defence. In other words she did admit there had been something that was not usual.
She went on to say it was: "an unacceptable mistake and that this information"-that is the March 16 incident-"was not communicated to defence headquarters".
The minister's own staff said the next day that the minister was briefed on the subject on March 17. How could it not have been sent to defence headquarters when the minister was briefed? I have trouble with that. Maybe the minister has an explanation that would satisfy me.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I understand the nuance here. The incident occurred on March 16. A press notice was posted in Mogadishu the next day and the Minister of National Defence was informed the next day. The local investigation was held, the report came in, headquarters decided this needed a more in-depth investigation and a team was sent out.
What the Minister of National Defence said was not that DND had not been communicated with but that DND had not received the press release that was issued in theatre. She has issued instructions that from now on when there is a press release in theatre it be communicated to National Defence.
Some 290 Somalians have been killed as a result of the total UN action. You can well understand that if there is an incident and we post a press release, sometimes nothing happens. It could be a news judgment that in
April 29, 1993

view of everything else happening it is just not reported. Sometimes it is not reported. If the press release is sent to DND then DND can judge whether this is adequate public notice of the situation or not.
Yes, DND knew about the incident. Yes, the minister knew about the incident the next day. What the minister and DND did not have, which the Minister of National Defence said, was the press release itself. They did not have a copy of the kind of information issued in theatre.
The change in procedure is that from now on whatever is issued in theatre will be transmitted totally to DND so there is no longer that lapse where headquarters in Ottawa and the minister do not really know what has been communicated to the media in theatre because there has not been that kind of direct consultation. That is the situation.
There was no attempt to suggest that she did not know about the incident. What she said was that DND did not have a copy of the press release.


Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, I rise to address this subject which the hon. House leader has said is a very serious indictment of the Minister of National Defence. In all seriousness it is addressing the credibility of the Minister of National Defence. I know members on all sides of the House take the motion very seriously.
I also want to say it is not in a light manner that I stand here this morning and discuss this subject. I would not be here representing my party discussing this issue if I was not convinced that there are pieces of evidence, gut feelings and intuition on my part together with spaces in the credibility of some of the answers I have received this morning and some gaps in the chronology. I will be very clear on that. While I am a member of a team and participate in all my party's activities, I would find it impossible to stand on my feet this morning and discuss the credibility of a Minister of National Defence if I were not convinced in my own my mind as a result of my background, what I have seen in the House and my careful analysis of the issues. I want to set the record very clear on that.
Supply
I do not intend to participate in partisan debate. I will not speak for others and I want to make that clear as well. I also want to make clear one other very major point. There is no member of this Official Opposition, and I hope no member in the House who does not have anything but the greatest respect for our men and women who serve in uniform. I can assure you, Madam Speaker, this House and anybody who is watching this debate this morning that nothing that is being said here, and certainly nothing I am saying, questions the credibility of the Canadian forces. Over its lifetime it has had a credibility that has never been successfully attacked. I am very proud of that as a Canadian and I believe all members of the House are proud of that.
I would ask you to remember these three caveats, Madam Speaker, and put them in perspective as I launch into my address this morning.
I would like to remind the House that in the recent past we in Canada, like the rest of the world, have been subjected to change in very important issues. It is very difficult for any government, individual or groups of individuals to cope with these changes.
Relevant to the responsibility of the Minister of National Defence the first issue is that the cold war is over and it ended abruptly. The nature of peacekeeping operations in the world has changed significantly in scope. The range of peacekeeping verges on peacemaking or almost war. A large number of peacekeepers are participating in peacekeeping throughout the world from a number of countries. That is the trend we see.
We have seen significant changes in how these issues have been addressed and what the public perceives in how response to these changes has taken place.
The two issues in question today involve peacekeeping and the acquisition of a major capital program, the EH-101 helicopter. Let me address the peacekeeping issues first and how they relate to the motion on the credibility of the Minister of National Defence.
In the general sense I believe the whole issue relates to how we have participated in peacekeeping in the recent past. In the specific sense it is how the four

April 29, 1993
Supply
incidents in Somalia have taken place: the chronology, the logic, the gap and what this all means.
Madam Speaker, I want to tell you that I need to discuss the four incidents not in detail of the legalities or the justice involved. I just want to talk about their chronology. I am going to take the March 16 incident first. Anybody with any grain of sense, any sup of intuition and any knowledge of how things occur in a sequential manner would have great difficulty following the chronology of that incident of March 16. What I am giving you is factual and not conjectural. It is objective and not partisan. On March 16 an incident happened in Somalia. The incident took place and in accordance with Canadian forces' orders, national defence headquarters was informed-we had some trouble getting that information-and the Minister of National Defence was briefed the next day. So on March 17 the minister was briefed.
Nobody in Canada nor members of the Canadian media who were in Somalia at the time knew about the incident. The minister knew about the incident on March 17 but nobody in Canada knew until an investigative reporter broke the story toward the end of March.
A question was asked in the House of Commons on April 2 on the subject, which is the subject of a question I just made to the hon. House leader. His response was not clear. He did not answer the question and he referred to ministerial responsibility. He certainly created the impression that nothing was wrong, everything was right and was being done normally.
I questioned the minister the first day back after the Easter recess. The minister in response to my question about when she knew and why she did not tell the Canadian public, turned to the department and said: "A bad mistake was made; an unacceptable mistake was made". The minister went on to say: "This was not communicated to defence headquarters".
I just questioned the hon. House leader of the government on this subject and his explanation to me of what the minister meant when she said the incident was not communicated to defence headquarters. I find that very strange. The House leader says the minister meant that the so-called press release, which was a piece of paper tacked in an area hundreds of kilometres away was not communicated to headquarters and therefore did not get
out to the Canadian public. He suggested it was all inadvertent.
Members of the media in Somalia on the very site where this happened asked questions of the military unit there and were denied information. The Minister of National Defence was briefed on March 17. She said she knew, in accordance with one of her statements. She told the House on April 26 that she was not aware the case had serious criminal overtones until much later on March 31. Yet she did not tell the House anything about it until April 19.
The chief of the defence staff, in his press conference yesterday said very clearly that the Minister of National Defence knew about criminal overtones on March 18. Now the hon. House leader tells me the minister meant that headquarters did not know because it did not get the press release.
My goodness, the minister knew something serious was going on in Somalia. Did she not think it strange when she read the newspapers the next day and did not see anything there? Did she not concern herself about the public information aspect? Did she not ask herself the question: What are we going to tell the Canadian public about this? What was her reaction when there was no media coverage of the incident? That went on for days and weeks and I do not know how long it would have gone on if an investigative reporter had not broken the story.
The chronology just does not fit. It does not make sense. That is the issue from the Official Opposition of the Liberal Party. The issue is not the details of the case nor the criminal aspects. What is wrong with the chronology? Why will the minister not make it clear why she did not make this information public the day she knew instead of expecting the House to believe it was all because of the press release that was not issued.
There was no press release. Something happened. There was a notice put on a board. Now she is blaming the department for not having a press release sent to the proper channels when she knew about it. She could have ordered a press release herself. Why did she not order a press release?
Why did she not order her department to make a release? Why did she not ensure it was released? The Minister of National Defence is charged with the management and direction of the Canadian forces and the
April 29, 1993

Department of National Defence. Why did she not direct the information to be made public? Why did she not manage the information better? That is the issue.
I want to take another issue on March 4. March 4 was apparently an oral briefing. It certainly was not reported in Canada. It was not until April 19 or April 20, almost two months later, that an investigation took place into the incident.
When I say an investigation, I mean a proper investigation. Why did it take two months for this to happen? Why did the minister not inform the House if she knew, which I presume she did? If she did not know, why did she not know? What did she do about it when she found out?
These are very legitimate questions. These are questions that the opposition is paid to ask. The Canadian public is asking those questions. People are not asking to know about the details of what is happening in the cases. They want to know why they were not informed and had to find out through the back door. Every day we are finding out things through the back door. That is the issue.
Regarding the credibility of the minister, we are participating in 18 peacekeeping operations if you count them all, 4,700 troops at a time when the cold war is over. The army has been reduced by 4,000. The Department of National Defence is being reduced in operating and in over-all expenditures and capital outlay. Yet we have never debated this issue in the House of Commons. Why? Is it not important enough? Should the opposition not be involved? Had there been a debate, perhaps we would not have 4,700 peacekeeping soldiers committed.
Perhaps we may have had different units in different places. Perhaps we would have said no to some of the commitments that we were asked to respond to. Why do these questions arise? Whenever you have questions they are red flags that tell you that there is something wrong.
The red flag in the case of the incidents in Somalia is very clear. I have just spoken of them. The red flags that we were doing something wrong in peacekeeping were two serving generals in uniform speaking out about the way we do business. This is unprecedented. The minister of external affairs tells the standing committee that we
Supply
are being stretched very thinly. Two military doctors speak out at their own risk. This is unprecedented.
Member after member with expert knowledge expressed concern to the Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs about the number of troops, the mix to reserves and to regulars. I want to correct something that the government House leader said.
There was no suggestion that the opposition does not want reserves to participate. The point made is that 55 per cent of a unit to participate in the kind of peacekeeping operations at the end of peacekeeping, more like peace making post to war, is out of whack by all the standards. Maybe it should be 10 per cent. Ten per cent has been recommended. That is what the experts said in committee. Twenty per cent maybe but 55 per cent, there is a red flag. There is a signal that the control mechanisms in place are telling you to stop and look at what you are doing. Question after question from the opposition, speech after speech, the adjournment debate, asking the government to stop. There is a red light and it is still on. It was amber but now it is red.
They ask what is the relationship of this to the Somalia incident and the credibility of the minister. If somebody had watched the red lights, maybe these incidents would not have taken place. The whole point is we need to debate the issue of how we peacekeep, how we respond to peacekeeping requests, the force structure and the detail of why we do what we do.
I want to address one more subject. I am not very happy to hear the government say that we are only addressing and raising these issues because the Minister of National Defence is involved in a leadership race. I do not have a problem with that. We are interested for the reasons that I have just suggested. There is a break in the chronology, things do not make sense. There are too many red flags. That is why we are raising the issue.
If we were to raise the issue because the Minister of National Defence is running for the leadership of this country, do you not think the Canadian public have a right to know if the Minister of National Defence, charged with the management and direction of the Canadian forces and the Department of National Defence, can do that properly before they go on and judge

April 29, 1993
Supply
whether she can run the country? Is that not a legitimate concern? I do and I do not take any objection to that accusation being made by the government.
I have absolutely no remorse for saying yes, maybe we are attacking the minister because she wants to be the leader of the country. Let us find out how she is doing in national defence before we give her the responsibility of the country. I would like to know that and I know other Canadians would like to know that. I bet there are some members on that side of the House who would like to know that. I make no apologies for that, although in the first instance my concern and the concern of my party is based on the legitimate difficulties that we observed from looking at this case in detail, the case of peacekeeping and the incidents in Somali that have shown less than good, strong leadership, the kind that we need in this country.
On the helicopter issue I want to say that there are as many red flags on the EH-101 as there are in peacekeeping. I just want to make one comment in response to something that was said over there. My good friend, the member for Halifax West talked about the number of jobs. I have a report from an expert organization that says for every billion dollars spent on military procurement, 28,000 jobs are generated. If you spent it on public transportation you would get 32,000 jobs. If you spent it on infrastructure you would get 57,000. If you spent it on education you would get 71,000. Whatever arguments are put forward, do not put that one forward because it does not make sense.
In conclusion, my point is the issues are raised about the credibility of the minister for good reasons. I say they are not partisan reasons. They are certainly not from anything I have said this morning. We need a public debate on peacekeeping and how we do business because of the changing factors involved. We need a public debate on how we acquire major equipment for the Department of National Defence again because of these changing issues.


Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, I have a comment and a question for the member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. Let me say to him first that we all come to this House of Commons from
different backgrounds. I appreciate that his background is in the defence field and that he has had a very important career in Canada's military. But when he comes to the House of Commons and says "nothing I say today, none of my remarks, reflect adversely on the credibility of the Canadian Armed Forces or the officers, men and women of the Canadian Armed Forces", that is a caveat that does not wash.
The member must know, as we all know, that the Minister of National Defence acts upon the advice of the military officers. The chief of the Canadian forces, the assemblage of high ranking officers are continually advising the minister and nobody has suggested that the Minister of National Defence in any of these areas has acted on advice other than the advice of the military.
While it is generous of the member to announce to the House of Commons that nothing reflects adversely on the military in his remarks, he knows and the military knows that that kind of criticism does reflect adversely on the Canadian forces when it is suggested that the policies being followed have dire results. He knows and we all know that those policies are based upon the advice of the military, including the chief officers of the military.
Because he only had 30 seconds to deal with the EH-101 helicopter contract, he confined himself to a remark about the industrial spin-offs in employment. I want to remind him that a billion dollars in unemployment insurance would keep a lot of people happy. What we are trying to do as a government is balance government expenditures to produce the services required for the Canadian people as well as create employment. It is not to create employment that the EH-101 helicopter contract is being promoted and implemented. It is to serve the Canadian forces and the national defence interests of Canada.
If the member wants to make a comment about the helicopter contract and other matters he should simply state what his view is on that particular contract on the equipment of the Canadian forces, whether it is necessary. Does he agree, for example, with his colleague from Winnipeg South Centre who says we must change the policy, that we do not need helicopters, we may not even need patrol frigates because we are not going to be attacked.
April 29, 1993

Supply
That is what I want to ask the member, not whether he quarrels with the industrial spin-off, not whether he quarrels with the quality of the contract, the nature of the equipment, but whether he believes we do not need a Canadian navy any more and we do not need patrol frigates and we do not need helicopters. What is his position on that issue?
I would like also to deal with the matter of our policy in Somalia. I simply want to say this, and perhaps the member might want to comment on it.
On the highways and streets and roads of Somalia we cannot judge our Canadian Armed Forces' members by Canadian standards that prevail in the cities and towns of Canada. We cannot simply expect them to behave exactly as they would on Wellington Street or the streets of St. John's, Newfoundland or Halifax, Nova Scotia. Our laws do not have extraterritorial application. We simply must judge them and exercise jurisdiction over them in the manner endorsed by law, and that law is the National Defence Act and that law has been followed in this case.
I also want to know whether the member quarrels with that. Would he have the Ontario Highway Traffic Act apply on the streets of Somalia to Canadian Armed Forces' drivers? Is that his intention? I want him to understand and I want everybody to understand that we cannot judge our forces by prevalent urban city standards in Canada.


Fred J. Mifflin: Madam Speaker, the hon. member who is normally very cogent seems to have fallen out of the track this morning. He has covered a wide range of issues, from the responsibility of national defence to the highways act in Ontario, to helicopters and the responsibilities of the minister.
Before I answer his questions, I want to tell him that I presume he has misunderstood what was said by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. He did not say that we did not need patrol frigates; he did not say we did not need a navy; and if the hon. member had had a difficulty with what the member for Winnipeg South Centre had said, I wish he had put those questions to him when he was in the House and not to me after the hon. member had to leave to keep an important appointment in Winnipeg.
The other thing I want to say to the hon. member-


Mr. Epp:: He left right after his speech.


Fred J. Mifflin: It is a distortion anyway, that is my point.
I want to address one aspect of what the hon. member for Halifax West said. It is absolutely incredible that he suggested that the Minister of National Defence does what the minister is told by the department. That is absolutely incredible. The minister, under the National Defence Act, is charged with management and direction. That is her responsibility. How can one give direction if one always follows what one is told?
I happen to be aware of one Minister of National Defence who was briefed on the acquisition programs of the Canadian Armed Forces. He was told by the senior members that Canada could not afford nuclear submarines. That particular minister directed the Canadian forces to conduct a study to determine whether nuclear submarines were possible. That is the kind of direction I would expect the minister to give. That is the kind of direction we would expect any minister to give, including this minister.
If the hon. member closely looked at the point he raised, if he is suggesting that the Minister of National Defence parrots everything that is said to her by the department then we may have some evidence to support the suggestion in the motion that she suffers a lack of leadership and direction.
I am going to be kind to the member and suggest that any minister worth his or her salt in any department would not just follow the information given to that minister by the department. Presumably it is a two-way conversation, a two-way exchange of information.
I still find it incredible that the minister on March 17 would have been briefed by national defence officials about the serious incident and not have been briefed on the public relations aspect, on whether or not there should be a media release in Canada. That I do not understand. I do not credit the department with that. Whatever advice was given, whether it was positive or negative, the minister should have said that this is a serious incident, and I believe I am on firm ground here. If she had known about the incident on March 4, which was an equally serious incident, she should have at least said: We have not heard too much about the March 4

April 29, 1993
Supply
incident but we had better now do something about this incident because it is similar.
Whatever happened, whether the minister directed that media release be given, whether she directed that the Canadian public be informed, it did not take place. She did not inform the Canadian public until the news story broke. Everybody was kept in the dark and the information leaked out.
That does not show good leadership, in the evidence or the results, no matter what went on. I suppose we will never know the story about what happened exactly.
Did the minister do what was recommended by national defence or did the minister give direction that (a) it not take place, that Canadians not be informed, or (b) that whatever direction was taken she agreed with national defence?
I have no problems with a board of inquiry being conducted by any officer in the Canadian forces. With a major-general conducting a board of inquiry no Canadian would have any difficulty in believing, and rightfully so, that the information would be anything but objective. However that inquiry, by the veiy nature of what sparked it in this House, goes outside the military. How can we expect a major-general to inquire into the conduct of a minister? It does not happen.
We are suggesting that there be a public inquiry where these facts will be brought out to the public, not at the end of July but as they occur. We need to know now. This is not going to die. The media will continue to probe and the Canadian public will continue to ask questions.
My response to the hon. member is that I believe he has some of his information wrong. He has certainly distorted the information that was given by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre in his speech. If what he believes about the minister is true then he is agreeing with the motion.


Mr. Ross Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, when I was informed last night about this debate today I found myself in a veiy difficult position.
It is no secret in this House and in other places that these days I am quite closely associated with the Minister
of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs in her quest to become Prime Minister of this country.
My initial reaction to this particular motion and the way it was put forward was anger. I wrote eight or nine speeches in my mind over a period of three or four minutes and realized that was probably not the best approach to take.
In considering whether I wanted to participate in this debate I worried very much about bringing the campaign and process that so many very capable people in my party have offered to participate in, and for which they have offered themselves to this party and this country, into this House. That would not be a good idea either.
I did not want to take advantage of this opportunity to promote my particular choice over the others. I feel very strongly about the choice I have made. However I also feel very strongly that every one of those candidates from this institution would make a tremendous leader of my party and my country.
I thought about it more in the context of what is happening here politically and what it means for us as a government to support the Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs in the job that she does. I debated with some of my friends and my colleagues in the minister's office and in the House leader's office about whether I would participate.
By this morning I had calmed myself down. As I started to think about this debate and about the process that has been going on here in terms of the way this House has been forced to deal with this issue, it became perfectly obvious to me that this House has not been asked to deal with the issue in terms of national defence and the management of a government department. It is about the desire of some people to make political points, and not just on the back of the Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs or the House leader but potentially if there is an environmental issue, on the back of the Minister of the Environment, et cetera.
This is on the backs of the people caught in the middle of this, the soldiers, the men and women, the regular forces and reservists who are serving not only in Somalia but in Bosnia and 17, 18, 19, or 20 other theatres around
April 29, 1993

the world. To some extent they accept some of these risks. It is also on the backs of the families.
There are about 1,100 men and women from this country in Somalia. I have not been to Somalia. I have spent a fair bit of time in Ethiopia, Eritrea, Sudan and 16 or 17 countries to the west of that. I can imagine what Somalia is like. I have not been in a war situation. I have been in some civil war situations in which there have been firings and shootings. I have been in military operations in Central America.
To a family that is sitting in Petawawa or St. John's, Newfoundland whose mother, sister, father, brother, son or daughter has gone off in a plane to a land people have no concept of, to a situation that people can only imagine, where there have been incidents-and sure there have been incidents. There are 1,100 people there, 845 of them from the airborne division. It is a very tense situation in a very hostile land with a very hostile environment and a very hostile political climate.
The men and women who are left here to worry about their loved ones are all of a sudden confronted with the perception out of this place that every single one of them over there has been involved in some sort of violent or untoward incident. In the process of trying to attack this government and the Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs we have completely forgotten those people.
Day after day outside this place, when the minister is not here, when the opposition is attacking the military generally from Colonel By Drive to the last buck private in Somalia there is no recognition that those people left behind make as much of a sacrifice and contribution in their own way. That is the shame of it. It is not the attacks on the Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs, the House leader, the Prime Minister or the Deputy Prime Minister. After the last eight years they are used to it in this place. However the abuse that is going on here is being heaped on top of those who are scared to death.
Preserver was over there. We remember the gulf war and Protecteur and Preserver. Thirty per cent of those people were Newfoundlanders. A lot of them had addresses that said they were from Dartmouth but many
Supply
of those men and women serving on ships were Newfoundlanders. I was quite close to one family. I know what that mother went through every single day watching the television with her hands over her eyes but her fingers open because she did not want to miss anything. She knew in her mind that her son was okay and was going to be okay. The risks were there but they were minimal, but in her heart she did know what was going to happen next.
We get this resolution today. We get this opposition day motion clearly attacking the Minister of National Defence on her performance and what has gone on here and what has gone on there. I hear my friend, a former senior officer in the military, talking to me about credibility, about the credibility of the minister and the government. I want to address some of those points because they are important.
The minister, the House leader, the Prime Minister, the chief of defence staff, and a variety of spokespersons for the Department of National Defence and the Canadian Armed Forces have repeatedly put forward the incidents as they happened and the responses that went with them. Nobody has denied there have been problems.
I go back to Somalia and what we are dealing with there in a big international organization. Nobody has denied there have been questions about communications. What we have to put in context is what went on and what did not go on, and what gets said in this House about nobody knowing. I am not going back through it. It has been gone through already.
We are talking about credibility. We get a statement in this House that after the incident on March 4 nobody said or did anything. On the morning of March 5 it was on bloody Newsworld.
With all due respect, even for somebody like me who still remembers Don Jamieson doing the news with a Chevrolet car in the studio, I recognize that Newsworld is the news. Do not talk to me about credibility.
My colleague from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception was a commanding officer on more than one ship. He had very serious responsibilities in terms of maritime command and a number of different things.

April 29, 1993
Supply
Imagine that if every time there was an incident-I am not making this one seem smaller than it may be-the minister was on the phone to him saying: "Admiral, get the press release out. Admiral, I am going to be talking in the House of Commons this afternoon about what happened on the bridge of your ship last week or on the lower deck of your ship last week".
The Solicitor General of Canada does not come into this House every time there is an investigation conducted by the RCMP. The Minister of National Defence has never and should never come into this House to talk about every time there is an investigation, particularly of this nature, going on where the military is functioning.
It is clearly the responsibility of the Department of National Defence to ensure that people are kept informed. The process has been followed. The minister addressed it in her statement earlier this week in terms of the action that the department undertook to keep people informed.
In most of those cases people were kept informed. Incidents were reported. The minister quite clearly acknowledged that she knew there had been an incident. She did not know that there had been a homicide. How did she find out? The department instigated an investigation as the department should do.
We talked about management and direction. The minister has quite clearly said that there have been some problems with communications. She has ordered that they be fixed and that whatever information can be made public be made public.
Why would I say something like: "Whatever can be made public should be made public"? If there is a criminal investigation under way then first one wants to be able to finish it. Second, one does not want to prejudice the investigation and those who unfortunately may be subject to that investigation.
Perhaps we have a problem in that the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Veterans Affairs used to be the Minister of Justice. She knows how the justice system works and must work. She understands her responsibilities within that.
There was an inquiry. It was a military inquiry with public participation. How did we get public participation in that sort of inquiry? The minister ordered that the
regulations be amended. This is the sort of management and direction that my friend talks about.
The results of that inquiry will be made public as the chief of defence staff explained yesterday. The people will know what has gone on through that process. People will know that this sort of thing happened for a particular set of reasons. They will also know that the investigation that as I say unfortunately must go on will not be prejudiced by the inquiry.
I am very worried as I said in the beginning that my friends opposite have lost totally the focus. I heard some of the comments this morning of the member for Winnipeg South Centre. I have heard that sort of thing before: the desperation, the personal attacks and the bitterness. We have come to expect a little bit of it from time to time.
We have had to make some decisions in the process that the Minister of National Defence has pursued. She found herself spending more time on the telephone dealing with national defence matters, as she should and she must, that made it practical at the end of last week to continue conducting her political business that is part of her responsibility as a minister.
She returned to Ottawa and met on Friday and Sunday I think with officials of her department. She appeared in this House and with the Secretary of State for External Affairs took questions in this House. In areas related to the United Nations the Secretary of State for External Affairs rightly responded to these. In the areas that pertained to defence the Minister of National Defence and the Minister of Veterans Affairs responded to these.
She was again in this House on Tuesday. This opposition that wanted her so badly in this House to bring her to account asked one insipid, stupid question about her schedule. She sat there prepared to respond. She did interviews and responded to the media but there was not one question in the House.
When she is again out of town we come beating on the door. These great, valiant troopers are defenders of the people on whose backs they have tromped to make trite political points. When they really want to do some business and they have the minister here they are scared to death. They will not stand up in front of her and say:
April 29, 1993

"Minister, account for yourself" because she will bury them like she buried them on Tuesday afternoon.
The minister and this government, with the help of the House leader and the Prime Minister and all of her colleagues, have respected the military in this country and the role that we ask them to play, which in many cases is a bloody awful role and one that a lot of us would not do ourselves. One leaves one's family. We have some experience with that when we come to the battlefields of Ottawa. They are in deserts in Somalia and the heat of the Middle East, Pakistan and India and around the world. We impugn every one of them and we impugn their senior officers. Those who have been at fault in this will be found out, as well they should be, and dealt with fairly, equitably and justly within the criminal justice system of this country and the military.
However, let us not forget those who they have left behind and let us not leave them behind in our attempt to make some points as we go along.
I am tempted not to talk about the helicopters but I have not talked about the helicopters except on the late show. I have to say that I had some concerns about the helicopters like many others and like my friends across the way. I will say that I will continue to watch as it plays itself out because there have been some commitments made. I am very intrigued to know that we should get 15 per cent of the economic benefit of the helicopters in Atlantic Canada.
Frankly, I am most concerned about the capacity of Canada to protect those who make their living and make their income from the sea. A number of us, and none more than my friend from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, have been confronted with the tragedies that happen at sea where people need to be protected and people need their lives saved. It is the nature of what we do.
The capacity of the current equipment simply is not there. What we are offering today is not good enough, particularly when there is better equipment available that is made in this country and will be made and sold from this country.
This is perceived to be some great Tory plot. I think we have to recognize that what we are doing is replacing our rapidly aging fleet over a period of more than 13 years within the context of the shrinking national defence
Supply
budget. These are decisions that have been made by the Department of National Defence.
This is something that is not simply supported by us. I have a letter here from the mayor of the town of Gander, His Worship Doug Sheppard. I am not sure of his political persuasion and I certainly would not want to assign any unjustly. He quite clearly supports the helicopters and there are others.
I simply want to say in closing as it relates to the helicopters that it is not as cut and dried as everybody thinks. It is not $4.5 billion next year and that is it and we have helicopters. As we analyse both these issues we have to be open and fair and remember from where we have come. My biggest concern is for those who serve in the military and particularly their families and what we put them through. They are doing jobs that I, like many of my colleagues, probably would not do. I am very sad to see this day come where we have taken this type of advantage.


David Charles Dingwall: Madam Speaker, I have listened with great interest to my colleague opposite. I must say that in the time that I have spent in this Chamber, which has been going on in excess of 10 years in this great institution, I have never heard such gobbledegook and such distortion of the facts and the truth.
I have respect for the hon. member and what he has said. It does not necessarily mean that I agree with what the hon. member has said. The first point that the hon. member must recognize is that it was said clearly and unequivocally earlier this day that no one on this side of the House would dispute the fact that the Minister of National Defence has the right, and maybe the obligation, to seek the highest office in this land. No one has argued with that.
Equally so, the hon. member stands in his place and casts aspersions on those of us who sit in opposition to this administration for raising questions and for asking for debate only to be turned down at each and every opportunity. The purpose of today's debate is simply to discuss the issues and obviously the major issue of the day is the incompetence persistently and consistently of the minister responsible. This could have been avoided if clearer heads had prevailed and particularly if ministers opposite had taken the subject matter seriously and come into this House under ministerial statements-not after the fact but well before.

April 29, 1993
This hon. member from Bonavista-Trinity has been calling repeatedly and consistently for debate on the subject matter with regards to the training of our peacekeepers. That member over there has the unmitigated gall to question and to impugn the motives of that hon. member and this opposition party. I say to that hon. member that there is not a bone in his body that will not testify to the fact that the only reason he is here today to speak to this motion is because he happens to be the co-campaign manager for the Minister of National Defence and he is trying to protect that minister. That is the only reason the hon. member is here.
Madam Speaker, I am coming to my question. The hon. member said that on Tuesday we only had one question. It was the day after the budget, as the hon. member knows. The hon. Minister of National Defence had our resolution last night when she was here for the vote. I asked my colleagues to return to Ottawa to participate in this debate. Why?
I ask the hon member, why is it that no minister of the Crown is here, particularly the Minister of National Defence, nor the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the Associate Minister of National Defence to stand for the Armed Forces and give us more details with regard to the situation? I will tell you why, Madam Speaker.


Madam Deputy Speaker:: I am sure the hon. member will calmly wait until after Question Period for an answer to his question.
It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock p.m.
The House took recess at 1 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.

Mr. Joe McGuire (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, it was with great regret that I and the people involved in the forestry
industry in Prince Edward Island heard the Minister of Finance announce that our regional development agreement for forestry would not be renewed.
The agreement, which expired on March 31, 1993 was worth over $24 million to the forestry industry in P.E.I. and was responsible for the creation of over 500 jobs in planting seedlings, harvesting and hauling the logs. In addition it fostered the growth of forests, management techniques and silviculture in general.
The industry had been negotiating in good faith to get a renewed agreement and was left with the impression that the only issue to be resolved was the length of the agreement. To suddenly find it was cancelled was, to put it mildly, a shock. Other provinces have had their agreements renewed. P.E.I. will be the only province negatively impacted by the budget decision.
I remind the minister of a statement made by him at the Standing Committee on Forestry and Fisheries in November 1990. He said:
I remain committed to the continuation of the development
agreements as an essential instrument of the sustainable development
of our forest resource.
After having met with the minister in committee and privately and discussing the situation with ACOA, I have every confidence that the minister's sense of justice and fair play will prevail and he will not allow P.E.I.'s forestry industry to be sandbagged in this fashion.


ALLERGY AWARENESS
Mr. Marcel R. TVemblay (Quebec-Est):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to inform hon. members that the week of April 26 to May 1 has been declared Allergy Awareness Week and May has been declared Allergy Awareness Month.
Every year the Allergy Foundation of Canada chooses a week to highlight the problem of allergies and to show what can be done to relieve them. This volunteer-led organization provides information and support for people suffering from this problem.
The cost of allergy-related illnesses, in terms of health care and lost productivity, is huge and growing all the time. In addition, the social cost is incalculable.
April 29, 1993

I wish the Allergy/Asthma Information Association every success for Allergy Awareness Month.


CANADA HEALTH ACT
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the departure of the Minister of National Health and Welfare opens a vacuum of leadership on medicare in the Tory ranks. Despite his bungling of some key health issues the departing minister was at least on record as supporting universal medicare and he spoke out against user fees.
Where do the Tory leadership candidates stand today? In the shade. They have not come forward to back the Canada Health Act and the five principles of medicare, the most loved of all social programs.
I fear they intend to end universality and will continue to cut medicare funding to the provinces, even though from Manitoba and beyond the medicare system is in crisis.
I fear they will impose user fees as they voted to do so at the last Tory convention. I fear they will allow privatization of medicare.
Why do the Tory candidates, the defence minister, the environment minister and others, not tell us the real plans for the Canada Health Act, the underpinning of our universal medicare?
Keep it or kill it, which will it be?


AIRLINE INDUSTRY
Mr. Bob Horner (Mississauga West):: Mr. Speaker, I met recently with a group of aviation workers from the riding I represent who have expressed concern for the future of Canada's airline industry.
Recognizing that the airline industry in Canada is at a crossroads with the proposed alliance between Canadian Airlines and American Airlines, the aviation workers expressed concern that Canada will be viewed by U.S. mega-carriers as a secondary market. As a result, service will suffer and jobs will be lost.
I believe that the best interests of Canadians are served if our country has a fully Canadian airline, not an
airline that is an offshoot of a foreign-owned mega-carrier.
The Canadian market can support one viable internationally competitive carrier. As a result, jobs in management and reservations, aircraft maintenance and support services could be preserved.
Gemini Corporation has the technology to provide reservation services and we have skilled workers in every area of the airline industry.
I believe that Canadians should be served by one Canadian airline owned and operated by Canadians.


THE LIBERAL PARTY OF CANADA
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, Liberals say one thing when they are in opposition and did another when they were in government. The Liberals have joined the New Democratic caucus in calling for open public hearings on the tragic deaths in Somalia.
The Liberals have acted outraged that the government should be so undemocratic as to reject a full public inquiry into this matter. The Liberals want Canadians to believe that they would be more open about dealing with scandals than this shameful crop of Conservatives.
However the Liberals did not feel so strongly about openness when they were in government. Ten years ago in this House of Commons I asked the Liberal government to hold public hearings into the Atomic Energy Control Board's decision to increase the allowable level of radiation exposure to pregnant women by five times the current rate. The Liberal energy minister repeatedly refused to allow public hearings into this matter. Who was that minister? None other than the current Liberal leader.


NEW LISKEARD AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE
Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming-French River):: Mr. Speaker, in a move that showed no heart or understanding for the people of the tri-towns last Friday, the provincial NDP government saw fit to slash at the already crippled economy of Timiskaming.
One of the casualties of the NDP that makes no sense is the closing of the New Liskeard Agricultural College.

April 29, 1993
This 26-year old institution has 120 students and over 50 employees at the facility. In the last three to four years about $12 million worth of new buildings has been added. It is no secret that New Liskeard's college greatly contributes to the province's agricultural advancement.
The research centre and laboratory, which services from Parry Sound through to the Manitoba border, focuses both on crop and livestock technology. It is also a research facility for sheep and beef in Ontario. Programs at the college, through an outreach program, are offered across the north and range from engineering and business management to horticulture and crop science.
This facility has a tremendous impact on our community, injecting $1.3 million into the economy. I say to Bob Rae, on behalf of the residents of Timiskaming, that this facility should be saved. Its continued service is essential for the region and for Ontario farmers.


SENIOR CITIZENS
Mrs. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian seniors are fighting back. In a column in The Ottawa Citizen Madeleine Honeyman says: "Political abuse of the elderly is making Granny grumpy". She goes on to say:
It is far from proven to my satisfaction that the over 70s use more of the health-care dollar than the very young-It is also questionable whether the old take more from the social system than they pay to support our overloaded education system, welfare for young people who haven't been able to find jobs and mortgage payments for their middle-aged children and grandchildren who are out of work.
Perhaps it is time all Canadians remember who started our medicare system, who built and paid for our hospitals, who paid to educate our doctors, our nurses and our researchers and who paid to put in place our pension system. Who else but seniors are charged 100 per cent on their income in taxes?
Madeleine Honeyman concludes by saying, and she means this: "Beware, Granny is getting leaner and meaner".


ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF WESTERN QUEBEC
Mr. Guy Saint-Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, on February 19, 1993, I had the opportunity to visit the new premises of the Federal Office of Regional Development (Quebec) and Forestry Canada in Val d'Or. At a time like this when all departments must reduce their spending, I wish to congratulate the management of these two departments on this initiative of combining and sharing services.
This new government service centre will save large amounts in operating expenses, will improve customer service and promote synergy between these two organizations.
In conclusion, I want to point out that the presence of these two departments is essential for promoting the economic development of western Quebec.


THE BUDGET
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton Southeast):: Mr. Speaker, the finance minister dealt more blows to western Canada in his most recent budget. Unfortunately westerners have come to expect this from this particular government but it is particularly painful when it comes from a fellow westerner.
Fully $27 million was cut from the Western Economic Diversification Fund, something that is vital to the development of products, technology and industry in our region. The Crow benefit was cut last December and now further cuts are promised. Another $250 million is scheduled to be cut from the CBC by 1998. It is dear the present government's intent is to kill the CBC slowly. That would spell disaster for many westerners who watch the CBC in order to have valuable information.
VIA Rail also faces a $250 million cut by 1998. This is also of concern to westerners. Will we end up having VIA trains only between Windsor and Quebec City? Is that the intent of this government, this unloved govern-
April 29, 1993

ment? It is ironic that railway passenger service was what united this country initially and now those opposite are trying to destroy that along with so many other institutions in Canada.


MINISTER OF FINANCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Stan Wilbee (Delta):: Mr. Speaker, in typical NDP fashion the finance minister of British Columbia has condemned the federal budget. Mr. Clark is the only finance minister in Canada who has not seen the light and moved to reduce spending and cut the cost of government.
While everyone else in the country is attempting to reduce costs and hold the line on taxes, Mr. Clark and the NDP Government of B.C. have increased their budget by 5.6 per cent. He has increased taxes, increased the size of government and the complexity of government. He has hired hundreds of new civil servants.
At the same time the minister is whining that he should be getting more money from the federal government. My constituents tell me that we should not give him any increase at all until he recognizes the economic facts of life and mends both his own and his government's profligate ways.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Dan Heap (Trinity - Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, today's Globe and Mail quotes statements of East York Councillor John Papadakis in a context that implies that any refugee claimant may be bogus, any immigrant may be illegal and persons who commit crime on our streets may be refugees or immigrants from certain countries whose people appear in Canada as visible minorities.
This is unjust, since he does not show evidence that refugees or immigrants have a higher crime rate than those who are Canadian bom. He is also quoted as objecting to refugee claimants receiving welfare.
In fact, municipal authorities and both opposition parties urged the government in recent amendments to the Immigration Act to allow refugee claimants to work. However, the government insisted on forcing them onto welfare to survive. Maybe the government will reconsider that unfortunate decision.


THE BUDGET
Mr. J. W. Bud Bird (Fredericton-York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, in my view one of the most important measures in the budget announced by the Minister of Finance on Monday is the strong commitment to collaborative financial planning with the provinces of Canada.
It is my hope that the consultations which will take place at the meeting of finance ministers in May will not only deal in broad terms of debt and deficits, as essentially they must. It is also imperative that their deliberations touch on matters of fundamental political policy and principle.
For example, there is insistent pressure to change and diminish transfers to provinces, which the minister has thus far resisted in this budget. This subject requires great care because it concerns the very essence of economic balance in Canada, a fundamental condition of the concept of Confederation. We in Atlantic Canada do not consider equalization payments to be handouts but dividends legitimately earned as founding partners in the creation of this country.
As federal and provincial authorities plan together for the financial future of Canada let us be sure that their vision always remains focused on the grand original design of our country.


PROVINCE OF ONTARIO
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, Premier Rae's budget announcement yesterday will reduce conservation lands in Ontario.
The Ontario government is reducing funding for conservation authorities and removing a tax break to conservation authorities that keep these lands natural. This would encourage conservation authorities to use conservation lands for development, increase logging and even sell some of these lands in order to produce some revenue. Local conservation authorities will be unable to pay taxes on these lands and thus valuable wetlands, Niagara escarpment lands, flood plains, conservation parks and forests are threatened by these proposals.

April 29, 1993
Oral Questions
The people in Ontario should write to Premier Rae and urge him to reconsider this unwarranted decision. The environment in Ontario is not for sale.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my personal support for the ongoing conviction of the Minister of Employment and Immigration to maintain the federal government's role in manpower and training.
Effective training and human resource development are not about control but co-ordination and co-operation.
Governments must act together to remove the disincentives in the current system, eliminate the inconsistencies and pursue a national strategy which readies all Canadians to meet the challenges of tomorrow.
To pursue the efficiencies of an open and integrated market within Canada we need a training strategy which transcends provincial boundaries. That means a national approach with national standards and national input.
Provincial and local participation is important and necessary. However, let us not fool ourselves. To be successful we require a commitment and willingness to work together at all levels and not against each other.


THE BUDGET
William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, many times before the budget I asked the Minister of Finance whether or not he would consider closing certain tax loopholes, most notably the business and entertainment tax deduction, and some of the other tax loopholes the Auditor General identified in his report.
At one point, I even thought that the Minister of Finance was considering doing something like this, particularly given that changes have been made south of the border which have eliminated some of the excuses he had given before.
I was very disappointed to see in the budget that none of these tax loopholes were closed, not a single one. It is not just a question of not having tax increases. It is also a question of not closing any of these tax loopholes thus giving the lie once again to the real intention of the
government, which is not deficit reduction but an ideological agenda by which it keeps doing things to institutions like VIA Rail and the CBC under the cover of deficit reduction.


NATIONAL CONSUMER WEEK
Mr. Michel Champagne (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I want to draw to the attention of the House one of the themes which the federal government will consider closely during this National Consumer Week.
This year the federal government will stress the theme of consumer credit so that consumers can make decisions with full knowledge of the facts when they use the various credit instruments at their disposal.
The use of credit remains high and consumers can sometimes overextend themselves because of the falling interest rates. Some credit problems can occur if consumers do not make appropriate use of the information already available on how to use credit wisely, since they too often have easy access to credit. As a result they can draw too heavily on their credit and consumers can end up with too much debt.
Consumers are the key to a dynamic economy. This is why they must be well informed before deciding on the type of credit to use, and they must also be demanding about the quality of services provided by their lenders.
I am confident that National Consumer Week will enable Canadians to be better informed on issues which concern them, as well as on their rights and responsibilities.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Minister of Finance.
Today the Minister of Finance is quoted by a Toronto newspaper as saying about his and the government's budgetary policies: "We have been fighting this lonely
April 29, 1993

battle, this lonely mission, without the support of the business community".
The efforts of the Minister of Finance to portray himself as that lonely Maytag washer repairman in the television commercial simply will not wash.
Does the Minister of Finance not realize that unlike that repairman on TV he has a poor product when it comes to his budget and budgetary policies, a poor product that has not worked for the past eight and a half
years?
Why did the government not present a budgetary plan on Monday for real action on the deficit and especially on jobs and economic growth?


Hon. John McDermid (Minister of State (Finance and Privatization)):: Mr. Speaker, I am very surprised that my hon. friend would describe the Minister of Finance like that because the Minister of Finance is a very popular fellow and a very busy fellow. The fellow at Maytag seems to be very lonely. Our Minister of Finance is anything but lonely, and the hon. member knows that.
Second, I must tell my friend that our government from day one in 1984, from the financial statement which was given in the fall of 1984 straight on through in every subsequent budget, has placed the deficit as a major problem. One thing that was happening was that the provinces were spending at a rate well in excess of inflation while the federal government was keeping its spending under the rate of inflation year over year.
What has happened now is that the provinces, no matter what their political stripe, all of a sudden realize that what the federal government has been doing is right and they are now following in our footsteps. That is good. I think the Minister of Finance has set the stage for good co-operation among the provinces with this budget.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I invite the Acting Minister of Finance to read the quotation of the Minister of Finance when he cried about his "lonely battle". I was not making this up; it is the minister's own words.
Also in the same interview with this Toronto newspaper the minister said:
Oral Questions
"I can't help it if they can't read it", he said, slamming a copy of the
budget on the table in his office.
Why will the Minister of Finance not recognize that Canadians including the business community do not need any literacy lessons from him? They have read the budget. That is why they do not like it. That is why they consider it a failure on the deficit, jobs and economic growth.


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to respond to my hon. friend with regard to his question.
I think the Minister of Finance was referring to fact that for 15 years the average rate of growth of program spending in Ottawa under the Liberals was 13.8 per cent a year every single year. For the last nine years that percentage of 13.8 per cent has been lowered to 3.6 per cent. This is a remarkable accomplishment by the Government of Canada over the last nine years which is why the deficit as a percentage of GDP has been cut in half, by 50 per cent, under this government.
I think that is what the Minister of Finance was referring to. This is what the business community has been asking for. This is what the business community and investors have achieved, which is why inflation is so low and why interest rates are so low. I think the Minister of Finance was saying to the business community: "We have acted in the national interest. We think it is perhaps time for you to stand up and say indeed those policies defend and enhance the national interest of Canada".


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, in August 1983 the present Prime Minister said: "To be content with an unemployment rate of 10 per cent is just short of criminal".

In August 1983 the present Prime Minister said, and I quote: "To be content with an unemployment rate of 10 per cent is almost criminal". Yet the budget tabled this week will keep unemployment above 11 per cent this year and next year.
Is the Prime Minister prepared to admit that-based on his own comments-he and the Conservatives are guilty of keeping unemployment so high? Is he prepared to do something right now to launch a real recovery and truly lower an unemployment rate which is way too high?

April 29, 1993
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is quite properly deploring an unemployment rate of 11 per cent as being too high, forgetting of course that when he turned over the government to us under the Liberals the unemployment rate was 11.7 per cent. We then reduced it to 7.3 per cent.


Mr. Gagliano:: It has gone back up.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friend says: "It has gone back". Indeed it has as a result of the recession. Because of what I think is generally acknowledged to be prudent management, the unemployment rate will decline to something in the neighbourhood of 7.2 per cent or 7.3 per cent pursuant to the budget.


Mr. Gauthier:: A change in government.


Martin Brian Mulroney: My hon. friends say: "A change in government". No, a change in prime ministers but the same government, which may explain the fact that the Leader of the Opposition has not been seen since the budget was tabled.


Some hon. members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. John Manley (Ottawa South):: Lie has certainly been seen, Mr. Speaker, but he does not need to be seen by the Prime Minister. He does not expect his vote.

As mentioned yesterday by Michel Auger in the Journal de Montreal, the Minister of Finance and his predecessor have done a very poor job of predicting the deficit for the 1993-94 fiscal year. Indeed, the former Minister of Finance was off by $16 billion in predicting the deficit for 1994.
My question for the Acting Prime Minister is this: How can the minister believe that the Canadian people and the international markets will have confidence in the Minister of Finance and in his budget, given such a record of incompetence?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member took the time to examine the projections made over the period of the last nine years he would see that indeed the
Minister of Finance missed some deficit projections. They were much lower than he had projected in his budget. If he checks the 1987-88 and 1988-89 budgets he will find that the deficit was lower than he had projected in his budgets. As a matter of fact the record of projections of this government was very good up until the recessionary period.
If the hon. member was fair and compared the projections of the 1992 budget, for example, with the projections of all the other forecasting groups both in Canada and internationally, he would find that they were all off. Every single one of them was off. Our Minister of Finance made a mid-term financial statement and corrected the record. Every one on their projections was off. He cannot lay that on the finance minister.


John Paul Manley: Mr. Speaker, one out of nine is not even good in baseball.
Yesterday the minister acknowledged, and I use his words, market jitters that followed his budget. Analysts are now saying that these jitters were largely caused by the strength of the minister's own pre-budget rhetoric and resulted in a rise in the Treasury bill rate and the bank rate on Tuesday.
The minister's mistake in raising expectations is not free of cost. Will the government please reveal to the House an estimated cost of the additional interest charges faced by the government as a result of the need to defend the dollar on Tuesday?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, my friend has been around a while. He understands that at budget times financial markets fluctuate somewhat. He will be pleased to know that the Canadian dollar has in fact stabilized, that it is trading at a very narrow margin right now and has maintained its strength. The hon. member should not be worried about that.
This budget has set out a clear program of deficit reduction, of cutting expenditures of the federal government to assure that taxpayers' dollars are being wisely spent, but at the same time reducing the deficit so that interest rates and inflation can remain low and the private sector can get to creating employment, creating work and creating wealth which is so desperately needed.
April 29, 1993


Hon. Audrey McLaughlin (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, one would hope that a government's budget would contain some vision of what the future should be. This week's budget certainly does tell something about the Conservative vision of the future, but in many ways it is a very negative and going back to the past kind of future. As in previous budgets the government has decided not only to ignore the job crisis but to continue dismantling institutions and programs that define who we are as a people and to implement cuts to transportation, VIA Rail and the Crow subsidy for farmers.
My question is for the Acting Minister of Finance. In just looking at transportation we see a record of privatization, deregulation, cutbacks to VIA Rail and cutbacks to airlines which have created a crisis both in number of jobs lost and in service to Canadians. Does this government have a vision of the future of transportation in this country, and what is it?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend knows that the National Transportation Agency is completing a review as has the royal commission on transportation requirements in the year 2000 in Canada. Therein are contained a number of very important ideas for transportation which the House will be called upon to consider.
More important, perhaps, my hon. friend has just described the tough cutbacks in transportation, the tough cutbacks in regional development and the tough cutbacks throughout the budget, making precisely the point the Minister of Finance indicated the day before yesterday. There are $3.8 billion worth of real cuts in 1993, $5.8 billion worth of real cuts in 1994, $7.9 billion worth of real cuts at the end of the fiscal framework, for a total of $30.7 billion in cuts over the five-year period, which is the largest expenditure reduction in the history of Canada.
We are not denying that; we are affirming it as a fact. We think this is a signal of confidence we are sending to the international markets of the seriousness with which we embark on a program of deficit reduction.
My hon. friend is quite right. I am not trying to hide behind commas or paragraphs. The cuts are there. They are serious. They are meaningful and they are historic. I wish we had the money to do otherwise, but we do not and we have taken our responsibilities in a manner
Oral Questions
unprecedented by a Government of Canada in modem history.


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is right on one thing, that is that these are historic, because this government is history and that will make Canadians pretty happy.
The cutbacks in transportation are not just a reduction of jobs. They are cutbacks to an economic basis in a country. If we do not have a good transportation system, how can we transport goods? How can we in fact build the economy the government professes it wants to build?
I want to ask about the government's vision in another area and that is cultural institutions in this country. We have seen cuts to the CBC, Telefilm Canada, cultural groups, the Canada Council budget cut last year and the promised important film distribution legislation has never happened.
Cultural groups not only employ hundreds of thousands of people but they really give expression to and help define who we are as Canadians. I want to ask the government what its vision is of culture in this country. What vision for the future of culture in this country does it have?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the government has passed the new Broadcasting Act here in Canada. It passed the Status of the Artist Act recognizing the professional status of artists for the first time in Canada, implementation of major initiatives in film, video and sound recordings, establishment of the Baie Comeau policy to protect cultural sovereignty in the book publishing and distribution industry. Our commitment has been considerable. Consider this: We supported the creation in 1988 of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's all news channel and we built a state of the art CBC broadcast centre headquarters in Toronto.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Closed down the station in Windsor.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Closed down the station in Windsor he says. He wants us to close down the headquarters of the CBC in Toronto but we are so committed to the CBC as an instrument of national unity that we prefer to keep that rather than the station in Windsor.

April 29, 1993
* *
Oral Questions


Audrey Marlene McLaughlin: Mr. Speaker, clearly the government's vision of culture is to cut back and cut back those voices which give expression to culture in our country. The government does have choices and many of those choices simply have not been taken.
[Translation\
The vision which the Conservatives have of Canada is that of a country in which there is not only a wider gap between regions, but also a wider gap between the rich and the poor.
On Monday, the Minister of Finance received a lot of praise from his caucus when he announced that there would be no tax increase in his budget. Some groups should pay more taxes; not the poor, not the middle class, but the rich and the profitable large corporations.
Why does this government refuse to close tax loopholes for the rich and to impose a minimum tax on profitable businesses?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I find it rather amusing that the NDP member would suggest a tax increase when the governments of Ontario, Saskatchewan and British Columbia say just the opposite. In these jurisdictions it is claimed that Canadian taxpayers are overtaxed right now and that we should avoid imposing new taxes.
As a government, we eliminated more tax shelters than any other government in years. My hon. friend can check it out. I believe this is an important step in the social development of the nation. We are always open to some suggestions, but we do not want to impose new taxes.


SOMALIA
Hon. William Rompkey (Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday the chief of defence staff directly contradicted the version of the facts that had been given to Canadians by the minister of defence. He told reporters that the minister of defence knew from the veiy start
that the March 16 beating death in Belet Huen involved criminal intent.


Mr. Speaker:: Just a moment. I have some difficulty with the question. The motion today which is being debated is broad and it most certainly covers the point which I think the hon. member is raising.


David Charles Dingwall: He wasn't making reference to the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, he may not be making any reference to the motion but questions should not anticipate an order of the day, although this does not apply to the budget process.
We have a full day of debate on the very issue that the hon. member is raising. I must say that unless the hon. member can form his question appropriately I cannot allow it. It seems to me that this is an urgent question involving-


Bill Rompkey: If I could have the floor, Mr. Speaker, I would say this is an urgent question involving the credibility of the minister in the carrying out of-


Mr. Speaker:: I'm sorry. That is exactly what the debate is about. That is not a matter for me to take into account. The hon. member may wish to put a question which comes within the bounds but I cannot accept that.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I want to quote to the Prime Minister the words of the chief of defence staff yesterday when he said that "on March 18 the unit reported that evidence indicating that criminal intent might be linked to the death had been uncovered. That same day the unit requested a military police investigating team and legal counsel as soon as possible. The request was received by NDHQ on March 19".
I want to quote to the Prime Minister what the Minister of National Defence said in the House on April
26:


Mr. Speaker:: I'm sorry. I listened very carefully and I tried to give the hon. member for Labrador every opportunity to put his question in such a way that it would be acceptable. There may be another place to raise it but it is not now.


Fred J. Mifflin: Mr. Speaker, a significant incident is defined in Cana-

April 29, 1993

dian forces orders as "any occurrence, minor or major, that will or may create public interest".
My question is to the Acting Minister of National Defence. When the briefing took place on March 17 on a significant incident in Somalia why was it not recognized that public interest was involved? There was a delay of six weeks of rumour, speculation, phone calls, letters and questions in this House before the Canadian public was informed.


Mr. Speaker:: That is all within the debate which is going on in the House. That is another matter, a matter for the debate itself.
I am going on to the next question.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Indian Affairs.
Recently a number of New Democratic Party MLAs and myself inspected the water and sewage system in the reserve at Bloodvein, Manitoba. Since the federal government has refused to contribute money to pay for the hooking up of this system to native households, the $7 million that the federal government spent only provides service to teachers, nurses and the RCMP, the very people who had water and sewage systems before the $7 million was spent.
Can the minister explain how the $7 million expenditure from the green plan is helping the environment, the native people and how it was a good investment by the federal government?


Hon. Pierre H. Vincent (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Minister of State (Indian Affairs and Northern Development)):: Mr. Speaker, I am not familiar with all the figures relating to my colleague's specific concern regarding the green plan but I will certainly make inquiries and get back to him on this.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I gave a specific example but it is a problem right through the federal government's general policy. The federal govem-
Oral Questions
ment, as part of its green plan, will pay for water and sewage systems in native communities. But it is asking unemployed people, 95 per cent of whom are on welfare in a number of communities, to pay for their own water and sewage hookup to their houses. Those people do not have the money.
Therefore, right across Canada we have the federal government spending money to put water and sewage systems in native communities without any native households being hooked up.
What is the government policy?


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the last part of my colleague's remarks. We know that the Department of Indians Affairs has invested considerable amounts at every level to meet all the needs of the native communities across the country and we will continue in that direction.


GST CREDIT
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, this government has decided to defer paying the GST credit due next January until April 1994. By reducing the refunds payable this fiscal year by $625 million, the government has in fact inflated its own revenues and used accounting methods that are rather difficult to understand.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister if he would care to come and visit my riding to tell the people who live in retirement homes or subsidized housing and have an urgent need for such regular payments why they will not be receiving their tax credit cheques in January, why they will have to wait until April to pay their Christmas bills, the children's boots, coats and the like, and explain how come government is allowed to do something the private sector would likely be prohibited from doing?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier is dead wrong. First of all, the people in question will continue to receive the exact same

April 29, 1993
Oral Questions
amounts, not one cent less. Furthermore, he should have mentioned that payments will be made in April and in December. They will certainly have the chance to meet their obligations when they get their cheques at that time.
Again, it is extremely dangerous-and I hope this was not the hon. member's intention-to suggest that seniors or other citizens will receive less money than they normally did. That is not true. They will receive the same amounts except that sending the money in April and in December has made the budget tabled by the Minister of Finance even better. I want to reassure all Canadians who receive the GST credit that they will receive exactly the same amount, but twice a year, and will have the opportunity to meet their obligations.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, if I understand the budget correctly, payments would be made in April and October not December.

In his recent meeting with the International Monetary Fund the Minister of Finance told the directors of the fund that compliance with the unpopular GST had been surprisingly poor.
Instead of penalizing the poor why is the minister not attacking the GST cheaters, the ones that cheat the system? Why is he not attacking the underground economy estimated by one of his own colleagues to be in the realm of $40 billion? We are losing $9 billion a year in taxes because of the underground economy. Why does he not go after the crooks instead of the poor?


Hon. Otto Jelinek (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance said no such thing to the International Monetary Fund.
It is true at the outset we projected prior to the introduction of the tax that we would be lenient in the first few months so that businesses could get accustomed to the change from the old unacceptable tax to the new modem and fairer tax.
I can assure this House and the hon. member now that we have our compliance programs in place, for example last year we had 100,000 audits and a very large majority of those audits showed that whatever mistakes did take place after the assessments was as a result of honest mistakes and not a growing underground economy.


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works and it concerns the $735 million lease for the ICAO building in Montreal.
I want to ask the minister about the negotiations with the present developer that were abandoned and the two calls for new tenders that were let out, thereby increasing ultimately the cost to taxpayers by $175 million.
I want to ask the minister why the bidding rules were changed mid-stream and in such a way that Brookfield Development eventually ended up being the winner? I want to remind the minister that Brookfield Development just happens to be part of the Carena Company which is owned by the Brascan empire which just happens to be chaired by a member of the other place.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased and delighted to entertain this question from my colleague in view of the importance that this organization has had to the city of Montreal which is the capital of avionics in Canada. This organization has been here for 40 years or more and is very important to the city of Montreal.
I thought he would be congratulating Public Works for the scrupulous way it has maintained the negotiations and the tender calls which were completely open and transparent. I would invite him as I think my office already has for a briefing.
This process began last June and has been carried on to the point where we are now looking at and analysing the bids that were submitted on April 19.
This organization, as he must know, has required more space for some time to meet its obligations. It asked for
36,000	square metres more. Treasury Board reduced that. Nevertheless if this single use facility is not modified and adapted to meet the use of ICAO, we could even risk losing this international agency.
I am surprised. He should speak to his colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Leonard, who will tell him that about 800 jobs are involved. I cannot understand why the hon. member would be misled by this prurient article by
April 29, 1993

a journalist named Cameron who, unlike the member, I think was a bit of a quidnunc.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the minister has to understand these are not just reports by reporters. There is a lawsuit against the government and against the minister himself in this regard. I have a copy of it in hand.

I would like to ask the minister a supplementary question. The minister must surely know that we are talking about an overpayment of $175 million, financed by Canadian taxpayers. At the risk of displeasing the Prime Minister, I would like to ask the minister this: How can he justify such an expense? Why does the minister accept negotiating and reaching agreements in this way, at a time like this when the Minister of Finance is telling us we have no money? Why this overpayment of $175 million?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, there are so many fallacies in that question, I am surprised that a member of the calibre of my friend opposite would even ask it.
These negotiations have been going on for about two years. They have not yet been completed. They are completely transparent. I repeat that this is a single use building. He talks about a lawsuit. What is new about a disaffected developer suing the Government of Canada? This happens all the time.
I tell my colleague opposite that this particular transaction is squeaky clean. The more he looks into it the more I will welcome his questions.


CENTRES OF EXCELLENCE
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-St. Clair):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of state for science and technology.
As he is probably aware, the parliamentary committee on industry, science and technology is completing a report that will express strong support for the national centres of excellence. Yet there is information coming out of his department that the $250 million five-year
Oral Questions
funding for that very successful program is about to be cut to $125 million for the next five years.
I would ask the minister to confirm or deny that.


Hon. Tom Hockin (Minister for Science and Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Mr. Speaker, we are not going to confirm or deny anything when a study and total review of the centres of excellence are being conducted.
I am glad to hear that the hon. member likes this program. It was introduced by this government. It received no thanks from the hon. member when it was introduced, but it has been a tremendous success and we are going to maintain it at the level of funding. However, it will depend upon the review that we receive.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, this hon. minister talks a great deal and very often fails to reflect the facts. To this new minister of science and technology who has a lot to learn about science and technology, the fact is that this member supported that program.
The minister will recall that about one month ago when I was posing a question to him about the failure to provide increases for IRAP, he indicated that tremendous funding increases were being provided by this government for research and development.
Within that context I would ask him whether his statement at that time is not called into serious question by the fact that instead of increasing the granting council budgets by 4 per cent as was promised in last year's budget and instead of cutting back that 4 per cent now, the research council fundings have been cut back for the next five years. Is that consistent with a commitment to research and development of the sort he indicated when I last asked him a question on the subject?


Thomas Hockin: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is twice wrong with his question.
First of all, on the IRAP funding we are increasing it substantially and he knows that. In fact the numbers I gave him over a month ago of $13 million have been confirmed. It is a $13 million increase. When it comes to the granting councils, we are not cutting them back. They will be growing at 1.5 per cent more than most other federal spending programs except for our transfers to persons and to provinces.

April 29, 1993
Oral Questions
This government stands behind science and technology and stands behind research by the preference that it receives in the budget over most other categories of federal government spending.


SINGLE-WINDOW CONCEPT
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. This week the Minister of Finance had two pieces of depressing news for taxpayers: the deficit last year was $35 billion and this year it is expected to be $32 billion. He also confirmed that the government is powerless to control the deficit, because he did not even take measures to eliminate federal-provincial overlapping, which is wasteful and inefficient.
I therefore ask the Prime Minister why his government rejected the suggestion of the Quebec Conservative caucus, which asked him to establish a single window in Quebec for labour force programs.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think that my friend is mistaken. The reality is that in 1992-93 the deficit was 5 per cent of gross domestic product in Canada, compared to 5.1 per cent in the United States.
In 1997, Canada is expected to have a surplus equal to 1 per cent of GDP, while the United States will still have a deficit of 2.5 per cent. So I think it is recognized that we are making remarkable progress compared to the United States.
I want to give the member another example if I may. In 1984, when we took power, the deficit as a percentage of gross domestic product, which is vital as the internationally accepted standard for measuring the deficit and its impact on an economy, was 8.7 per cent. The deficit this year will be 4.5 per cent, a reduction of 50 per cent in eight and a half years.
My friend will surely agree with me that, although not a miracle, this is very significant progress for Canada. We accepted many suggestions from the Quebec Conservative caucus to reach this point.


Mr. Speaker:: We must go on.


Gilles Duceppe: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the Prime Minister. I will point out to him that he did not answer the question about overlapping.
His Minister of Finance told the House that he had begun discussions about establishing in Montreal a pilot service centre for business clients, called a single window, in co-operation with public and private partners. After checking with contacts in the city of Montreal, the Chamber of Commerce and the Centre de commerce mondial, it appears that these organizations were not consulted. However, we know that such a service centre already exists at Montreal's Centre de commerce mondial.
I therefore ask the Prime Minister: does this mean that in addition to duplication of services, we will have duplication of single windows? Has the government's slogan become "let everyone have their own single window?"


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, has my friend received permission from the head office of the Parti Quebecois in Quebec City to ask such a question? Has it been approved by Mr. Parizeau, because he controls the Ontario branch of the PQ? So, do you have Mr. Parizeau's permission?


Gilles Duceppe: Answer the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: All right, then the boss has given you permission to ask the question. The reason is that the single-window concept was favoured by the yes supporters in the referendum and you voted no. If you had voted yes, you would have your single window, because the federalists proposed it and you were opposed.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
John Williston (Bud) Bird: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister answering for the Minister of Finance.
In this budget the Minister of Finance has set out a five-year program of operating subsidies for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, not the kind of predictable five-year funding the corporation was looking for.
April 29, 1993

As I detect the plan, it calls for a maintenance of the existing funding through 1993-94 and 1994-95 with the operating cuts to start in 1995-96.
I would like to just reaffirm with the minister that this is a form of five-year predictable plan for the CBC. I would also like to ask him whether the recommendation for a limited borrowing authority to provide financial flexibility for the CBC during this transition is also to be forthcoming.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I might remind the hon. member that the December statement the Minister of Finance delivered in the House applies to Crown corporations as well. Therefore there is a discipline on the Crown corporations for this fiscal year and next. The major cuts will take place as he has enunciated in his question.
As far as the borrowing authority to the CBC, Crown-dependent corporations do not normally have the power to borrow. However, this suggestion has been made by a standing committee. I know that it is now being considered by the Department of Communications and we look forward to its plan when it is brought forward to cabinet.


EMPLOYMENT
Ms. Albina Guarnieri (Mississauga East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Yesterday, the Minister of Finance repeated his boast that 200,000 new jobs were created since August. The minister was careful not to mention in which country these jobs were created. In Canada there were 480,000 fewer people working and covered by UI in January than there were in August, according to Statistics Canada.
I ask the Prime Minister to explain why the only job he offers unemployed Canadians is a snow job?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I can only conclude that that question must have taken the combined brain power of the entire Liberal caucus. No wonder half of them are not here; they are exhausted by the intellectual exercise. I do not
Oral Questions
know what I am going to do. There is a lover's quarrel going on in the NDP and there is sudden mediocrity in the Liberals. What am I going to do?


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is obviously in deep-freeze because his government is out of touch and his ministers' numbers are out to lunch.
In January, the month of Maz job demolition, 354,000 Canadians initiated or renewed UIC claims, raising the total number of beneficiaries to over 1.5 million for the first time since last April. For these Canadians, the minister's rosy pronouncements are more tragic comic relief than economic relief.
I ask the Prime Minister why his government's so-called recovery is as jobless as his government is hopeless.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, a little affectionate advice to my hon. friend. The next time the Liberals try to get her to ask a question like that, she should say her dignity stops her from doing it.


Mr. Speaker:: Given the hour, if the Prime Minister wishes to respond then he should do so, but I am watching the clock.


Albina Guarnieri: How patronizing.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Oh, it is patronizing. Is that not awful, a Liberal being patronized.
The Minister of Finance pointed out that full-time employment has risen by 202,000 since last August. It rose by 46,000 in February. In March the Royal Bank noted: "A 48,000 person increase in employment is very, very encouraging. There have been 1.4 million new jobs created since this government came to office. The rate of job creation in percentage terms is the highest in the G-7".
Everybody knows that we and all other industrialized countries lost jobs during the recession. Jobs were lost in the recession around the industrialized world. We are now making them up at what appears to be a rate of almost 50,000 a month; 300,000 this year and 400,000 new jobs in the year thereafter. Surely this ought to be enough to encourage my hon. friend modestly.

April 29, 1993
Privilege


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. George Proud (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs.
We all know that approximately 600,000 war veterans, many getting along in years, depend upon the government through veterans affairs for medical services, pensions and other types of health care.
With all the proposed cuts and the talks of cuts that are happening right away and into the future, could the minister assure these veterans, these people who served the country so well, that none of the benefits or programs will be cut by this department?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, we in Canada have the most generous program of veterans benefits of any country in the world, and we intend to maintain them.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, in view of what the minister just said, will he assure the people who deliver these programs that none of their jobs will be cut?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member was interested in veterans. Now I find out he is interested in his constituents' jobs.
Let me assure the hon. member that veterans affairs will continue to operate in Charlottetown and as long as veterans are still alive we will have public servants there providing the services they need.


JUSTICE
Mr. Larry Schneider (Regina-Wascana):: Mr. Speaker, my question is with regard to the jurisdiction of the Minister of Justice. A coroner's jury in Regina recently recommended that police officers be equipped with pepper spray as a means of non-life threatening control in dangerous situations.
Are there currently any federal obstacles preventing police forces from acting upon this jury's recommendation?


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member the Criminal Code already contains an exemption that would allow for this.
I should point out as well, though, training and equipping of police officers come within the jurisdiction of the provinces and the RCMP. If devices like this can help save lives and help in the enforcement of our laws, we certainly have no objection to it.
He *	*


POINT OF ORDER
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, today we read in Le Soleil that the hon. member for Levis said he enjoyed the support of members of the three main parties in Ottawa.
Without any intent of prejudicing the fair trial of his court case, I think the hon. member was indulging in some wishful thinking. Liberal members in Ottawa support the Liberal candidate in Levis, and they certainly do not intend to support the Conservative MP in that riding.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. David Berger (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising from a question put by the member for Windsor-St. Clair. That member and I are members of the industry, science and technology committee which has been conducting a study of the future of the network of Centres for Excellence Program.
We have agreed to a report which has yet to be tabled in the House of Commons. Until it is tabled the report and its contents and conclusions are privileged to members of the committee.
In a question the member for Windsor-St. Clair referred to one of the conclusions of the report, and I believe this is a breach of my privilege and that of the other members of the committee. If you find I have a
April 29, 1993

prima facie case of privilege I am prepared to move the appropriate motion, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I wonder if the hon. member would let me check the "blues". There is some considerable merit in the argument that has been put forward. I should, though, check the "blues" and I will report back to the House.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege my colleague raised, when you say you will check the "blues" and will report back to the House, will there then be notice and time given to hon. members, particularly the hon. member from Windsor as well as my colleague, for further debate if debate is indeed necessary? My colleague has raised a very serious point.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to say to the hon. House leader for Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition the Chair recognizes it is a serious matter. We have had to deal with these things in the past.
If I feel it is necessary to have further argument or further comment I will give sufficient notice. I may be able to deal with it very quickly. I will check the "blues" and I will be in touch with the hon. member.
I just might add, and I am thankful to my Clerk for pointing this out, I may have to wait until I see the report. It may or may not be available this afternoon, but I will move expeditiously on the matter.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the government House leader. Would he indicate to the House what tomorrow's business will be, what it will be for Monday and Thesday, and what he sees for the remainder of next week?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon we will complete the second of the eight allotted supply days for this supply period.
Business of the House
Tomorrow we will proceed with Bill C-117, the Borrowing Authority Act. I am hoping we can come to some agreement aljout the completion of that bill.
On Monday we hope to complete third reading of Bill C-118, the Export Development Corporation Act, after which we hope to complete third reading of Bill C-109, the bill dealing with privacy provisions for cellular phone use.
Depending on our conversations, Thesday is likely to be the third allotted day for this supply period. I will be discussing with the House leaders of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party the business for the rest of that week.
In every confidence, we will come up with an agreement that will make sure this will be a very productive institution serving the people of Canada well.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, every time I hear those words I can see that closure is not far off.
I am wondering if the government House leader could give us some sort of assurances, for the purposes of Monday at least when members will be returning to the Chamber after spending time in their constituencies, on the order of debate of the various bills. Will it be Bill C-118 that he will lead with, or will it be Bill C-109?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, my intention now is to lead with Bill C-118. I will not change it before discussing it with the House leader of the opposition.


Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Mr. Speaker, on government House business, the government House leader is moving out but his parliamentary secretary may be able to answer.
In view of the fact the electoral reform bill in part was ushered out of the House in a most unusual way by a closure motion after many hours, and we have the complicity of the Liberals and the NDP in this matter, I was wondering where that stood in terms of business for either Friday or the upcoming week and, second, when we are going to get back to the budget.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, we on this side of the House, and I am sure I speak for the hon. member who has just spoken, do not wish to be argumentative.
Thursday is the typical day on which members of the opposition, particularly the Official Opposition, ask the business question. There is no one on the government

April 29, 1993
Business of the House
side. In fact, the Prime Minister had to cross the floor to join with us and support us in finding that his members opposite are holding Parliament in contempt.
I would hope, Mr. Speaker, you would speak directly and firmly to the right hon. Prime Minister so that when he goes back to that side of the House he will speak to his minister and have him in here to answer the questions raised by my colleague.
I think it is appropriate, because it is only once a week we have an opportunity to put questions to the government House leader with regard to government business.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: I rise on the same point, Mr. Speaker. Just ordinary courtesy would dictate that the government House leader and his parliamentary secretary not walk out of the House before this particular period of House business is over.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the question. The reason I left was that I thought the Thursday question was over. I looked over at the New Democratic Party and did not see anybody standing so I left.
It was not an affront, but if the member has another question I am prepared to answer it.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That is part of the problem, Mr. Speaker. With all due respect we understand there are organized parties here, but the government House leader has been here long enough in the last two years to know there are some other persons in the House who do not necessarily belong to registered parties.
He had his back turned to me while I was asking a very legitimate question. I do not take umbrage with that. I agree with others that this is an insult to the House. I am glad that the opposition House leader raised the point. I will give the government House leader the benefit of my Irish generosity that he did not intend to slur.
In view of the fact my question came about when the government House leader, with all due credit to himself, used the rules in a most conniving way to exercise the Standing Order 78(1) allocation to kick out the electoral reform bill in that phase to a committee and get it out of the House, I was wondering where we were in terms of the electoral reform bill since the government House
leader did not mention it and then, coming back to the budget, whether we are going to get back to the budget debate.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I have just been informed by casual conversation that it would appear the committee looking into the second phase of electoral reform has reached an agreement. We are expecting a report, I think next Thesday.
I have alerted the Privy Council Office in charge of drafting legislation to get its pens in hand so that the changes can be put in. I hope we can get it through the House prior to adjourning for the summer, because we are not likely to be back to pass it before the next election.
I will not get into a debate about the first phase but frankly, if we are going to talk about behaviour, et cetera, it is a double-edged sword as the hon. member knows.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina -Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to place a question before the government House leader. As he will remember last week I asked about Bill C-7 dealing with the status of the artist.
The Prime Minister in Question Period as well mentioned that this piece of legislation was passed by the government. Indeed it was and it received royal assent in June last year.
Again I would like to ask the House leader when they plan to proclaim the bill.


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give that information. The Minister of Communications probably will. After a bill is given royal assent a period of time is required to put the administrative apparatus in place to administer the bill, things that fall from the bill, if it is a bill of that sort. When things are ready the Governor in Council acts to bring the bill into force.
As I say I do not know what is holding things up, if anything, but the Minister of Communications would have that answer. I will talk to him and get back to the hon. member.


Miss Deborah Grey (Beaver River):: Mr. Speaker, on the same point. A couple of moments ago my Nova Scotia neighbour asked a second part to his question about when the next two days of budget debate were. I
April 29, 1993

think this is substantial enough that we could be given notice.


Harvie Andre: Yes, I am endeavouring to schedule the bills and business on the Order Paper to get them through. There are certainly two days of budget debate on the Order Paper. I have been discussing with opposition House leaders how we might schedule things.
My interest quite frankly is in getting as much passed and into committee in terms of this House and passed and into the Senate so as not to back them up and to schedule six more opposition days as well as two budget days within a very limited period of time. The more co-operation we get, the better I am able to schedule things in advance but we will keep trying.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Axworthy (Winnipeg South Centre) (p. 18639).
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I just had a few moments left in my observations of the speech given by my colleague, the hon. member for St. John's East. I believe my colleague from Davenport will be following in debate.
I wish to conclude in the two or three minutes I have with the observation that not only did I find the substance of his remarks to be totally out of whack with what was going on, I found the tone of his remarks to be most unsatisfactory as far as those of us in the opposition are concerned.
The hon. member has tried to paint the picture that somehow those of us in the opposition are being very unfair and mean-spirited by raising this subject matter on the floor of the House of Commons.
If ministers across the way would only assume responsibility for their dossiers, take the House of Commons into their confidence and share the issues, facts and various information they receive with us, I am certain
Supply
this particular motion would not necessarily have been put. However we believe we have a fundamental obligation to raise these serious questions on the floor of the House of Commons as they relate to what is taking place in Bosnia, Somalia and the role of the Minister of National Defence. I must say she has been less than candid with the members of the House of Commons when the chief of staff has said one thing and of course the minister has said another.
I guess the point we were trying to make earlier this day, which was found by the Chair and the Table to be out of order was that we wanted to know who was telling the truth. Was it the Minister of National Defence or was it the chief of staff? I think it is important that we ascertain who was telling the truth with regard to this particular issue. That is the first point I want to raise with my colleague from St. John's East.
I also want to raise the issue of the comments of the government House leader earlier, which I believe have been picked up by the hon. member for St. John's East about this inquiry which is going to take place under the auspices of section 45 of the National Defence Act and the fact that the minister responsible was precluded from having an open public inquiry.
That is not the case at all and the hon. member for St. John's East ought to know that. The minister has full discretion under that section. We know the Minister of National Defence does not know that but I am sure the Secretary of State for External Affairs knows. The government can have an open and public inquiry if it decides to do so.
No one on this side has asked about who did what in a criminal way. It was the minister who made observations and suggestions about that. We believe it is important to have a public inquiry so Canadians can continue to have confidence in our Canadian Armed Forces.
The suggestion being made by members opposite that somehow they are more Canadian, more supportive of the Armed Forces than those of us on this side of the aisle is absolutely false. To quote the words of the government House leader, it is absolutely false. I and in particular our colleague from Bonavista-Trinity-Conception who is very distinguished and has served in a great capacity in the Canadian Armed Forces, as well as all members of this caucus have great support for the Canadian Armed Forces. I know the Secretary of State

April 29, 1993
Supply
for External Affairs will want to pick up the phone later this day to call the Minister of National Defence and say: "I do not believe you enjoy the confidence of the members of the House of Commons, therefore you ought to do the reasonable and responsible thing and step aside. Continue with your campaign to become the next leader of the Conservative Party but step aside so we can appoint a full-time Minister of National Defence who thereafter can do as the Minister of External Affairs has said she will do and travel to Bosnia and visit all of these various communities, which a full-time Minister of National Defence would have availed herself of the opportunity to do, but unfortunately is not going to be able to do".
I hope all members of this Chamber will support not only the substance of this great motion which has been put down but indeed the spirit in which it has been given. In view of that, I thank you for allowing me to make these observations. I know my colleague, the hon. member for Davenport, will want to enter this debate in a full way.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: If there are no further questions or comments, the next speakers are from the Liberal side and I believe the hon. member for Davenport is splitting his time with the hon. member for Papineau-Saint Michel.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, for Canadians who are viewing this program let me state again, as my colleague the member for Winnipeg South Centre did at the beginning of this debate, that our motion today has really three very specific purposes. The first is to criticize the Minister of National Defence. The second is to express the deep concern on the part of the loyal opposition for the members of the Canadian Forces who are engaged in difficult peacekeeping missions. The third is to remind the government that since the cold war is over a shift in the expenditures for military purposes along the lines that have been already suggested so eloquently by the member for Winnipeg South Centre this morning would be extremely beneficial for the economy of Canada.
I would like to briefly review these three points in the time allocated to me. I would start very briefly by putting on record the statement made by our leader in Ste. Foy a
month or so ago. He outlined the Liberal policy for a shift in our approach to defence matters and emphasized the fact that in his announcement the leader of the party indicated we would gradually convert military bases to new and appropriate uses. We would promote diversification of our defence industry and help it reorient toward civilian production as other western industrialized nations have already done.
In buttressing this approach the member for Winnipeg South Centre indicated that the Liberal government would use the existing $200 million federal government grants program for defence production to help companies switch to products such as environmental clean-up technologies and other technologies that have the potential for future expansion, job creation and the like.
The basic criteria is still that all the defence policies of the Government of Canada would be reviewed with peacekeeping as the core purpose for the army, as indicated by our defence critic, the member for Labrador.
We are raising this issue today with a number of concerns in mind. One is about the Somalis who have lost their lives in recent weeks as a result of measures that are the object of an inquiry at last.
We would like to reinforce, as it has been done frequently and quite effectively during Question Period, the notion that since civilians have lost their lives in these incidents the inquiry must be carried out openly and not behind closed doors.
The minister has the power to order an open procedure if she wants. The minister should not be afraid of an open inquiry. We must remind the government of the promise it made for an open government in the 1984 election and repeated in 1988 by the present Prime Minister.
This is an opportunity for the Government of Canada and the Conservative Party to demonstrate that it means what it promises, which alas it has done very rarely over the past nine years.
The object of this motion is also to raise the situation in the Republic of Bosnia-Hercegovina. There are names that come to mind when that part of the world is mentioned such as Dubrovnik, TUzla, Srebrenica and
April 29, 1993

Sarajevo which are deeply ingrained in the collective memory and consciousness of the world community.
There is a growing sense of profound collective guilt in the civilized part of the world at least for having failed so many innocent lives. The persistent question is: What could we have done in order to prevent this immense human tragedy? With the benefit of hindsight perhaps some of these questions can be answered but even so in an incomplete manner.
The first answer that comes to my mind is that when Yugoslavia began to break up, and for that matter the former Soviet Union as well, an unconditional and hasty recognition of the new nations took place. This was led by Germany in particular with its immediate recognition of Croatia.
One cannot help but think that had this recognition been given more slowly with conditions attached to it such as a commitment by the western nations to adhere to the United Nations Human Rights Covenants and other major United Nations declarations of that kind, a more orderly process would have taken place in Europe. The behaviour of these new emerging nations would have been better and the transition would have been better managed. Therefore we all share a responsibility in the manner and speed in which the new nations were recognized by the west.
There is another possible answer and that is the slow and disorganized reaction particularly by the western European governments which were expected by the world community to develop a united response as the crisis began to emerge in the former Yugoslavia in particular.
Here we can definitely see that a number of decisions were made in bilateral ways or in a disjointed non-consultative manner which led eventually to the disaster we
are facing.
I can only conclude by saying that what is happening in the former Yugoslavia has led to a gradual emerging of a new role on the part of the United Nations. We have moved from the well-known and fairly successful phase of peacekeeping to entering slowly and reluctantly the phase of peacemaking. As we do that we will have to be guided by a tremendous amount of wisdom and historical
Supply
knowledge of the area to which we send troops. We will have to use a considerable amount of cunning and astuteness in ensuring that the safety of our troops is taken fully into account.
I regret that time does not allow me to continue. [Translation]


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau-Saint-Michel):: Mr. Speaker, I realize the Secretary of State for External Affairs is in a hurry to speak to the House, but I would ask her to be patient for 10 more minutes. Perhaps she could use her speech to explain the situation of Canadian troops based abroad, in a manner that is clearer and far more specific than could be done by her colleague, the Minister of National Defence.
We on this side of the House are particularly concerned about the safety of Canadian troops, who are committed on several fronts at this time, because the government does not seem to be able to explain satisfactorily the reasons for a Canadian military presence abroad.
Canada has always supported peacekeeping operations throughout the world. Canada has always been in the forefront of UN peacekeeping missions. Lately, however, the UN seems to be taking initiatives that are not necessarily peace initiatives. When we intervene in regions where we are more or less welcome, the question that should be asked is this: Can we really make a contribution toward bringing peace to this region at this time? Of course our party supports the decision to send troops to Bosnia. Our party entirely agrees with any valid peace initiative taken by the United Nations, in the context of a UN initiative to deal with the problem. However, when we see European countries becoming reluctant and questioning the presence of their troops in that part of the world, we in Canada can start asking the same kind of questions.
Not long ago I heard the French Minister of Defence ask on French television whether it was useful and essential, considering current developments in the part of the world we could refer to as former Yugoslavia, for French troops to keep playing a role in that region. I maintain that Canada has an important role to play on the international scene but cannot be expected to help out in every conflict. It cannot be everywhere at once when the government asks the Department of National

April 29, 1993
Supply
Defence to cut spending and restricts the department's financial resources. We cannot do more than our resources allow us to do.
I also wonder about the relevance of maintaining a presence in so many parts of the world where our presence may be challenged. Closer to home, we have a conflict still going on in Haiti. The Canadian government said it wanted to play a role in restoring democracy in that country. I know the new President of the United States is considering the possibility of sending troops as part of a UN peacekeeping mission. Has the federal government considered that possibility? After all, democracy will never be restored in Haiti without a force to counteract the military regime in that country.
At a time when we are about to spend fantastic amounts on helicopters whose usefulness is being questioned and the government insists on spending that kind of money, we may well ask whether the Department of National Defence has its priorities straight.
suggest ways to deal with the threat of nuclear war. The cold war was then at its peak. Soviet air defence had just shot down a Korean aircraft with all passengers on board. U.S. President Ronald Reagan had decided to revive the arms race to restore the balance of power, which included the installation of nuclear missiles in western Europe and the star wars program.
Those were the circumstances at the time, when the Prime Minister of Canada went on his trip to persuade the superpowers to stop this crazy arms race, to Moscow, to tell the Russians to stop this frenzied arms race and to the President of the United States, to tell him his policies were a real threat to world peace. He wanted to talk to the leaders of the superpowers as a Canadian, with Canada's interests in mind and above all in the interests of world peace.
In concluding, I hope that very soon we will have a new government-not a Conservative government-that will at last be able to give Canadians a genuine foreign policy and defence policy we can be proud of, by and for Canadians.
*
:
.
The Canadian government has over the years maintained its own foreign policy. It has always been very advanced in this respect, and I would say that successive prime ministers forged a foreign policy that was uniquely Canadian. However, under the present Conservative government, Canadian foreign policy has increasingly become a carbon copy of U.S. foreign policy. We have lost to a very considerable extent our unique outlook and our freedom to act independently. More often than not, the federal government has aligned its foreign policy on the dictates of the White House. It is high time we reverted to decisions made in Canada, by Canadians with Canada's interests in mind. I trust the Minister of External Affairs, who is due to speak a few minutes from now, will be able to tell us why her government has consistently followed the U.S. lead on foreign policy. In recent years, not a single clearcut personal initiative reflecting Canada's interest was taken by this Conservative government.
This morning, now that the Prime Minister is getting ready for his farewell tour, I read an article in La Presse by Marcel Adam in which he recalled that well before Prime Minister Trudeau actually resigned he had decided to visit all countries which had nuclear arms to


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is too bad that the hon. member from Papineau, who broached some very serious issues and has a reputation for saying the things that count when the issues are very serious, turned this into a very partisan speech and said a number of things that were patently false.

In terms of the kind of leadership provided by this Prime Minister as opposed to the previous Prime Minister, I would like to point out that we have in Canada today one of the great leaders, one of the great statesmen of the world.
Let me just point out, for example, that in the recent summit in Vancouver it was the Prime Minister of Canada-and I was there to witness it-who actually paved the way for a very positive meeting between President Clinton and President Yeltsin in what was a new and very significant relationship for Canada. It was our Prime Minister who led the way in moving forward with aid to Russia among the G-7 countries and indeed to other countries of the former Soviet Union.

April 29, 1993

I also want to say that the other side talks a lot about our Prime Minister and his capacity to visit with other leaders around the world and a trip that he is taking.
A former Prime Minister, whose name as I recall was Trudeau, did a lot of hopping around the world to visit various countries which may or may not have had anything to do with Canada's strategic interests. I do know on the last trip he took that he spent five days on the shores of the Aegean. I am sure he was contemplating the future of Canada as he did so and cavorted on the beach.
This is very much in the interest of our country. I am very proud to be associated with a Prime Minister who has the leadership and statesmanlike characteristics that have been so evident over the last eight years. He has built a great reputation for this country. He has built on some of the things that have gone before and is carrying us forward into a post-cold war environment in a way that is sensitive, imaginative and very much in Canada's interest.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, to respond briefly to the minister's comments and her admiration for the present Prime Minister of Canada, I will not hold it against her, but I think she should read the text of my speech.
I was very careful not to criticize the Prime Minister, who is getting ready for a trip. She misunderstood if she thought I was questioning the right and in some cases the duty of a Canadian Prime Minister to travel abroad.
I simply mentioned in this connection a statement I read this morning in the papers, which recalled why Mr. Trudeau made his trip at the time. In a way it was a response to the criticism levelled at his trip at the time.
My point is that, against the background of the cold war as it existed at the time, Prime Minister Trudeau's visit to these countries was very important and very useful. Now I wonder-and the minister did not tell us but I hope she will have a chance to do that, or perhaps the Prime Minister will-what kind of message he is supposed to bring, after announcing his resignation, to Moscow, Paris, London and Washington, if he goes back there again?
Supply
In any case, with Canadians across the country, I was delighted to see a meeting between Mr. Yeltsin and Mr. Clinton. I think she gives the Prime Minister too much credit, however, although I am prepared to allow her that indulgence.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out first of all that I was very pleased to hear from the hon. member for Davenport who I thought for the first time produced a serious note in this debate from the other side of the House.

I am also confident that I have some answers to questions about Bosnia and other countries in that war-tom region. The hon. member raised that point in the short speech he just made.

One of the reasons I am very glad to be in this debate, despite the fact that the motion itself is ludicrous and makes no sense in any official language, is that it does allow a continuation of the national discussion on peacekeeping that I and this government launched earlier this year.
We welcome a penetrating discussion of the new and less predictable environment for peacekeeping that we face today. We want a widespread public discussion because this really is indeed one of Canada's major contributions to peace and security in the world.
Let me ask then about the role the opposition has played in this national debate. What we get from the Liberal opposition critic is a cynical and partisan motion that indicates really a very superficial interest in matters of substance. He has repeated again and again his tired old assertions that the mandates of our peacekeeping forces are confused and that our professional peacekeepers are badly equipped and badly instructed.
Nothing could be further from the truth and it is an absolutely contemptible distortion. Opposition members cannot be doing much serious thinking about this subject if that is the best they can come up with.

April 29, 1993
Supply
Further, to suggest that peacekeeping mandates are confused and unclear not only is disturbing for the families and for Canadians who care about these people, but is also totally inconsistent with the careful consideration that has been given to each and every one of our peacekeeping commitments. It is also inconsistent with the sustained diplomatic efforts we are making to ensure other governments understand those mandates as we do.
Throughout the many years during which Canada has been sending peacekeepers abroad, including under Liberal governments, successive governments have had to face the question of risk and of the role which Canada believes it should play in the world. In so doing we have developed guidelines that are weighed carefully before a decision is made to respond to a clear and precise request from the United Nations to send Canadian troops to a trouble-spot.
There has to be a threat to international peace and security. That is the first determinant. Major parties to the conflict must accept the peacekeeping mission and accept Canadian participation in it. The operation has to be linked to an agreement by the parties to work toward a political settlement. The operation must be accountable to a political authority, such as the UN Security Council. The operation must have a clear and realistic mandate and it must have a sound logistic and financial basis. Those are the tests we put forward before any of our troops are sent on any peacekeeping mission.

These guidelines have guided this government's decisions to send peacekeeping troops to Croatia, Bosnia and Somalia. As I have indicated on many recent occasions, in particular at the seminar on peacekeeping which I hosted in February 9, the circumstances under which peacekeeping is conducted have changed dramatically since the end of the cold war.
Our peacekeepers today take on new tasks, especially those of a humanitarian nature, which are particularly evident in Bosnia and Somalia. In other cases, they work alongside civilian election monitors, humanitarian agencies and policemen, as in Cambodia, to alleviate suffering and pave the way for the reconstruction of shattered societies.
The world has changed considerably in the past four years. A familiar world has suddenly disappeared, a new one is being bom among uncertainties, a resurgence of ugly nationalism and religious hatreds. We could well choose to ignore this new reality or take a comfortable back seat. This has not been the choice of this government. Our vision is to enhance Canada's reputation as a nation of experienced and trusted peacekeepers and to build upon it with thoughtfulness and imagination-as well as with a sense of compassion and care-care for the victims of conflict, and care for our soldiers.
Canadian peacekeepers are deployed when the international community has decided that they are needed and that Canada's contribution will make a difference. This must be emphasized. Support for the United Nations and the multilateral system is a pillar of Canadian foreign policy. Given our history and place in the world it has served us well.
Six years ago the United Nations was responsible for
10,000	peacekeepers and today is managing close to 50,000. That number may well double soon. It is therefore critical for Canada to ensure that the United Nations be better equipped for the task placed upon it by member states. This has been recognized by the Secretary-General who launched an urgent appeal to the international community in his agenda for peace. Canada has responded because the efficiency of the United Nations is as critical to the enhancement of peace and security in the world as it is critical to the safety of its military and civilian peacekeepers.
Moreover, Canada has provided some of its most qualified staff to the United Nations' Peacekeeping Office, including the military adviser to the Secretary-General, General Baril. Canadian officers have taken the lead in providing expert studies designed to strengthen the ability of the United Nations to do its job. One study on providing stand by forces to the United Nations has just been completed. If implemented it will enable operations to start earlier and under optimal circumstances, thus enhancing the security of troops and civilians.
Our pleas that the United Nations establish a 24 hour seven day a week situation room have been heard. The facility is being set up.
April 29, 1993

My work as minister requires full consultation with my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, and with Canada's highly professional military leaders. I assure the House that this consultation takes place on an ongoing basis.

I want to ask the Liberals if they understand how peacekeeping forces are mandated and instructed because I do not think they do. Do they seriously believe that a peacekeeping mandate is a little manual that addresses every contingency a commanding officer is likely to encounter in the field? Does my critic on the other side so misunderstand the relationship between political decision makers and military professionals that he thinks nothing can be left to the good judgment and professional competence of our peacekeepers?
It appears to me that if there is confusion and a lack of clarity, it is in the minds of those on the other side. On this side of the House, we understand the responsibilities that weigh on commanders in the field. We understand the difficult decisions they have to make in changing circumstances. Together, my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, and I go to considerable lengths to ensure that both their mandate and the resources available to them in their own estimation are appropriate to the task they have to perform.
That does not detract from the difficulty of the task, nor from the risks. However it is no service to our commanders, our peacekeepers around the world to suggest that the job of the government, let alone of the opposition critic, is to second-guess their every move.
That is why I energetically pursued discussions last week with the United Nations, the foreign ministers of the United Kingdom and Greece and the External Relations Commissioner of the European Community. It is because we recognize the partnership and the need to ensure the environment for our people on the ground. That is why I am also in frequent touch with U.S. Secretary of State Christopher. His country is looking at the role it might play for the first time in this troubled region.
I am working to ensure that our peacekeeping activities are co-ordinated with those of other governments,
Supply
for example and in particular, in the case of our allies' promise of support to Canadian troops in Srebrenica.
I also constantly remind other governments that the planning of any further military action in the former Yugoslavia must take into consideration the safety of peacekeeping forces and humanitarian workers already on the ground.
Those are the kinds of diplomatic efforts our peacekeeping forces require from government. What I find most offensive about the Liberal Party's attack is that it undermines the efforts we are making in concert with many other countries to try to move the Yugoslav conflict to the stage of negotiations.
I want to assure the people of Canada, particularly our people on the ground and the families of our peacekeepers, that we went into the former Yugoslavia with our eyes open. We joined UNPROFOR in Croatia to help monitor a ceasefire and to prevent massive bloodshed. The international community's efforts there, and I want to underline this for the House, have met with success. The so-called Sector West where Canadians are deployed is tense but it is quiet and it is the most stable in the region.
Next week I am going to visit our troops there and tell them how proud Canadians are of them. Despite difficulties in fulfilling the mandate of UNPROFOR due to distrust and hatred on both sides, there is no alternative to renewing the mandate. UNPROFOR I, with Canadian participation, has saved countless lives in Croatia and Canadians are proud to share this success.
Canada joined UNPROFOR II in Bosnia for a compelling humanitarian mission: to escort convoys of food and medicine, and to protect refugees from attack. Again this has saved thousands of lives but has tragically not resolved the conflict. No one is more aware than I of the terrible personal tragedies, the rape of women and girls, the agony at the loss of homes and loved ones.
We are in constant touch with UNPROFOR and with the United Nations in New York to ensure that our soldiers have the support and guidance they need to discharge this very difficult mandate. We have ensured the appropriate participation of Canadian military officers in the over-all command structure.
I want to reassure Canadians particularly about Srebrenica, a place where all the world is focused at the moment. On April 6 the Security Council decided to

April 29, 1993
Supply
establish a UN presence and a "safe area" there to avoid a mass slaughter of some 30,000 besieged Bosnian Muslims.
UNPROFOR decided to send a company of Canadians and brokered a demilitarization agreement between Serbs and Muslims. The mission, I want to point out very proudly, is a major barrier to further tragedy in that town.
While it is not without risks, we have examined thoroughly the safety of our troops. We are satisfied by our consultations with the United Nations and with key colleagues such as the United Kingdom and France that have offered their support and assistance if necessary.
I want to clarify the mission because, despite mistaken assertions that our 194 soldiers are there to defend thousands of unarmed Muslims against thousands of well armed Serbs, this is not the case. This is a peacekeeping situation where UN peacekeepers are asked to monitor an agreement signed by both parties. It is not their mandate to become a party to open warfare.
There is some kind of mythology that soldiers in peacekeeping missions are not well equipped. They are not well enough equipped to resist a major attack, but they are better equipped than the public has been led to believe by the sceptics opposite.
The soldiers can defend themselves and they can protect villages against rogue elements. They are trained to do so and they are equipped to do so. Should there be a massive onslaught, of which there is no indication as we speak, the peacekeepers would be backed up or they would be pulled out.
My visit to Bosnia next week may well provide me with additional insight which I will be happy to share with this House once I return. Once again I shall be in a position to personally tell our troops of our great pride in them.
I want to spend a few minutes talking about Somalia. When Canada decided to join the initial peacekeeping operation it was also in response to concerns expressed by Canadians about an appalling human disaster. Should Canada have decided to ignore the reality of starvation and banditry? This government said no. Our soldiers there, our peacekeepers there, have once again committed themselves in a way that Canadians can be proud of.
Early on it became apparent that traditional peacekeeping would not work. We agreed to join a peace enforcement operation mandated by the UN and led by the United States. We did not take this decision lightly. Once again my colleague, the Minister of National Defence, and I consulted closely to ensure that we were satisfied with all aspects of the proposed operation, its objectives and the rules of engagement. We agreed that the requirement for troops was urgent and that the concept of operations was sound.
Canada played a critical role in ensuring progress in establishing a secure environment in Somalia. Our troops fed thousands of starving women, men and children. Canada insisted-we were in the forefront internationally of insisting-that priority attention be given to disarming the gangs that preyed on the unfortunate population. Enough progress has been made that a United Nations commander can now take over from the Unified Command. When in Somalia in about 10 days, once again I shall reassure our troops there of our continued admiration and support.
My final point in this debate is that there are constructive possibilities too. The opposition has paid no attention to some of the things we are engaged in and some of the things in the Secretary-General's agenda for peace referring specifically to preventive diplomacy. In many respects that is another new frontier, a frontier in which this government has played a strong role internationally, a role that has been acknowledged by many other countries.
We have a long way to go when we talk about preventive diplomacy. We have a long way to go before we understand how to recognize signs of impending conflict, how best to cut conflicts off and how they affect national sovereignty. Some of these things can blight a generation and destroy a country as the tragic circumstances of the former Yugoslavia show if they are not headed off in advance.
Canada is represented in CSCE monitoring missions in Kosovo and in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia. There, so far, we have seen greater stability because of those efforts. Likewise we have participated in preventive deployments as when we sent several
April 29, 1993

hundred troops to the same region of the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia earlier this year.
There is a lot more to be learned about how to perform this kind of role. What kind of monitoring techniques reduce tensions and restore calm? What addresses the underlying causes of conflicts? That is one direction in which I would like to see discussion in this House and in the country. So far we have not seen much constructive debate or much constructive contribution from the other side.
Early warning, preventive diplomacy and preventive deployment are tasks that do not always require the same kinds of massive forces and resources as are needed after the fact. However, they do need special sensitivity and they need to be tackled with discretion and expertise.
Those are two attributes that have marked our international reputation throughout the post-war period. However in the post cold war era, we are heading into a new environment. We are able to advance our capacities in that direction. Indeed we have a chance to add further lustre to our reputation and provide leadership for other countries that perhaps do not have the experience and the same sensitivity to ethnic differences, to self-determination and other things that Canadians really know something about.
As I said, next week I will be in Croatia and Bosnia followed by Somalia. I will meet with our people on the ground. I will have a lot of questions to ask because I believe that in sensitive operations such as these, clear and effective communication requires constant attention. We are breaking new ground. If the opposition chose, I think it could have a real contribution to make to that. So far it has not chosen to.
I will return with a livelier appreciation of the problems. I know I will not be disheartened by the attitude of our people in the field. They are facing an enormous challenge. We are fully supporting them and we are being innovative in how we do so. Peacekeeping in the nineties is a different proposition from what it was in the early days when we did lose some of our peacekeepers, but it remains an aspect of our international activities to
Supply
date through which we rediscover our national purpose and makes us even larger than the sum of our parts.


Mr. Ross Belsher (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and Minister for the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency):: Mr. Speaker, it has been my privilege to welcome back on more than one occasion to CFB Chilliwack people from 1-CER, the Combat Engineering Regiment. I must say I have been very proud of our people and the roles they have fulfilled as they have taken on the responsibilities of United Nations peacekeeping force. Actually it was in a war-like situation, certainly 18 months ago or whenever they were in Iraq and Kuwait.
I am also pleased to know a date is looming on the horizon, in the not too distant future, when our troops will come back from Somalia.
In Croatia, Bosnia, and I do not know how many other areas that are part of the former Yugoslavia-we are in several areas there-does she have any guestimate as to how long our troops might have to be there? Does the United Nations have any timetable of how long Canadian forces would be required to fulfil their role? Maybe the minister could give us an outline of how many different places in former Yugoslavia Canadian troops are at present.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have that question from the hon. member. One thing we have not been able to do very well as a member of the United Nations or as part of the collective in the United Nations is find ways to easily end the engagements we enter into.
We can see that from Cyprus where we have been engaged for 29 years. As a result we are bringing people home because we feel that has been a major contribution to stability in the region and that others can assume those responsibilities. More important, the parties should get together. It is their own responsibility to bring that to a conclusion.
In terms of Somalia we were in for a limited period of time. As part of the enforcement mission which was obviously a bit outside the normal guidelines for peacekeeping but well within the guidelines and the charter of the United Nations, we did say we would only go in for a limited period of time.
I cannot give the hon. member a specific date but our troops will be leaving Somalia very shortly. Perhaps we

April 29, 1993
Supply
will have some leaving at the end of May. We are just looking at how that should happen or whether there will be a need for a continued deployment for a very short period afterward.
In the former Yugoslavia we have a slightly different situation. We have peacekeepers, as I pointed out, in Sector West in Croatia, we have some unarmed police who often get forgotten about who are keeping the civil peace and we also have our troops in Sarajevo and Srebrenica and other parts of Bosnia. As I suggested we have participated with a troop deployment in the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and we have had observers in that region in Kosovo.
Obviously under the current circumstance it is very difficult to put a conclusion on that in terms of a date. We are urging an end to the dispute through negotiation and through trying to bring the parties together. These are all the things that are needed in order to resolve at least the dispute or the conflict or at least the tragedy even if we cannot end the hatreds and divisions that are driving the region in the foreseeable future. I understand the hon. member's concern for the timing of these missions.


David Kilgour: I wonder if the minister would be kind enough to tell us how much she expects the operations in Somalia to cost the Canadian taxpayers.
Before she does so I would like to quote from Dr. Mahbub ul Haq. He is the head of the UN development program who said I believe in Ottawa not very many months ago: "The threat to you Canadians will come not from ideological differences but from poverty. Your 5 per cent of the world's people will have to deal with the 95 per cent in developing countries. You can stop poor people at your borders but you cannot stop poverty from spreading in the form of drugs, pollution and terrorism".
The government has cut our ODA enormously. There has been no public or even parliamentary consultation on it. It was an update, in fact a memo, entitled "An update" that decided which countries would live and which would die, so to speak.
I do not think the minister, with respect, understands that Canadians feel very strongly about these issues. Canadians feel it is moronic to spend a billion dollars in Somalia trying to relieve tragedy there when at the same time we are cutting off Uganda or a host of other countries for reasons that have never been adequately explained. I wonder if the minister might explain them today.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I assume that the hon. member was serious in his intent in the first part of his question. I do not have the figure with me on the costs in Somalia although at one point we did go through them. The mission has had several changing concepts. I would be glad to get him the figure on the cost if he would like.
Mr. Kilgour Just an approximation.


Barbara Jean McDougall: I know roughly what it is but I thought the question was serious and that he might want to actually have a precise answer in which case I would be happy to get it for him. However, it sounds like he is not interested.
I would like to point out that our aid program has not been cut drastically. Indeed, it went up faster than government expenditures for quite a number of years and has really only been subject to cuts very recently.
In terms of any changes that will come to our aid program, there are a number of changing demands on it. It is not just Russia and the former Soviet Union and countries such as that. It is environmental concerns. It is whether or not we should maybe concentrate more on particular countries and have a greater impact in certain regions. There were some decisions made by CIDA last year in its own programming made internally about how to deploy its funds within Africa.
However, I want to assure the House and the Canadian people that first of all the funding remains for famine relief and other emergencies. There is no change in our policy on that. That money is there when it is required.
Second, any changes that we have been looking at internally will be brought to the Canadian people for consultation. There is absolutely no intent to not do that.
I understand the significance of aid. The hon. member has said that it does not make any sense to cut out funding to one country and to spend a billion dollars in Somalia. Let us look at what happened in Somalia.
April 29, 1993

Without going in and creating an environment where we can feed people there is no point in having an aid budget. Obviously that is another change.
Here is one of the things that was discussed in the peacekeeping seminar that I conducted and hosted in February where we had a number of aid people. They suggested that instead of our aid program being quite independent of our peacekeeping program that we should look at providing aid following an exercise such as the one we are engaged in in Somalia. There should be greater integration between CIDA programming and our peacekeeping, peace building and democratic institution building operations. That is a point that is very well taken. It is one that I have asked our people to look into. When we are in a position to do so we will be bringing forward a discussion on what our aid budget should look like in the future. I think the hon. member will be satisfied.
Many of the non-government organizations were quite alarmed early on when they heard all these rumours and all the speculation about changes to our aid program. When they actually sat down and talked about what our approach was going to be they said that that is something they could live with and looked forward to being a part of the discussion.


David Kilgour: Name one.


Barbara Jean McDougall: 


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, may I say at the beginning that the intention at this time is to divide the 20 minutes that have been allocated to the NDP caucus between myself and the member for Trinity-Spadina. I will speak for the first 10 minutes and the member for Trinity-Spadina will have the remaining
10.1	trust, Mr. Speaker, that you will let me know when my 10 minutes are up by giving me the appropriate signal.
I am pleased to speak to this motion by the Official Opposition.
That this House condemn the lack of leadership, the evasion of accountability and responsibility and the inadequate credibility of the Minister of National Defence that have exposed members of the Canadian Forces on difficult and sensitive peacekeeping missions to unnecessary vulnerability and that contribute to the gravity of
Supply
national fiscal problems by her persisting in the acquisition of
enormously expensive equipment designed for missions no longer
contemplated.
The words "inadequate credibility" make an interesting phrase.
It is a wordy motion but I think the merit of it is that it provides us with an opportunity to debate a number of things that the House I think has been yearning to debate for some time because of the prominence of the role that Canadian troops have taken in situations in the former Yugoslavia and in Somalia.
I think it would be a mistake for people who are watching or for people on the government side to think that somehow this concern is only manifested because the Minister of National Defence happens to be a candidate for the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party and therefore for the job of Prime Minister, however briefly.
It is something that would have come up anyway. It may be a misfortune for the Minister of National Defence to hold a portfolio in which there are pressing issues at the same time that she would like to devote herself full time to the leadership race. The fact is that no matter who the Minister of National Defence is at this time I think it is fair to say that the opposition would be wanting the same kind of answers and having the same kind of concerns as we have now.
I think the Minister of National Defence did play a very dangerous game for herself and for the House of Commons when she basically tried to avoid the House on these issues. I think the opposition was quite within its rights to complain and to protest that the Minister of National Defence ought to have been in the House. The opposition was right when it objected to the fact that for a while anyway she was not here to answer our questions and to give an account of her own involvement in these issues particularly of course with respect to the situation that developed in Somalia.
The minister did come to the House. I think she would have done herself irreparable damage had she not. Maybe we need to think about some rules for the future about the role of ministers if, as and when they become leadership candidates. Maybe there should be some obligation on their part to step aside and allow someone to take their place.

April 29, 1993
Supply
Frequently I am sure that this is not a big deal. It may be that the particular portfolio that a leadership candidate has is uneventful during the term of the leadership race. In this case-perhaps the exception here should dictate the rule-it did not turn out to be that way. We found out the inadequacies of having people on the road doing party things, ministers in particular, when they should be here in the House answering for things that were happening in their own departments. These are things that were obviously of concern not just to members of Parliament but to Canadians, to the families of Canadians that are on duty in Somalia and in the former Yugoslavia and to people who are concerned everywhere about Canada's good reputation as a peacekeeping nation and one that provides peacekeepers.
I mention the problem of reputation because one of the things that disturbed me immediately was that the minute the opposition began to ask questions about events in Somalia the first reaction of the government was not to say: "Yes, we share your concern about this", but to try to smear the opposition by implying we were trying to bring the Canadian Armed Forces into disrepute. We were guilty of innuendo and everything else.
I remember very well the difference in the attitude of the government House leader from one day to the next. When the hon. member from Victoria first raised a matter concerning Somalia he was accused of all kinds of things. Then when the letter from the Canadian Armed Forces person to his spouse was released subsequent to that then all of a sudden the tone changed.
Why could the question from a known and responsible member of Parliament not have been treated with that kind of seriousness in the first place? Why did we have to go through all these kinds of playground antics about that member or any other member having an attitude toward the Canadian Armed Forces?
It seems to me that one can be a friend of the Canadian Armed Forces or the people who serve in the Canadian Armed Forces and still be a critic of government policy and still be interested in seeing that justice is done with respect to particular events or particular
actions that may be taken by particular individuals in the Canadian Armed Forces.
I thought that was why we went to war on a number of occasions in the first place. It was so that we would have that kind of freedom to stand up in this place and ask honest, forthright questions not just about what bad guys do but about what sometimes the good guys do. It is sometimes the case that one gets bad behaviour even within groups and institutions that one might otherwise respect. That is all we were doing.
I think the early response by the government members was quite despicable in that regard. They were the ones who tried to turn it into an exchange of cheap shots.
We were the ones who were concerned about the reputation of the Canadian Armed Forces and the reputation of Canada as a peacekeeping nation and as a country that has a reputation for providing competent, reliable and professional peacekeepers around the world whenever they have been needed.
I have had the opportunity personally as a member of Parliament to visit a number of Canadian peacekeeping operations. I have always felt good about the work that people were doing whether it was on the green line in Cyprus that I had an opportunity to tour at one time or working directly with experienced Canadian officers with peacekeeping experience during my time on the special committee on the peace process in Central America or visiting peacekeepers in other contexts as well.
We have a great deal of respect for the work that Canadians do. It is because of that respect that we raise these issues with trepidation. No one enjoys raising these kinds of issues.
The government should have been more forthcoming and the minister should have been more forthcoming. Now that there is some evidence of a real discrepancy between what the minister told the House and what her own chief of staff said was the case with respect to who knew what, when and where, I think that the call for a public inquiry that has been made by a number of people is a legitimate request. It is not enough just to have a military board of inquiry because a military board of inquiry is a very secretive thing. I had some experience with them in the early 1980s. One of my constituents was killed in a militia accident. It took us a couple of years to
lif
iSSsT

April 29, 1993

get the transcript of the board of inquiry. When we did get it a great deal of it was blotted out. We only got that through the freedom of information process. I approach this issue with a certain amount of scepticism about boards of inquiry.
We do need more debate in this House about the changing role of peacekeeping. The minister acknowledged this. She had a conference on it. There needs to be more engagement of members of Parliament and of the Canadian public in general in debate about the changing role. We used to be peacekeepers and when we were peacekeepers there was a peace to keep.
Now we go into situations in which we are also involved in humanitarian aid while the bombs are falling. We are also involved in something that might be called in some cases peacemaking and in others peace-enforcing. There are a lot of ambiguities and new risks and dangers that attend these kinds of activities.
I would certainly recommend to the government that it provide some of its time for debate on these issues. Perhaps we could even have a special debate to enable more members to express themselves on these issues which are such a strong concern for a lot of Canadians.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to have an opportunity to make some comments on this issue. I do not wish to reiterate comments my colleague has just made or comments my colleague from Victoria made before lunch. They covered those very well.
I wish to address another aspect of the problem. We have had acknowledgement, not just in this House but in other parts of the establishment, that there are some problems with regard to Canadian peacekeeping. I am going to refer to that briefly.
What I want to do in my time is to go a little bit deeper into the problems that come to us from the situation in the world and which have given the Canadian government, the Canadian Armed Forces and the Canadian people a different situation with which we are not accustomed to dealing.
The way the problem has appeared in the first instance is that our Canadian Armed Forces seem to be not as well trained as they might be or should be. I do not want
Supply
to belabour it but I just want to reiterate briefly that is the opinion not just expressed by certain members in this House or certain members of the public but by the military, the Armed Forces establishment.
I am referring partly to a report that came out a couple of years ago. It states:
From the Canadian Forces Staff School, through the CLFCSC and the CFCSC, PKO-
-which stands for peacekeeping operationsreceive little if any attention. The only formal class taught is at the CFCSC where a one-period lecture on PKO is followed by a one-period syndicate discussion.
There is another report, also from the Armed Forces, and it is dated July 1991.1 will come back to the question of date. It reads:
There has been in the Canadian forces a prevailing attitude that we need do very little in the way of preparation of our peacekeepers because of the basic military skills already learned. Unfortunately, this attitude is causing difficulties in competing with other peacekeeping contributors which are paying attention to the expressed wishes of the UN, and which are gradually upgrading their peacekeeping skills.
That is the end of that quotation. I want to add another one from a 1991 staff paper prepared for General de Chastelain. It reads:
The concept of a national centre for peacekeeping is sound. It would be cost effective if there is to be any dramatic increase to the number of peacekeeping missions to which Canada contributes.
What I want to say is that although those reports are two years old this comment, which is dated in 1991, indicates a recognized need for some remedy.
I have another comment. It is from General Clayton Beattie. He says:
If you want an important job done well, do it the way Canadian forces have routinely done it for their other priority tasks: develop a training centre. We have land combat training centres, maritime training centres, basic training centres, flight training centres, engineering schools, schools for administration and logistics, and so on. It is time DND developed a peacekeeping training centre.
It has been recognized that we need upgrading and improvement in our peacekeeping training. I believe the matter has not been dropped by the Armed Forces but I do not want to go into the details of what may or may not be done since those comments were made within the Armed Forces.

April 29, 1993
Supply
My point is that events in Bosnia and Somalia in particular have changed the need. Peacekeeping is not what it used to be. The question arises particularly because of attempts to deal with situations that peacekeeping did not deal with on previous occasions and which do not seem to have been envisaged by the late Prime Minister Pearson, who initiated this.
With the Moscow-Washington cold war gone the old fashioned peacekeeping operation has to be reconsidered. There was a negotiation, including the small and the great powers and the superpowers, and an agreement that a certain line would be honoured and then people were sent in as honest brokers from the most neutral countries that could be found or the most willing countries that could be found to observe, monitor and report, and by that means they would try to maintain the integrity of that demarcation or peace line.
Out of that, over a period of several decades, grew the general concept of peacekeeping which concentrated on humanitarian relief, election monitoring, civil administration, observation, fact finding, early warning, mediation and arbitration. All of those are not really military functions but they are close to military functions. They do not involve the direct use or even a serious threat of armed force.
Now we are being asked to consider preventive deployment, perhaps in Kosovo, and peace enforcement, such as a blockade on the sea and a blockade on the Danube. No plans for this have been laid down by the United Nations.
Secretary-General Boutros-Ghali is trying to lay down rules but it is not really settled yet. It is not really clear among Canadians. We are no longer locked into a fixed situation, an obligation to the United States. We are asked to do many things and we cannot do them all.
There is a strong feeling that we should select one that we could do well, which is the peacekeeping operation. That would be Canada's independent way to serve the world.
With respect to the peacekeeping operation, I want to say that we have to look to where the main conflict is and not be completely obsessed with immediate examples. The main conflict now is between the north and the south, particularly the countries of the Atlantic community that used to control most of the other countries by
military conquest and as colonies. Since World War II those other countries have achieved at least nominal political independence and are members of the United Nations. That also happens to be the division between the richest nations and the poorest nations.
In that respect I want to refer to the United Nations report on development by Dr. ul Haq. He says:
In 1960, the richest 20 per cent of the world's population had incomes 30 times greater than the poorest 20 per cent. By 1990, the richest 20 per cent were getting 60 times more. And this comparison is based on the distribution between rich and poor countries. Adding the maldistribution within countries, the richest 20 per cent of the world's people get at least 150 times more than the poorest 20 per cent.
That is obviously a recipe for trouble, and not just for the poor people. Some of them want to change their status. Dr. ul Haq pointed out when he met our committees that his opinion is that future wars will not be so much between countries as between peoples so that peacekeeping rather than policing will be what is needed.
Policing is for governing a territory. Handling disputes between peoples requires a different approach and a different technique. What we therefore need is an inquiry that is an exploration within Canada and within the United Nations on just exactly what things need to be done for peacekeeping and how to get them done.
I am not at all sure that enforcement should be part of peacekeeping. I agree with a Globe and Mail editorial that once said that this peace enforcement looks like war enforcement. This peacekeeping looks like war-making.
We do not have the clear boundary line between peacekeeping and war that we thought we had for several decades. Part of what we have to decide today is that this subject of what is peacekeeping in the new situation between the richest peoples and the poorest peoples, wherever their territorial boundaries are, is where we have to look at making our contribution toward world peace.


Ross Harvey: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from Trinity-Spadina.
I took to heart his comments about the divisions in wealth prevalent on our planet. I think particularly of the fact that we are now involved in peacekeeping operations in Somalia, which surely must rank among the poorest territories on the planet. In terms of the internal troubles besetting the Canadian forces it seems to be
April 29, 1993

generating more than its fair share, at least in terms of troops dispatched about the planet.
I would like to ask the hon. member if in his opinion that which Canada is now attempting to achieve in Somalia at least to some degree by force of arms could not in the long term be better sought through the use of generosity of spirit.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I think the direction in which he is looking is spot on.
I have no particular knowledge of Somalia but I would like to speak about a roughly similar example, El Salvador. I visited it in January and several times before. Guatemala is another example.
The United Nations has gone far beyond peacekeeping in El Salvador. It has helped to monitor a cease-fire in which not one shot was fired on the combatants in a year, which is remarkable. It then supervised and validated about a year of negotiations for the peace accord, signed in the presence of the outgoing Secretary General of the United Nations. He would not let them go until they had finished the job of signing it.
Under his successor, the United Nations with strong Canadian participation has remained present in El Salvador. It is now committed to remaining until at least a month after the elections which will be held in early 1994. That will ensure, as far as international action can, the peace accords, the economic rearrangements, the human rights rearrangements, the juridical rearrangements and to cap it all off, a peaceful, clean election in March of 1994. The United Nations has committed itself to that.
There was precedent for that when the Government of Nicaragua invited the United Nations into its election. It is not the same in Somalia because it is not a state, so I am told, because it was destroyed. I think that kind of peaceful intervention by the United Nations is likely to be far more productive for all concerned than leaving it until there has to be shooting and bombing to resolve a situation that was allowed to go too far.
Supply
Mr. Ken Janies (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs) Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on the opposition motion as presented.
I want to address the claims by the opposition that members of the Canadian forces who are now on peacekeeping missions around the world have been somewhat exposed or would be exposed to some sort of vulnerability. I think that is of concern and it is important to talk about it.
The situation, of course, is dangerous. It is obvious to anyone who watches TV or reads a paper that our peacekeepers are exposed to certain dangers. To wantonly question the efforts of the men and women of the Canadian forces when they really need unity and support is on the edge of being shameless and is a concern of mine.
Before moving to the actual situation on the ground in former Yugoslavia I want to first outline for the House how the men and women of the Armed Forces are prepared for peacekeeping. I think the member for Trinity-Spadina had some concern about how we should be preparing our peacekeepers and it is important to speak to that.
There is a false impression in some quarters by other people, not the hon. member, that we can simply walk in off the street and become peacekeepers by donning berets. Of course this is not possible.
The general purpose combat skills of the Canadian forces have become more and more essential for most of the personnel we are deploying, especially those who are going to the Balkans. Not surprisingly it has been said that peacekeeping is not a job for a soldier but it is a job only a soldier can do. This is only too valid a point today.
In fact on the basis of 44 years experience on five continents the Department of National Defence rightly believes that the best peacekeeper is a well-trained soldier, sailor, or aviator who knows his or her trade.
The suggestion that the government would recklessly send a poorly trained or improperly equipped contingent

April 29, 1993
Supply
on any mission around the world is absolute nonsense. If everyone here really thinks about it they know that.
The basic military training of our forces training for the defence of Canada or to meet the collective security obligations is the source of their flexibility, their ability to respond to critical situations and of course their discipline. These are all key attributes required for peacekeeping.
I should not go further without taking the opportunity to talk about training because the hon. member for Trinity-Spadina has concerns about that. Members of the Canadian forces believe it is the training they get that makes them the kind of peacekeepers they are.
To ensure that high quality training the Armed Forces continually evaluates the methods the hon. member was concerned about and makes needed improvements as a matter of course. Some studies have identified the need for specialized training focusing on environmental, cultural and administrative preparation. Such training is decentralized and normally tailored to the very specific missions that our peacekeepers are going on.
For example a battalion selected for duty receives mission oriented training at home and before departure. Officers to be posted as UN military observers normally receive eight days training to prepare for their duties. There is a concern about training and the hon. member is certainly right in that we do constantly train. As the hon. member mentioned there must be a kind of flexibility so we can adjust to changing times.
Even the United Nations regards basic military training as a source of many of the skills required for peacekeeping. I do not want to suggest that there is not some concern about how those in the military who are fighters become peacekeepers. They are certainly trained to be flexible and there are training schools to do all that.
The Department of National Defence also endeavours to work with, receive information from and dialogue with the United Nations with regard to training.
There is a one week indoctrination and training process conducted at CFB Montreal every quarter for all those who are designated to serve in places like the Golan Heights and Syria.
An eight day training program is held once a year at CFB Montreal for the officers warned of possible postings to existing missions as military observers. There is a three day intensive training session which is held at National Defence Headquarters in Ottawa for officers warned of immediate departure for peacekeeping operations.
Obviously, training of Canadian forces for peacekeeping is appropriate for the tasks at hand. This has been borne out by the fact that for more than four decades
90,000	Canadian men and women have been involved in keeping the peace around the world and less than 90 personnel have lost their lives. Certainly the record has been excellent. We have a tremendous reputation and considering the number of people, over 90,000 men and women, who have been involved in peacekeeping it is quite a record.
The Canadian peacekeeping experience is the collective result of our people and our Canadian forces being involved in patrols along the green line in Nicosia, clearing mines in the sands of Kuwait and patrols in the jungles of Indo-China. It is an experience which is sought after by a growing number of United Nations member states.
It is not surprising that Canada is asked to share its peacekeeping experience with other nations and has provided briefing teams. The success of our peacekeeping abilities has been noted by other countries. Canada has provided briefing teams to more than 20 different countries around the world. Members of the Canadian forces returned just late last week from such briefings in Egypt and Pakistan. We are helping other countries around the world.
Canada is a respected member of the international community and it is one of the reasons why we are always being approached by the United Nations to provide our experience and our excellence to peacekeeping missions. Other countries know this and are eager to know what makes Canada and Canadians such able peacekeepers.
Time and time again they are told that it is basic training as the hon. member from Spadina stated. It is discipline, combat skills, suitable equipment, good communications and able logistic support. All those things are part and parcel of the success of our forces.
April 29, 1993

These qualities of course are also why we are approached by both the European Community and the United Nations to provide personnel for the international efforts to bring peace to the former Yugoslavia. In fact Canada was among the first to call for international action to resolve the crisis. Canada took its place among the members of the international community and agreed to do what it could to help end this horrible conflict.
Even though experienced peacekeeping personnel were required in the former Yugoslavia, the government carefully considered the conflict in light of the criteria or guidelines which have evolved in Canada to assist the government in deciding whether or not Canada should participate in peacekeeping missions.
Besides the training and military aspects I think the opposition will be reassured to know there are also important criteria that are considered before deciding whether we will go with the mission or not.
While these criteria are clearly not absolute they have served Canada well and include a number of areas. There must be a threat to the international peace and security of the country. The mission must be linked to efforts to obtain political settlement. The mission must have a clear and enforceable mandate. There should be agreement by the principal antagonists to the presence of Canadian troops to a peacekeeping mission.
The mission must have a clearly defined concept of operations and an appropriate command and control structure. The size, equipment and international composition of the forces must be appropriate to the mandate. The mission must have an appropriate logistics concept to support the force. The mission should be accountable to a single identifiable authority competent to support the operation. The mission must have an appropriate funding arrangement. The mission must have clear rules of engagement. The risk to Canadian forces personnel must be acceptable. The mission should not jeopardize other Canadian forces missions.
There is a good long list of very important points in the criteria of making the determination to be involved.
Supply
It was only after considering all the implications that the decision was made to join the international efforts to bring a measure of peace and security to the Balkans. I am sure all members of the House will agree that we as Canadians should not condemn the brave men and women of the Canadian forces who are in the former Yugoslavia for trying their hardest in other places in the world to help.
Many Canadians, indeed several members of Parliament, have asked why Canada has even become involved in efforts to bring peace to other parts of the world. The answer is simple. Successive Canadian governments have argued that a safer, more secure international environment is key to Canada's continued security and prosperity-
That is why in addition to defence and collective security, and efforts to promote arms control and disarmament, the peaceful resolution of disputes has remained one of the key pillars of the Canadian defence policy.
That is why Canada is a strong supporter of peacekeeping and related operations. We are concerned with threats to the larger international community which might occur as a result of spill-over from more localized conflicts causing us a great international problem.
Some 4,300 Canadian forces personnel are now participating in more than a dozen peacekeeping and related missions world-wide including the European Community modem mission and the United Nations protection forces, both of which are now operating in the Balkans.
As we all know Canada is currently making a significant contribution to the ongoing international efforts to bring peace and security to the region by contributing more than 2,100 members of the forces to these two countries.
Mr. Speaker, I want you and all Canadians to know how very proud I am of our Canadian forces military personnel in the work that they are doing throughout the world. I am very pleased that we as a government are in total support of them wherever they have been as in so many key parts and countries of the world as they are today. Also as a government we are firmly convinced and behind them supporting them in the kind of equipment they need.

April 29, 1993
Supply
The other thing those peacekeepers, the military and Canadian forces need to know is that they are solidly supported by Canadians, by the people back home when they are doing this work. Yes, they go into this line of work knowing they are going to be in dangerous positions, but they want to know that we are going to continually provide the best in equipment for them. Really what they would like to be provided with is solid support by their people back home.
Our government and I totally support them in their endeavours. Trying situations and problems arise sometimes but with the number of people we have sent abroad, the number who have remained unmaimed or unhurt and have contributed so greatly to the world, I applaud them and I applaud our government for the total support shown to our Canadian forces.
Mr. Bill Domm (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister
for Science): Mr. Speaker, one thing I have noticed over the past few weeks in the House of Commons, is there has been a great deal of concern expressed by opposition members over the acquisition of equipment. In fact, I think that probably motivates part of their motion today which talks about the acquisition of enormously expensive equipment designed for missions no longer contemplated.
I would like to speak just for a moment on Ontario's position on the acquisition of these EH-101 helicopters. The industrial benefits to Canada with this acquisition will total 113 per cent of the purchase price of the EH-lOls. This means more money will flow into Canada over the lifetime of this project than the Canadian government will spend on the purchase of the EH-lOls.
Let us take Ontario as an example. I am quite impressed with the job creation this will afford us. Ontario will receive 27 per cent of the total industrial benefits from this national program. Among those companies from Ontario that will benefit from the program are Fleet Industries of Fort Erie, West Heights of Kitchener and Spar Aerospace of Toronto.
Including the helicopter's electronic systems more than 50 per cent of the Canadian aircraft's components will be made in Canada. Thirteen major components of
the EH-101 helicopter will be built in Canada. More than 10 per cent of every EH-101 sold world-wide will be Canadian made.
We have the frigates. We have the aircraft. Now we are going to get the kind of equipment we need. It does represent a commitment over a 10 or 13-year period of some one point so many billion dollars a year, but it is within the framework of the budget. It is in the restraint cutbacks given to the defence department to spend. It is the choice not only of the chief of staff and all his people but it is also the choice of cabinet that in order to complete the frigate program and give added safety to our shore patrol we need this to couple with the frigate to do the kinds of missions needed.
I wonder how the member feels about the acquisition of this equipment and the jobs that it might mean in his area.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for Peterborough. One thing that never fails to amaze me in this House is the hypocrisy that goes on here. If next week we had some of our search and rescue people go down with a piece of old equipment, the hue and ciy would be massive. Therefore we are in the process of buying new equipment for our search and rescue and for our Canadian forces and now we are having fault found with that.
I was asked today by some young school children what I thought of this when money is in such short supply. I told them that I was raised in an environment where we did not have a whole lot. I can remember when I was quite young we had to borrow money and the question was whether to fix up the old car or buy a new one. The latter certainly was probably the more intelligent way to go and that is what we are into here.
The industrial benefits-


An hon. member:: Baloney.


Kenneth Albert James: Well, I am not going to convince the other side. This is the other thing that happens in this place. I sat here very quietly when they spoke and I expect the same to be done for me across the way. Canadians do not appreciate this kind of thing, especially from a close colleague like I have in Kent. That really gets me a little concerned.

April 29, 1993

Supply
The industrial benefits to Canada will total 113 per cent of the purchase price. The spin-off is absolutely fantastic. It has rolled across the nation. Ontario will benefit a great deal with the industrial benefits.
The Liberals want to spend all sorts of money on make-work projects. Never mind using all the Canadian taxpayers' money on make-work projects that only lasted until the people left town and closed up the place. There were years and years of that. So do not tell me about providing our Canadian forces with something needed. The kinds of thing that were mentioned in here today in this oddball motion that was even difficult to read. Now we want to give them up-to-date, modernized equipment and not have to spend all sorts of money on equipment that ends up being 40 years old. It also provides work and jobs across our nation as a spin-off from that very important purchase.
No, the hon. member would rather just take the Canadian taxpayers' money and for every dollar collected send it back out on a make-work project where 50 cents of it falls off the table before it gets out there. Canadians have had far too much of that sort of thing.


David Kilgour: The country is broke, Ken.


Kenneth Albert James: We will have the new modernized equipment that took six years of study to provide to our Canadian forces, our search and rescue people and our military the kind of equipment needed, which they seem to be concerned about in this goofy motion that was put forth.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, we have heard some awful kinds of logic in this debate but we just heard one of the worst.
Other people have estimated that if the $6 billion were used in other ways such as on education and training or on infrastructure it would create as many as 70 times more jobs than this bonanza would.
Why does the member not get up and say that the real reason this project is going ahead is because it is in the riding of the hon. member for Frontenac?


Mr. Crawford:: Right on.


Kenneth Albert James: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should take a little time and look at the amount of dollars that are spent by the federal government in the areas he mentioned. Education is very important and rightly so. It is a great concern of mine, as is the whole area of human resource development. Certainly we have to be spending money there and doing it more intelligently.
However, this government spends over $42 billion annually in the whole area of human resource development, in health, in penitentiaries, on the education of our aboriginal peoples and moneys that go back to the poorer families to help them and so on. It is very important and we do spend substantial moneys. I hope we can get better and more efficient at it. At the same time it is broad based.
I again say that the first time a piece of antiquated equipment goes down when we are attempting to save somebody off our shores, the hon. member will be on his feet-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret the hon. member's time has expired for questions and comments.


Albina Guarnieri: Mr. Speaker, on Monday the Minister of National Defence reacted to the budget by saying: "All of us would like to get out of this ethos where the dominant ethos is deficit budgeting". No wonder there is a communication problem in national defence.
We all know that the minister loves to make pronouncements from on high, but after reaching this new height of bafflegab, we can only assume that she was dominated more by ether than by any ethos.
The motion before the House draws into question the credibility of the Minister of National Defence. I am sure the minister herself would be the first to point out that credibility comes from the Latin credibilis, meaning worthy to be believed.
How can someone be believed if she cannot be understood?
Just the other night on national television the minister was searching for an international threat that would serve to justify her incredible expenditure of the EH-101 helicopters.
I am certain that being as erudite as she professes she would know that incredible also comes from the Latin word credibilis. To her credit she was able to stretch reality far enough to identify Iran as possibly having a submarine that could one day potentially pose a threat to

April 29, 1993
Supply
Canada. Perhaps it would travel halfway around the world to sink some of our Canadian cod.
This is a minister and a government that are still stinging from the sinking of their $8 billion nuclear submarine program and now want to spend nearly $6 billion on helicopters designed to sink someone else's submarines. I guess the minister thinks that if she cannot have any subs then why should anyone else.
Curiously enough the Minister of National Defence is in a pitched battle with the Minister of the Environment whom I am sure would be aware of the perilous crisis that now faces the North Sea nations because of a cold war sub that has sunk off the coast of Norway.
This nuclear submarine is already leaking radioactive substances and threatens to release sufficient plutonium to cause catastrophic damage to the marine environment.
I am sure the Minister of the Environment would be the first to say that the last thing Canada needs is a nuclear sub to be sunk off our coast. This begs the question: Why is this government spending $6 billion to do just that?
Wait, however. The incredible Minister of National Defence tells us that we need these helicopters for search and rescue. They are perhaps to search for her beliefs and rescue her leadership bid.
What she does not readily admit is that only 15 of these 50 helicopters are earmarked for search and rescue. She does not like to mention that Canada has recently purchased 100 utility helicopters for the very same purpose. Nor does she mention that the ferocious turbulence caused by the EH-101 engines may well drown anyone the helicopter may be trying to rescue.
The minister likes to talk about the politics of inclusion. True enough, she has included in her leadership bid at least one prominent lobbyist for the EH-101 contracts. Canadians understand what governs the priorities of members of this government. They understand whose interests come first. They know it is not the interest of ordinary Canadians but that is okay because the Minister of National Defence says she really likes ordinary Canadians although she finds them as boring as she thinks they would find her.
Canadians wonder what kind of cabinet leadership they can expect after the June convention. Are there enough Tories who have read Dostoevsky for the Minister of National Defence to form a cabinet that she would be willing to talk to. Maybe that is why she talks about reducing the size of the cabinet.
With regard to the grim events that took place in Somalia we have now learned that Admiral Anderson repeatedly stated during the course of a press conference that the Minister of National Defence knew that criminal intent might be linked to the death of a Somali man as early as March 18. Yet the minister told the House of Commons on April 26 that she was not aware that the case had criminal overtones until much later: March 31. That was the reason for her delay in informing Canadians.
Because her own chief of defence staff said she clearly knew the seriousness of the incident on March 18 we must ask the Minister of National Defence whether the only things she does not always cover up are her shoulders.
Perhaps this is her idea of open government. It is to treat Canadians like mushrooms. That means to keep them in the dark and feed them intellectual doo-doo.
Just as harmful to Canadians was the budget tabled earlier this week that had as one of its principal objectives to clear the way for the Campbell helicopters to take off with $5.8 billion Canadian tax dollars.
.(1715)
The Minister of National Defence cannot divorce herself from the Tory record. This is a marriage that cannot be put asunder. Even the Prime Minister today in Question Period said that there may be a new Prime Minister but it will be the same government.
The Minister of National Defence says that she has seen the stone tablets that reveal how to cut the deficit to zero in five years. We wonder why she never revealed this wisdom to her obviously inferior colleagues who despite their best efforts could not stop the deficit from rising during their term in office. Perhaps there was no interpreter. What a shame.
The desperation of this government is only matched by the desperation of the unemployed Canadian families whose needs are once again ignored in yet another jobless budget. This is a budget that the Minister of
April 29, 1993

National Defence supports and a budget which in large measure is a consequence of her flawed defence policy.
There were 382,000 more UI beneficiaries in January than there were in September. While aware of this imminent tragedy in December this government refused to make any serious effort to reduce the UI burden by putting Canadians back to work.
Instead this government preferred to back failing European helicopter manufacturers. Back home all this government decided to do was reduce payments to those Canadians who lose their jobs by an across the board 5 per cent cut in payments. This was the government's response to its failure to create jobs.
To fully appreciate the impact of this cut which was supported by the Minister of National Defence it must be understood that the average weekly payment to an unemployed person was $264.30 in January. Unemployed Canadians may well offer the Minister of National Defence a penny for her thoughts because that is all they have left after nine years of this Tory regime.


Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader had loud protestations this morning.
Where are the Conservatives? There is not a single one in the House. Surely in a debate on a government motion there should be a cabinet minister here and I see there is not even one here.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The hon. member knows better. He should not reflect on who is or who is not in the House. There are television monitors. There is business being done behind the curtain and I do not have to reprimand the hon. member because he knows better. There will be members coming in here because he is such a great debater that I am sure they will be coming in here to ask him questions and comments.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: That may be, Mr. Speaker, but there is an obligation on the part of the government on a government motion to have a minister of the Crown in this House. I know the Secretary of State for External Affairs was here earlier. She made a speech that was delightful.
Supply


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am going to say to the hon. member that I do not want him to reflect on who is and who is not in the House. He can carry on with his debate but he knows better.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Mr. Speaker, you know too that there is a convention in this House that there be a cabinet minister present during discussion of government business. I am within my rights to point out the fact that there is not. I have done that before and Your Honour usually knows that that brings cabinet ministers running. They should be here. This is a government motion. This is an important motion and the ministers should be here to hear the debate but they are not.
Anyway, Mr. Speaker, I will continue with my remarks in deference to your ruling.
This morning in his speech the government House leader ranted and raved apparently ad nauseam about the fact that we were bringing this motion only because the Minister of National Defence is seeking the leadership of the Progressive Conservative Party.
I want to make it very clear that in bringing this motion to the House that is not the only reason nor is it the principal reason this motion was brought.
A minister has arrived. That is great.
Indeed the motion itself makes it very clear that the criticism being levelled at this Minister of National Defence is because she is not doing a good job as Minister of National Defence. The evidence that supports that position I think is very clear. I want to go over in some detail the allegation that has been made by my colleague, the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, who put it forward very ably in this House and by the member for Winnipeg South Centre. This was denied so flatly and so hotly by the government House leader. He huffed and he puffed because he did not know what else to say. We have him on the record on this too and I would like to read what happened in this case.
We will recall that the first incident that was complained of took place in Somalia on March 16. We now know that the Minister of National Defence received a briefing on this matter on March 17. She was given this briefing. Her own officials have admitted this and it was clear from the evidence that was subsequently given by

April 29, 1993
Supply
the chief of the defence staff that the briefing was comprehensive. It made it clear there was an investigation with possible criminal overtones underway in Somalia.
On April 2 in this House the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception asked a question. I would like to read his question. He said at page 17989 of Hansard:
Madam Speaker, Canadians and members of Parliament were shocked and disappointed to learn of this incident involving the death of a Somali and four Canadian peacekeepers through the media three weeks after the event.
I want to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. As a previous Associate Minister of National Defence he would be aware that the commanding officer is required to send a significant incident report to the chief of the defence staff.
When was the Minister of National Defence briefed on this issue and when does she plan to inform the House? If she was not briefed, why was she not briefed?
Then we had the government House leader stand up and start spouting fire and brimstone:
Madam Speaker, the hon. member as a former military person would well understand that in the military as in civilian life individuals who may be suspected of having committed a crime are entitled to the normal safety measures, are entitled to be presumed innocent and so on.
In order for investigations to be conducted in a fair manner it is necessary that they be done outside the glare of publicity and done in confidence. That is what is happening.
The Minister of National Defence continues to fulfil her responsibilities as she always has. The question of what her officials have said to her and when they said it, as the hon. member will know, is really not a matter for disclosure on the floor of the House of Commons.
In other words it was a stonewall answer. The hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, being the diligent and capable member that he was, put the question again to the minister:
When did the minister expect that members of Parliament and Canadians should find out? If it was not through the media how were we to find out? It is a significant event. I remind the minister that we have a size and scope of peacekeeping operations unprecedented in Canadian history. We have 4,800 Canadian peacekeepers involved in 18 different locations around the world.
I will not read the whole preamble to the question. He then said:
I want to ask the Acting Prime Minister if he will appoint a full-time Minister of National Defence who will show leadership in
the conduct of these operations and who will implement immediately a formalized regular series of briefings on these operations to the Parliament of Canada.
We had another blowhard answer from the government House leader basically saying that we were trying to discredit the Minister of National Defence and giving no answer. Nothing happened on April 2 when we adjourned for Easter. When Parliament resumed on April 19 the very diligent and very capable member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception was on his feet again and this time the Minister of National Defence was back from her leadership forays to answer his questions. He asked her this:
Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago, the government House leader stood in the House and defended the government's handling of the unfortunate incident in which the Canadian public learned through the media about the death of a Somali involving five Canadian peacekeepers three weeks after the event.
My question is for the Minister of National Defence. Why did the minister not inform the House of this incident as soon as it happened?
The minister rose in her place and said:
Mr. Speaker, the incident was made public the day after it happened by a press release from the Department of National Defence in theatre. I have here a copy of the press release that was issued on March 18 of this year.
The event was made public immediately. There was some confusion because a copy of this press release was not communicated to the Department of National Defence in Ottawa and I have instituted a revision of our communications policies to ensure that does not occur again.
Although I have not actually seen this press release, I am told that it is about five lines. This is not a significant document but it was not communicated to National Defence headquarters and that is what the minister pointed out to the House.
The member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception rose on a supplementary question. I will leave out the preamble. He asked:
My supplementary question is for the Minister of National Defence who should know it is ultimately the minister's responsibility, and the minister's alone, to inform Parliament and the Canadian public. Why is the minister allowing departmental officials to take flak over this issue and why does she not admit to exercising poor judgment in this case?
The minister said:
April 29, 1993

Mr. Speaker, events of this sort are always communicated in the same way directly to the press. There was another event that happened at a similar time that was picked up by the press. This one was not. It is not the custom to always announce these things in Parliament as that hon. member knows well from his experience in the military. As I have said, it was an unacceptable mistake that this was not communicated to defence headquarters and I have taken steps to ensure that error would not happen again.
She was suggesting to the House by this answer it was the fact of this mistake in communication with national defence headquarters that perhaps resulted in a lack of communication in this country.
Whether or not the press release had arrived in DND headquarters she had been told all about it. There had been an incident report filed and she was fully briefed the day after the incident, on March 17. Yet on April 19, over a month later, she was trying to suggest to the House that somehow it did not get out because something did not get to national defence headquarters.
She had full knowledge. A full report had been sent to national defence headquarters and she had been informed of it. Yet she gave this kind of answer to the House. Is this the kind of person who should be Minister of National Defence? It was deliberately designed to create a different impression than was the case. I suggest not.
I want to go to the question put to the government House leader this morning by my friend, the very diligent and very capable member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception. The government House leader ranted and raved-and I am glad to see a second minister has arrived-about the problem.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Again I am going to ask the hon. member to please not do what he is doing.
You have been doing it since you started your debate. You know by convention, or whatever you want to call it, that you do not say who is, who is not, who is coming in or who is not coming into the Chamber, please.


Peter Andrew Stewart Milliken: Now that we have a full house I do not need to refer to presence or absence any longer.
What I wanted to say was that the government House leader, in answer to questions this morning put to him by the member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, was asked why it was the Minister of National Defence gave an answer which was very close to misleading.
Supply
In his question he said: "How can it have been sent to defence headquarters when the minister was briefed? I have trouble with that". The government House leader said the thing that had not come to defence headquarters was this five-line press release.
Who cares whether the press release got to national defence headquarters? Why would the minister think that was significant when she had all the facts given to her on a silver platter? They were put at her fingertips.
If this is the way she runs the Department of National Defence, how is she going to run the Government of Canada? As an opposition we have a duty to point out the shortcomings of ministers in this House. That is part of our responsibility. This is a major shortcoming. This is a major blunder on the part of the minister. It is an answer which frankly should not have been given in the House.
She gave this answer, thereby suggesting that the reason this was not out in Canada was that she had not received a copy of the press release when she had been fully briefed and was fully aware of the matter. If she was not, if she did not know and did not ask the right questions, should she be Minister of National Defence?
She is engaged in a race not to be elected Leader of the Opposition or leader of a party. She is going to be elected Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and will thereupon become Prime Minister of Canada. If she cannot run the Department of National Defence, she cannot run the Government of Canada. That is the problem.
We have a right to know what is going on in this case. We are right to raise this matter in this House and have debate on it. Frankly she should be saying something about what she said the other day. It is nice to have the government House leader here to make a speech defending her as he has to do in Question Period so often, but unfortunately he is not fully briefed on these matters.
We can see it from the bafflegab we were given on April 2. If he was not briefed then he was talking gobbledegook and was stonewalling. If he was briefed he was stonewalling completely and not even bothering with the gobbledegook. It was absolute nonsense that he was speaking. That is why we have raised this in this House and will continue to press the issue.

April 29, 1993
Supply


Mrs. Beryl Gaffney (Nepean):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in the House to condemn the lack of leadership, evasion of accountability and responsibility, and the inadequate credibility of the Minister of National Defence that have exposed members of the Canadian forces on difficult and sensitive peacekeeping missions to unnecessary vulnerability. We on this side of the House believe that contributes to the gravity of national fiscal problems by persisting in the acquisition of enormously expensive equipment designed for missions no longer contemplated.
We believe the responsibility of government actions lies at the feet of the Minister of National Defence who is responsible for the management and direction of our troops.
On April 26 the minister announced an inquiry into incidents in Somalia under section 45 of the National Defence Act. The inquiry will centre principally on whether any of the concerns arising from the Canadian forces operation are the result of systemic problems, particularly in the Canadian Airborne Regiment.
On April 28 Admiral Anderson, chief of defence staff, announced the terms of reference and the members of the inquiry.
The board has the broad mandate of investigating the leadership, discipline, operations, actions and procedure of the Canadian Airborne Regiment battle group. It will also investigate aspects of the training, discipline, effectiveness and appropriateness of professional attitudes and values of the regiment.
The inquiry will not investigate the incidents under military police investigation. It will not examine the conduct of the minister in the incidents.
We on this side of the House have criticisms. The inquiry will centre unfairly on one regiment without looking into the over-all conduct of the Department of National Defence and the minister.
If the Minister of National Defence knew there had been four killings of Somalis by March 17, why did she wait five and a half weeks to announce her inquiry?
The inquiry's proceedings will not be public and it will only report at the end of July after, I might add, a Conservative Party leadership convention.
For the conclusions of the board of inquiry to have any significance, we on this side of the House demand the board investigate what the minister of defence knew and when she knew it.
Moreover we in the opposition party demand that the board of inquiry conduct its investigations in public so that Canadians know we are getting the full story. Nothing in the National Defence Act prohibits a public inquiry.
My colleague, the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception, a retired admiral, a few days ago in the House said:
I can understand that perhaps the minister does not want to address the details, but that does not avoid the major point, that the minister in her responsibility for the direction and management of the Canadian forces as a corollary of that is responsible for informing the Canadian public, the House of Commons and Parliament on the conduct of these operations. This was not done and perhaps would not have been done for some time unless the questions were raised by the Official Opposition in the House to cause the minister to return and attend to her job in a full-time manner so that the issues could be dealt with properly.
These comments were made by a man who spent a career in the armed services and achieved a very high rank during that period of time. Obviously he knows what he is talking about.
To leave the question of Somalia and move on to the question of defence in a more general manner, I find a general frustration with the policies of this government. It has been weakly articulated by the Minister of National Defence. The minister has seemingly failed to recognize the need to move forward and to develop a defence policy which addresses a post cold war era. The minister has said nothing in this regard during her lacklustre performance, I might add, as the Minister of National Defence.
There are several areas we on the opposition side of the House believe she should be looking at that have never been addressed by the government. Support for Canada's commitment to providing such things as the military structure for the United Nations peacekeeping, monitoring, verification and peace enforcement operations has never been addressed; a force structure to
April 29, 1993

Supply
contribute to NATO's capacity to provide support to the UN and possibly other regional organization's operations; peacekeeping training, supply and staging centres at Lahr, Germany, CFB Cornwallis, and possibly other Canadian sites; and adequate resources to fulfil NORAD obligations but with an eye to fundamental review in 1996.
On a national basis the Minister of National Defence has not looked to what we should be doing in our nation. Should we be developing a continued role in maritime and aerial surveillance and control, with a particular emphasis on enhancing northern and Arctic capabilities?
Should we be looking to improved co-ordination with civil authorities on the use of military resources for constabulary and disaster relief functions?
Should we be looking to increased visibility and a role for the reserves, including provision to allow for longer leaves of absence from work?
The Minister of National Defence owes Canadians answers to those questions. She should look at the proposals to see if they merit consideration for a defence policy at the national level.
I believe my time is almost up. I am standing in the House today speaking on behalf of a constituency that has expressed concern over the lack of action by the Minister of National Defence on the particular issue regarding Somalia. I am not speaking on behalf of myself. They are very concerned over the minister's lack of response.


Charles A. Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I too have the pleasure to take part in the debate today which has been going on since this morning on an opposition day and is focused on a motion tabled in the House of Commons by the Liberal Party which represents the Official Opposition.
We have had the opportunity to listen to hon. members from every political party about this Liberal Party's motion which, under the disguise and the pretent of holding a debate on the position of our Armed Forces in different parts of the world, and also under the disguise of discussing the purchase of defence equipment, is aimed particularly at casting or trying to cast the blame
on the Minister of National Defence who is, as everybody knows, a candidate in the leadership race for our party.
The very wording and concept of this motion is of a totally partisan nature and is aimed exclusively and specifically at attacking and discrediting the Minister of National Defence both before this House and before the Canadian public. All the speeches that were made, particularly those of the Official Opposition members, were focused on that objective. It was clear that was the ultimate and crucial objective of the Official Opposition members.
For two or three weeks the opposition has been raising in this House issues on events that occurred in Somalia involving the Canadian military. It also has been raising concerns about the safety of our Armed Forces in Yugoslavia, particularly in Bosnia, under the auspices of the United Nations.
Of course I recognize that the opposition has the right to raise these issues, but it should be done in a totally non-partisan manner and with the sole purpose of expressing concerns about the running of our military operations under the United Nations in these two countries, Somalia and Bosnia. But it always has this political drive to attack particularly the Minister of Defence.
In the last few weeks we gave full and complete answers, without hiding anything to all the questions that were asked by opposition members. All questions that were asked received very clear answers, both from the Government House Leader and the Minister of Defence, and from the Minister of External Affairs and the Prime Minister.
In order to give even more details and to clarify further the situation in Somalia, earlier this week the Minister of Defence came to this House and read a statement outlining all the relevant details that could be given at this point on the situation in Somalia. Members will recall that following the investigations conducted by the Armed Forces in Somalia into the various events referred to, the minister informed the House that she was going to establish an inquiry commission with the mandate to report its findings to her or to the person who will be Minister of National Defence when the report is tabled. This commission will have to report its

April 29, 1993
Supply
findings to the government and to the House of Commons.
Of particular concern to me is the fact that the opposition is questioning the commission's integrity and ability to look thoroughly into the incidents in Somalia. Why question the integrity of the persons who will be part of this commission when the inquiry has not even begun?
Remember that the Minister of National Defence has indicated that civilian members will be named to the commission in order to make the process more open and so that the public can have a better access to information. The Minister of National Defence-and I stress this-has had to change the rules to allow civilians in an inquiry commission on military events.
The Minister of National Defence has nothing to apologize for. She did what was expected of her. She assumed her responsibility in a professional manner, adequately and as openly as possible. She made the facts surrounding the events that occurred in Somalia known as soon as she learned about them.
We must realize that the situation in Somalia for our Armed Forces in no way resembles any situation we might find on the streets of Canadian cities. Our service people in Somalia are working in extremely difficult conditions to which they must adapt in a country that is completely foreign to them, in an extremely volatile situation where, as we know very well, various groups and factions in Somalia have been at war for years now.
Our troops, our service people serving under the United Nations, of course, have gone to that country to try to bring food supplies to people who are dying of hunger in the remotest parts of Somalia. We noticed that the action in Mogadishu did not take very long, because Mogadishu is a big, well-organized city where it was easy for our service people to get set up and organized. Then they went out to more remote regions and places where people really needed their help.
What did our service people do in Somalia? They performed their assigned tasks professionally. They did so with all their experience and with all the attention and sensitivity they need in a country where the situation is volatile. We must realize that the slightest thoughtless action by our troops or their commanders in Somalia
could have caused a great slaughter. It could have resulted in the death of thousands of Somalis and perhaps of many of our soldiers and service people as well. But with their experience and professionalism, they have done their job professionally so far, I repeat.
All day, and even all week, we have heard in the questions and comments of opposition members in the House allegations tending to discredit the work done by our service people in Somalia, and I find that hard to accept. Even if they say they are addressing the minister and the government not the troops, they are discussing painful events that occurred in Somalia under extremely difficult conditions, we must admit.
Since our troops have been in Somalia, with all they have done there, I think that the few deplorable events are not out of proportion. We must absolutely deplore it when people die, but we must realize that Somalia is a country at war. A civil war is going on in that country to which foreigners are sent to try to restore peace and at the same time send food to needy people.
I would ask the opposition members once and for all to consider the difficulties that our service people have to go through in Somalia and to think of their families here in Canada. I would ask them to have a little compassion and understanding for the work our people are doing in Somalia and for the hardship they now experience living apart from their families, because they are in hostile territory on an extremely delicate operation.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I tell you again that the motion presented by the Liberal Party today is aimed strictly at the Defence Minister. By attacking her, this motion cannot help but tarnish the reputation of our forces and we on the government side are prepared to stand up and defend our forces, our soldiers who are abroad, be it in Somalia or in the former Yugoslavia.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs will be travelling soon. She will visit our troops and again convey to them the support of the party in power and of the members on this side of the House, to encourage them to continue their work. Since the United Nations started sending peacekeeping troops in the world to maintain and restore peace, Canada has been there. Canada is always one of the first to be invited to participate in these peacekeeping operations by the UN, and it is to the credit of our Armed Forces. Today, I want to pay tribute to the Canadian Armed Forces and, on behalf of our
April 29, 1993

government and our party, encourage them in their efforts.
The motion of the Liberal Party also refers to the acquisition of enormously expensive equipment designed for missions no longer contemplated. Again, this motion shows the near-sightedness of the Liberals and how they overlook the reality. The reality is that our country is one of the largest in the world. It has a lot of coastline to protect and control, as well as the largest fishing zones in the world.
The Liberals, when they were in power, authorized the construction of frigates and it was agreed and known at that time that the implementation of this project would mean that the helicopters would have to be replaced, modernized or adapted to the new frigates. Without helicopters, these frigates are powerless and have a very limited scope of action. A captain at the helm of his ship has a very limited field of vision on the ocean. However, a military patrol in a helicopter with a range of hundreds of miles in the case of surveillance operations, whether linked to fishing zones, the drug trade, or search and rescue missions, literally becomes a radar and completes the work done by the frigate itself. This is why it is important to provide new equipment, new helicopters for our Armed Forces.
The decision was made to buy the EH-101. Why? First, let me say that this decision was not made lightly. My colleague, the member for Portneuf, who sits on the defence committee, told me this morning that this committee hears both military and civilian experts who come to discuss the new equipment required by our Armed Forces. I believe my colleague from Portneuf also said that the discussions on the new helicopters go back to 1988 or 1987. The Standing Committee on Defence, which is made up of members from the three parties, namely the two opposition parties and the government, took the time and made the necessary efforts to look at every alternative. My colleague from Portneuf also told me this morning that a report of that committee had been unanimously endorsed by the members of the three parties, including the members of the two opposition parties. Therefore, these members approved the type of helicopter that the Canadian forces are in the process of
Supply
acquiring with the approval of Parliament and the Government of Canada.
I want to thank my colleague from Portneuf for providing me with a copy of this report published in November 1990, which is entitled: Maritime Sovereignty. On page 29 of the report, it states clearly that "The Committee recommends that the Sea King helicopters be replaced as planned and that this be done as soon as possible to avoid costly stop gap measures".


An hon. member:: Unanimously.


Charles A. Langlois: Unanimously.
Mr. Speaker, what do the Liberals recommend now?


An hon. member:: Which date did you say?


Charles A. Langlois: November 1990. I repeat for the hon. member that the report was tabled in November 1990.
What do the Liberals recommend now?
They recommend that we abandon the program and invest astronomical sums of money to repair our old Sea Kings and Labradors, which have done their time. These aircraft have been in service for 30 years or so. They have been repaired and re-equipped, and now they have done their time. If we were to do as the Liberals suggest and spend hurge amounts, in excess of $2.4 billion, to repair 30 years-old helicopters, by the time the work be completed, the youngest of these helicopters would be 47 years old and the oldest 57 years old. Mr. Speaker, I would like you to give me the name of one person who is still driving a 47-year-old car in this country. And that is with all four wheels on the ground! The normal life of a car is ten years. Would we be prepared to let our service men and women, whose job it is to make Canada secure, work in 47-year-old and even 57-year-old aircraft? That make no sense.
Another point that was not mentioned I think is that even if we were to refit our old helicopters, the Sea Kings and Labradors, we could not incorporate new technology. It is impossible to fit old aircraft with new defence and communications technology because the helicopters have to be designed to receive the electronic equipment used for navigation, communications and satellite links as well as all the latest sophisticated search and rescue and radar equipment.

April 29, 1993
Private Members' Business
When we sent troops to the Persian Gulf during the Gulf War, I remember some Canadian newspapers and some circles saying that our troops were leaving for the gulf in leaky boats. Our troops will be equipped with brand new frigates, just starting to come out of the shipyards. Would we put helicopters that are not intended for those frigates on them? After considering all the facts for many years, the government came to the logical conclusion that the EH-101 helicopter was the best option.
I would like to take the few moments I have left to touch on the economic benefits that the helicopter acquisition program will have for Canada, and particularly for Quebec, because that interests me as a member from Quebec. I have heard the Liberals on the other side and my hon. friend from the Montreal area complain constantly for a year and a half about the Montreal economy being in decline. My colleague knows who I am talking about. What is happening is that 30 per cent of the industrial benefits of this helicopter acquisition program will accrue to Quebec and companies such as CAE Electronics Ltd., a dynamic business which is not in my riding but in the Montreal area, specifically in the riding of the hon. member for Saint-Leonard. So that will create jobs. CAE Electronics, Paramax Electronics Inc. and Canadian Marconi will enjoy industrial benefits flowing from the helicopter acquisition program for years to come. My colleague from Saint-Leonard will no doubt agree and he should be thrilled as I am about the economic benefits of the program not only for the Canadian economy but also for the economy of Quebec.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. James):: It being six o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 81(17) proceedings on the motion have expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 30(7), the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS


Mr. John E. Cole (York-Simcoe) moved: that Bill C-395, an act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights (right to property), be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee in the Departmental envelope.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to say how pleased I am to be able to stand here today and talk to this particular bill. I want to thank my seconder, the member for Peterborough, for supporting me on this particular bill.
There have been a number of other individuals, such as the member from Markham, the member for Durham, and the member for Red Deer who seconded it originally who have all been very supportive of this bill.
When we look at a bill that relates to property and the right to own property I think most of us think this bill should properly be in the Constitution. I was one of those people who was disappointed that in all the discussions that took place recently throughout this country the right to property did not become part of the Canadian Constitution. I was also disappointed about other things that took place in that debate and discussion and that we were not able to make some changes.
When it was initially suggested that property rights be put into the Constitution I thought that was a good idea. I felt it was important for the Canadian public. When that suggestion came before my York-Simcoe constitutional committee which was studying the proposals it had some difficulty with it. It was made up of a cross-section of 20 to 25 people from my riding who really felt that the protection of property and property rights should properly be in the domain of elected officials.
They felt the elected officials should be responsible for making a decision. If the public were not satisfied with that decision then in the normal process of elections the public would have the opportunity to remove them or
April 29, 1993

express their displeasure at their situation or the actions they took.
I recognized that and I agreed after some discussion with my constituents, with this group of people, and I did not pursue it any further at that time.
As a result, and things have changed considerably in this country as it relates to the Constitution, I started looking into a particular situation that has arisen in my riding and looked at the history of property rights and their importance in Canadian history and the very evolution of this country.
The historical precedents in favour of property rights are really overwhelming. Philosophically, societies were initially created to collectively protect this right.
When I as an individual cannot protect myself society will do it for me and in return I will respect and protect other member's rights to property.
The right to property could be traced back to the Magna Charta of 1215. This document did not originate the right to property. It merely recognized its existence as an inherent sacred right. The Magna Charta, through its recognition of the inherent right to property, its specific rules for compensation and its commitment to protect this right at all costs, enabled all people to build a better society.
Our Constitution fails to protect property rights. The Canadian Bill of Rights, which affirms the right to property, fails to provide a method for compensation. We as a society are obliged to not only respect this right but to ensure that it is secure.
Security of this basic right is vital for a prosperous society. The right to property provides a sense of purpose and confidence. Protecting the ability to own what we make, work for or purchase is at the very heart of our market system. It drives the economy and helps it grow.
For those unable to hold intellectual properties such as patents and copyrights, owning a house, farm or piece of property allows and encourages individual Canadians to live their lives independent of the state.
Societies which deny this right do not prosper. They do not have the freedom to enjoy the fruits of their
Private Members' Business
endeavours. Inevitably, as we have witnessed in the Soviet Union and other eastern bloc countries, if the state controls what should be owned, operated and enjoyed by the people the whole economic and political system will collapse. Citizens will fight to keep the right they entrust society to protect.
Therefore not only is its protection paramount but procedures for compensation and dispute settlement must be clear to Canadians for their innate sense of security to avoid financial ruin just to protect this right.
We must continue the traditional respect for these rights which Canada affirmed internationally when it signed the United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights in 1948. It states that everyone has the right to own property alone as well as in association with others and that no one shall be arbitrarily deprived of this property. But it does not go far enough. Other countries strongly protect the right to property, recognizing it is essential for a free and democratic society.
We are all aware of the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution which protects property, life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nor can property be taken away without providing just compensation. The important point here is that the fifth amendment provides compensation should it be deemed in the public good to infringe or deny the right to property.
Italy, Germany, Denmark, Finland, Sweden and many other western democracies realized the need to compensate for property loss. The Canadian Bill of Rights affirms the right of the individual to the enjoyment of property and the right not to be deprived of it except through due process of law, yet there is no mention of just compensation.
The absence of procedures for settlement of disputes when the right to property is infringed upon renders this right meaningless. A right without means for compensation allows for that right to be removed, even through the due process of law, without any system to repay affected groups or individuals for the property loss.
At present my right, which existed long before the Constitutions which should protect it, must be defended in court at my cost as an individual. The burden of cost and proof should, in my view, rest on the level of government not on the individual property owner. It is only just that the society which has been charged with

Private Members' Business
protecting this right must prove itself legitimate when it proposes to limit or deny this right.
Did you know, Mr. Speaker, that if I do not challenge the infringement of my right to property, if I do not have the financial wherewithal to take part in that legal process there is no guarantee that a government must compensate me fairly for my loss? This is a travesty and a mockery of a most sacred right.
I am certain that most Canadians would find it appalling that their right to property really holds no true strength. Without any dispute settlement or rules for compensation during an infringement of this right it is really nothing more than a motherhood statement protected at the whim of a particular government.
Those who are going to have the most difficulty defending this particular right, the individuals who do not have the capital to go to court, are the people who are going to be most affected by this type of legislation if we do not make these changes properly and do it now.
This came up most recently in my riding over a landfill issue where the provincial government quite frankly is making a land grab to build a huge mega-dump to service the needs of metropolitan Toronto. It has set the rules for compensation. It has set the guidelines. It has said to the people: "Here is how we are going to do it. Here is how we are going to make the compensation and you are going to have to live with it because we are the government and we have set up this process. We have set up this group called the IWA and it is going to set the rules for compensation".
Are those rules going to be fair? I talked to the farmers who are involved and they are not very happy with the rules that have been brought down by this particular government.
On the other hand, they are not going to be satisfied. We are suggesting that they have a right to own this property, but they are going to have to mortgage their farms and their families' future simply to hire lawyers to take on the provincial government in this particular case. That does not make a lot of sense to me if we accept that individuals have the right to own their properties.
On the other side of my riding in New Tecumseh we have a similar situation as it relates to a hydro corridor. Again the people who are going to be affected are going to have to go to court to get fair and proper compensation and they are going to have to pay the bill. They are going to have to mortgage their lands and properties. That does not make much sense to me. That is their right. They have worked for that land. I do not think we should be taking it away from them without giving them proper compensation.
It is not just the provincial Government of Ontario. A few years ago the federal government confiscated 25 per cent of the land assets north of the 60th parallel. There are probably some members in this House who remember that. It handed it all over to the state-run Petro-Canada company at that time. There was no compensation offered or given.
Guaranteeing compensation gives the citizens the bargaining power against arbitrary laws that may deny their property rights. I think there would be a totally different situation in my riding and other ridings affected right now if the government of the day knew that an individual who was going to be affected would have the right to go to the Supreme Court and get fair compensation.
It is clear that no right, including the right to property, has absolute priority over all other rights at all times. I am not suggesting that for a moment. It is important in light of this to ensure that any infringement on property rights is not arbitrary.
When the government has proved to the court that a law infringing on my right to enjoy property is legitimate, then I must be allowed to apply for compensation to the Federal Court so I can replace, at least to some degree, the loss of this right.
These amendments to the Canadian Bill of Rights will provide a mechanism for Canadians to apply for compensation to the Federal Court if their property rights have been infringed upon or denied. This is something that is not offered to Canadians now.
Section 122 relieves the individual of financial burden and the personal hardship that may occur when attempting to prove a law infringes on their right to enjoy property. The new sections that I have proposed to the Canadian Bill of Rights recognize the most basic principle of property rights. The right belongs to each individu-
April 29, 1993

al citizen of Canada. It is theirs inherently. No further claim to it needs to be made.
Canadians should therefore not be placed in a position of having to defend this right from attack. It is the government who must be responsible for proving its law does not infringe on a property right or that the legislation is a reasonable limit upon personal rights and freedoms justifiable in a free and democratic society.
By providing specific procedures for compensation and requiring governments to prove a law does not infringe or deny a right to enjoy property, a proper balance is reached between the property rights of the individual and the legitimate needs of the state.
Any arbitrary nationalization or expropriation of property by the government would be deterred. Any unilateral decision would have to be justified, not by the individual as is presently the law but by the government wishing to expropriate and infringe upon those rights.
I will just conclude by saying that Canadians' rights must be more properly protected from the imposition and unilateral authority imposed by a government maybe to meet a political agenda or a political position without due regard or fairness for the individual affected.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak generally in favour of what we are dealing with today.
Back in 1215 when you and I were just boys, Mr. Speaker, a group of English barons got together and presented King John with a list of demands. It was the Magna Charta, one of the most important constitutional documents in the British Isles.
Chapter 19 of the Magna Charta stated that no man or woman of course shall be deprived of their property except by the legal judgment of their peers or the law of the land. That was the first historic statement of property rights and the right to due process. It is part of the common law of Canada today.
The common law can, however, be superseded by a statute at any time. For example, the government of the relevant jurisdiction could pass a law requiring that all houses over 100 years old be surrendered to the state and no compensation be paid. If you owned one of those
Private Members' Business
houses you would have no recourse under the Magna Charta.
Property rights are protected in the Diefenbaker Bill of Rights. However, that Bill of Rights applies in theory only to federal statutes and has to my knowledge been applied in very few cases, most notably that of Regina v. Diybones. Areas within provincial jurisdiction such as property and civil rights are clearly not protected.
There is a rule of statutory interpretation which says that when property is taken under statute, the statute in issue is to be read as implicitly requiring that compensation be paid to the private owner. This is only a rule of statutory interpretation. Any valid statute can expressly say that no compensation is payable when property is taken. The situation was eloquently stated by Justice Riddell of the Ontario Court of Appeal in a 1909 decision: "The prohibition, thou shalt not steal, has no legal force upon the sovereign body".
Our Charter of Rights and Freedoms which is the fundamental expression of Canadian law guarantees the right of everyone to life, liberty and the security of the person. The charter does not contain the right to hold property. The contemporary version of our fundamental law lacks the provision which free men and women have considered of primary importance since time immemorial.
The admission of the right to enjoy property means that there is no guarantee of compensation if property is taken by the government, no guarantee of due process or fundamental justice and no guarantee of fair treatment by the officials with power over the economic interests of individuals or corporations.
While the right to property is expressed in various other places in our law, it is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. Section 26 of the charter recognizes that there may be rights other than those articulated in it. However, if a right is not in the charter not only does it not have the same force and legitimacy as say, the right to life, liberty and security of the person, but someone who feels wronged cannot use the enforcement section of the charter which says that laws inconsistent with it are of no force or effect.
I believe we should entrench the right to property in our Constitution. I would refer anybody who is interested to the excellent and sound brief prepared by the Canadian Real Estate Association in preparation for the

April 29, 1993
Private Members' Business
renewed Canada. It was heard in November and December 1991.
The right to hold and enjoy property provides one of the checks against undue concentration of power in government at any level. When the Americans drew up their constitution, the right of every individual to acquire and enjoy property was included. It was felt that this would give the ordinary citizen both the independence and responsibility necessary to the success of government of, by and for the people.
One way to demonstrate the significance of the right to enjoy property is to compare countries in which it does exist to those in which it does not exist and is considered to be anathema to the prevailing political philosophy.
In countries where such rights are weak or non-existent, the arbitrary power and special privileges of the elite increase and the power of the common man and woman is diminished.
Without the protection of due process, the ordinary citizen is powerless in the face of the state that exists only to perpetuate and strengthen itself and/or its elites. For example, in the former Soviet Union the individual could never say to the state or its officers: "This is mine, you cannot take it away from me". Due process and fundamental justice are but dreams to residents of the former Soviet Union.
Even in countries where the right to hold property is well accepted and understood there are of course limits on that right. Sometimes the needs of society as a whole prevail over the needs of one individual. Even if it is necessary for an individual to surrender property under the charter, that property could not be taken except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.
Section 7 of the charter, where the right to property should be included, makes that requirement. Furthermore, all statutes must be measured against section 1 of the charter which recognizes only those limits on the rights guaranteed in the charter as are demonstrably justified in a free democratic society. It is the courts that decide the balance between the private and public rights.
It is important to have a check on unlimited property rights if only because so many things can be included in the concept of "property". Property can be said to include not only land and real estate but also the fruits of one's labour, financial return, saving investments, tools of one's land, and the facilities to make these possible. There are cases in the United States where property has been held to include government benefits.
One expressed concern is that the entrenchment of property rights in the charter would undermine matrimonial property legislation providing for the division of family assets and marriage breakdown. For the most part of course it is women who struggled hard to have this type of legislation enacted, particularly that which recognizes the economic contribution of the homemaker to the family.
I believe it is in response to the inevitable challenges of division of property legislation that section 1 will come into play.
There is a firm commitment in the courts and legislatures of this country, thank goodness, to the equitable division of property in the breaking up of marriage. To use the United States as an example once more, in that country their constitution has not precluded their assemblies from enacting legislation empowering the courts to divide and compel transfer of assets on the dissolution of marriage.
That authority is considered part of the state's concern for the protection of its citizens because family assets are only divided after a full judicial hearing, that is if the parties cannot agree to what the division should be. There is a full compliance with the due process provision of the American Constitution.
I believe our courts would consider matrimonial property legislation to be a reasonable limit demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
It is vital to the health of our country in my view that the right to enjoy property be entrenched in the Constitution. What is needed is an amendment to our Constitution. As we know, the amending formula requires the House of Commons and the Senate to approve an amendment plus the legislatures of seven provinces consisting of at least 50 per cent of Canada's population. This means that at least either Quebec or Ontario must
April 29, 1993

approve such an amendment as we are talking about today as well as six other provinces.
As of several years ago, only B.C. and New Brunswick had expressed a firm commitment to the entrenchment of property rights. But I would remind members that the present Prime Minister in a letter to David Humphreys of the Canadian Real Estate Association stated: "I want to assure Canadians of my government's full support for the inclusion of property rights as an item for discussion at the next round of constitutional discussion with the provinces".
Finally, and this is where all of us come in, the legislatures must all become convinced that the Canadian people want property rights reasonably protected in the Constitution. Without a push from Canadians generally, this issue can never really go anywhere beyond the talk we are having here today.
If we believe in it we should talk to MPs, MLAs, MPPs or MNAs. We should convince them of a need for action along the lines of the motion we are discussing today. I would salute again the member for bringing this matter before Parliament.


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in the debate tonight on the motion of the hon. member for York-Simcoe, Bill C-395, an act to amend the Canadian Bill of Rights (right to property).
I want to say at the outset that I do not support the bill and I will outline those reasons in a moment. I think it is important. I apologize in advance if I did not quite catch all the member's speech. I do not think that he read into the record the elements of the motion. People who are reading the transcript of this or watching either now or on the repeats would like to know exactly what it is we are debating. It reads:
Whereas a garbage dump imposed upon a community by government to resolve another city's problem will negatively affect the right of citizens to enjoy their property and farm their land;
Whereas the right of property is the foundation of society;
Whereas its protection is one of the obligations of government and its security is necessary for the existence of civil liberty and free institutions;
And whereas a law is considered a deprivation of the right of property if it deprives owners of one of the essential attributes of
Private Members' Business
property, destroys or impairs its value, restricts or interrupts its common, necessary or profitable use, hampers owners in the application of it to the purpose of trade or imposes conditions upon the right to hold or use it and thereby seriously impairs its value;
The bill goes on to detail it, but that is sort of the raison d'etre the member has offered. I can understand from previous comments he has made in the House his concern over the possibility of a garbage dump being located within his constituency as a result of a due process that has been entered into by the Government of Ontario. I can understand his concern. It is fair enough. I do not dispute that.
However, to suggest that a solution is to place in the Bill of Rights a right to property that will in effect make permanent the old belief about a man's home being his castle, that he can do whatever he bloody well pleases within his boundaries, I do not think is acceptable. I can cite a number of occasions where there are real valid reasons why individuals should not be able to do what they feel is appropriate on their property.
I will give an example. In a flood plain, a watercourse is coming through your four or five acre parcel of land and you decide to fill it in. It is your right under this bill. So what if it blocks the flow of water, so what if it disrupts the flood plain and the management of that by the conservation authority creating flooding on your neighbour's property down the road or downstream? Another example is the right to bum leaves on your property. It is your leaves, your property, your matches. That is the ultimate result of a resolution like this one.
Had the member come forward with a bill to change the Bill of Rights to say that every Canadian has a right to a job, that every Canadian has a right to be able to afford to own his or her own home and that every Canadian has a right to education, those would have been highly appropriate goals and highly appropriate things to place in a bill of rights. However, to say that a man's home is his castle and he has the right to do whatever he pleases is not acceptable.
It is also erroneous to suggest there are no protections for individuals who, I guess in the legal sense, have the right of fee simple to occupy land. There are protections. I have gone to bat for people who have had land expropriated by the province of Ontario for public purposes such as the expansion of a highway.

Private Members' Business
The process is twofold. One is whether or not they need the land and they, the public authority, have to prove they need the land. Second is the question of fair value. There are processes built in, at least in the province of Ontario-and I cannot speak for any other provinces-that when land is expropriated and if you can prove in terms of market value what other properties in the general area have gone for, you will get that fair amount. You will not necessarily get what you think it is worth, but you will get what the benchmark says it is worth, what other properties have sold for at that point in time. So there is a process out there.
We also have to recognize that governments, regardless of stripe, have not gone on a wholesale expropriation of land anywhere in the country. There are probably two exceptions: one was the decision to create the Pickering airport and the land grab there. There is no question that it was an abuse of the powers of the federal government to take action like that and not follow through, displacing the farm community and creating a real dislocation of a lot of people. That was a misuse of power, there is no question about it. I do not think this kind of amendment would in any way change that from occurring.
As for the other one, this member's government is currently doing it. It is called vesting at Canadian airports. I wonder if the member is aware that the Department of Transport, on the instructions of Treasury Board, has applied the policy of vesting so that any tenant on federal airport land, meaning somebody who has a building or has improvements, is required to give up that building at the end of their lease with no compensation whatsoever and no due process. They can extend their life there if they reinvest in it. I am overly simplifying the process but that exists today. Treasury Board has been unwilling to move beyond that policy. It has been a bit flexible, in terms of transport, of working through the rules so that it is less onerous but it still comes down to expropriation without compensation.
There is an area in which the member can do some good work to try to bring some justice to that. We do not
need a hard and fast rule in the Canadian Bill of Rights that says property cannot be touched. We have to recognize that there are times when the public good is paramount, whether it is with regard to environmental laws, labour laws or just social justice.
In the preamble of the bill it says:
-a law is considered a deprivation of the right of property if it deprives owners of one of the essential attributes of property, destroys or impairs its value, restricts or interrupts its common, necessary or profitable use, hampers owners in the application of if it to the purpose of trade-
I might want to turn my lot into an automobile junk yard. Under this bill, any rules that prevent me from doing so would be a restriction on the profitability I could make from the land, a restriction on trade. Conversely, we have seen this NIMBY approach, not in my backyard, in community after community.
After years we recognized that putting people with special needs in large institutions did not work. As we evolved from large group homes in isolated areas of our community to smaller group homes that were integrated within our community we have heard people in neighbourhood after neighbourhood say: ''Not in my backyard, not in my neighbourhood; we do not want those people with special needs; it will lower our property values; it will make our ability to turn a profit on this piece of land and house impossible". That is why I cannot support a bill like this. The ramifications go way beyond anything that I think this member was anticipating when he put forward this bill. There is no way in good conscience that I could provide the Bill of Rights with that kind of power.


Mr.   Janies@Acting Speaker: There being no further members rising for debate, the time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 96(1), the order is dropped from the Order Paper.
It being 6:34 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.34 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Friday, April 30, 1993