1971-10-15

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved:: Whereas the continued testing of nuclear warheads by the nuclear powers adds to the dangers of the nuclear arms race and may seriously pollute the human environment, and
Whereas the scheduled nuclear test at Amchitka is of particular concern to Canadians because of its proximity to Canada's west coast,
This Canadian House of Commons calls on all nuclear powers to cease all testing of nuclear devices, and particularly, calls on the President of the United States to cancel the test at Amchitka scheduled for this month.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I speak for all members of this House and for all parties when I say how happy we are that the House has set aside time to give all hon. members an opportunity to register their support for the firm stand taken by Canada in opposition to continued nuclear weapons testing, and to the Amchitka test in particular.
The world is made apprehensive by continuing nuclear arms tests; it is becoming weary of the endless delays that are postponing a complete test ban. By this resolution, Mr. Speaker, the House of Commons, freely and truly representative of all the Canadian people, adds its voice to a universal call to the governments of the nuclear powers to have done with it.
It is a tragic comment on our world, Mr. Speaker, that even as we say this we must continue to accept the balance of nuclear deterrence as the foundation of the uneasy equilibrium that protects us all from the horror of total war. Let us hope that peace will not forever rest on such an unsure base.
This objective can be achieved slowly and with great difficulty through the continuing work of the Geneva Disarmament Committee and through imaginative initiatives such as the SALT talks, upon which so many of our hopes are centred. I doubt if it can be achieved by the detonation of more efficient bombs whether designed for offensive or defensive purposes.
In the Geneva Disarmament Committee, Canada has been working with others to find a solution to the deadlock between the United States and the Soviet Union on
the need for on-site inspections to monitor an underground test ban. Recent Canadian technical studies presented to the Geneva Committee indicate that there is excellent promise of being able to monitor, by seismologi-cal means, underground explosions other than the very smallest. Continuing research, investment in more effective monitoring facilities and improved international exchange of seismic data taken together have reduced the question of inspection to more manageable proportions.
The Canadian technical studies cannot eliminate all the uncertainties and ambiguities involved in the detection of violations and evasions of an underground test ban. The time has come, however, for the two major nuclear powers to make the effort needed to bridge the gap between them and to achieve reliable identification of those smaller seismic events that existing seismological monitoring facilities cannot classify effectively.
Unless the two major nuclear powers are willing to accept effective restraints on their arms race and on the competition in the improvement of their own nuclear weapons-as they are committed to do under Article VI of the Non-Proliferation Treaty-they cannot expect the two less highly developed nuclear powers, France and China, and the so-called "near-nuclear powers" to accept or respect the restraints of the non-proliferation agreement which the United States and the Soviet Union sponsored. That France and China should adhere to the Moscow Partial Test Ban Treaty is of the greatest importance, since it is the tests they are carrying out in the atmosphere that pose the major threat of radioactive contamination of the world environment.
The problem of verification is not yet completely solved, and the achievement of an underground test ban will take time. Until this can be achieved, both major powers should institute immediate mutual restraints to reduce the size and number of their underground tests, starting with high-yield tests like the Soviet explosion of September 27 and the proposed United States test on Amchitka Island this fall. Such measures should present no insurmountable problems of verification.
In my recent statements to the United Nations Conference on the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy on September 6, to the Geneva Disarmament Committee on September 7, to the General Assembly of the United Nations on September 29, and in discussions with the Secretary of State of the United States and the Foreign Minister of the Soviet Union in New York on October 1 and 2, I have made Canada's position on this question abundantly clear. I have also referred specifically in the General Assembly and in my conversations with both Foreign Ministers to our specific objections to the high-yield tests, the Soviet test of September 27 and the planned United States test at Amchitka.
In the course of my meeting with Mr. Rogers, I stressed the serious concern Canadians throughout the country
24319-64)

October 15, 1971
Amchitka Nuclear Test
and particularly in the west feel about the Amchitka test. I dealt with the serious implications of such tests- primarily the threat posed to the world by the continuation of unrestrained testing and the consequent escalation in the nuclear arms race and the danger to the environment and ecology of the whole Pacific northwest, a danger which cannot be entirely eliminated.
These repeated, reinforced and re-emphasized representations, multilateral and bilateral alike, add force to the clear and forthright formal approach the Canadian government made to the United States government as early as last February, by way of a note that I later tabled in the House on March 29 last. I am assured by Secretary Rogers that the serious concerns of the Canadian government and people are fully appreciated by the United States administration at the highest level. The final decision on whether to proceed with the Amchitka test has not yet been taken; it is in the hands of President Nixon. There is room for hope that the United States will cancel the test, demonstrating at once their respect for the clearly expressed opinion of large sectors of its own population, millions of Canadians and men of good will in many nations, and a determination on the United States' part not to contribute to further reciprocal escalation in the nuclear arms race.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to speak on this important resolution. I begin by saying I support it strongly and predict its passage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I urge upon all hon. members that they support this declaration of opinion by this House. I am happy with the way in which this matter has been handled and am proud that my own party suggested that we devote time allotted to us in order that this important subject may be dealt with in this multipartisan way, if I may use that expression.
I must make it clear that while I favour this resolution I do not withdraw from my conviction that the Prime Minister of this country should convey directly to the President of the United States the view of Canadians on this very serious question. I regret that in the deterioration of Canada-United States relations we seem to be reduced to indirect discourse, and one wonders if the hot line has grown cold or atrophied from disuse.
While we are especially concerned about the Amchitka test which has such dangerous possibilities, we must not ignore the fact that other nations are also conducting explosions which make their grim contribution to a deterioration of some aspect of the environment. While there may be arguments about the degree of danger from fallout, there is unfortunately no doubt that the world is a little more polluted, the environment a little more poisoned, after each detonation. Thus we should call for the end of tests. As my old boss, Hon. Howard Green, used to put it at the United Nations, "We are against nuclear testing-period".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Because the United States is a great functional democracy and divulges to its own people and

the world its intentions and therefore allows for the buildup of public opinion, we should not appear to be concerned only with American tests and blissfully casual about the mighty explosions set off by the military machines of China, Russia and France. It is worth noting that we usually learn of the Chinese and Russian detonations when they register on the detection devices of Jodrell Bank or some other monitoring station.
Canada sometimes gets the reputation in the international community of being a "preachy" country. In this instance I like the sermon. But we must be careful that we are multidirectional in our uninvited exhortations and unsolicited precepts. For instance I could never see that British military supplies sold to South Africa were any more iniquitous than those sold by France.
Having said this, I do not hesitate in urging as strongly as I can upon the United States President the abandonment of the planned Amchitka test. The project has been given the name Cannikin and I appeal to our neighbours' leader to "can the Cannikin".
I make this appeal not because I desire that the United^ States weaken itself militarily. I cannot see how any Canadian could see any advantage for Canada in such a course. I join in this because with all its faults, all its errors and even in these strained times, I regard the United States as a great country. I would like to see it give leadership in this field as it has in so many others and make a major contribution toward the attainment of the real goal, namely, the cessation by all nations of all nuclear testing. In calling for the cancellation of this test on Amchitka Island I join not only the legislature and the people of British Columbia and other Canadians; I join a great expression of American public opinion.
Amchitka is part of Alaska, about 1,400 miles west southwest of Anchorage and therefore about the same distance from British Columbia's coast. The anxiety of the people of Alaska has been clearly expressed by the leaders of that state.
Senator Gravel said recently:
To go ahead with this test is courting a risk of magnitude we cannot determine. The risk is not worth taking. Our national security will not be imperilled if the test is cancelled.
The possibilities of serious ill effects have been outlined. Indeed, the dangers are really frightening. There is no universal law which decrees that man could not destroy himself. There is grave danger in pushing the risk too far. I would rather stop far too soon than push to the brink of an ecolocatastrophe. But apart from that we must consider the less than fatal errors we may be committing. When will we learn that we must conserve, not pillage, the heritage we have been given?
How many more species of fish must be tabbed with mercury pollution before we wake up? How much dislocation of the habitat of birdlife will we continue to tolerate? How many times must we blast and scar the earth's surface before we learn the dangers of what we are doing?
I commend those in our society who seek to awaken us to the need of giving urgent thought and urgent attention to the conservation of our environment. The voyage of the halibut boat, Greenpeace, might have been a stunt or a
October 15, 1971

gimmick. It was also a splendid and valuable dramatization of a question which after generations of environmental plundering cannot be overemphasized.
I suppose it is an oversimplification to state that a civilized people must give thought to succeeding generations. In those lands like ours which have in so many ways advanced our environmental heritage was not too well preserved by those who went before. It is our challenge to make amends. The time at our disposal is not unlimited.
With all earnestness I support the resolution moved by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). I hope we can in this special debate convey to President Nixon our genuine concern over this matter.
In this we are at one with the Congress of his own country which overwhelmingly calls for a ban on Amchit-ka. The President of the United States has many burdens, multitudinous problems, as is expected of a world leader. I fervently hope that he will enhance his stature and enlarge his influence for good by announcing that this test will not go forward-as the minister says, and he is more casual in his phraseology than I, that he will have done with it. I hope too that the other nations, not named but surely embraced in this resolution, will follow suit.


Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, I wrote the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) some days ago urging that such a motion be placed before the House. On behalf of my colleagues and myself I congratulate the government for having done so.
I support every word said by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). We are all very delighted that the House of Commons has been given this opportunity, I hope unanimously, to declare itself against both nuclear tests in general and the Amchitka test in particular.
I have watched the international situation, Mr. Speaker. I often think we are living in a world of insanity because of the nuclear problem. The super powers already have the capacity to destroy this earth and everything on it several times over. Yet we do not stop. We continue trying to develop bigger and stronger weapons to destroy ourselves, always with the excuse that it is being done for defensive and deterrent purposes. I deny that, Mr. Speaker.
I have a strong conviction that there are vested interests involved which are not sensitive to the needs of the world and to the dangers to peace and humanity as the result of this nuclear escalation. I think there are vested interests in the military who in peacetime cannot justify their existence unless they are constantly preparing for war which they say they hope will not happen but which at some point may happen if this kind of escalation continues. I think there are vested interests in the industrial sphere where large corporations have been tied up with the development of nuclear weapons from which they have derived great power and immense profits which they do not want to let go. I think there are vested interests in certain areas of the world which, on the Communist side, consider every western gesture as contemptible and, on the western side, consider every Soviet stance as dangerous and distrustful. There are vested interests on all sides to keep the world aflame with hate and distrust, and these are dangerous interests to our community.
Amchitka Nuclear Test
I think it is important for our civilization to say to these big nuclear powers, the Soviet Union as well as the United States and perhaps France and China, that humanity will not last if they continue with this insanity and that we as Canadian members of this Parliament plead with the nuclear powers throughout the world to finish these nuclear tests and the nuclear escalation before it gets to the point at which deterrence becomes impossible and destruction becomes inevitable.
As Canadians we are concerned particularly with the proposed test on Amchitka Island because it is close to us. I emphasize that as far as my party is concerned we are not opposed merely to the Amchitka test. That is why I was in agreement with broadening the resolution so that it would include our opposition to all nuclear testing. We are not concerned merely with Amchitka because it is close to Canada; we are concerned with the world situation.
But it is natural we should be particulary concerned and worried about the Amchitka test because the ecological and other consequences will fall immediately on our future generations. Let it be said again that we join, with all people in Canada in pleading with the President of the United States to cancel the Amchitka test. We join in this plea with those who have already spoken, with most of the people in the United States and with millions of people across the world.
I say, if I may without presumption, to President Nixon that there are moments in the life and duties of a person carrying large responsibilities when he can rise above political considerations for a moment and show leadership and imagination of a kind which will mark him in history as a great man. I say to the President of the United States that the resolution of Congress which has placed the possibility of cancelling the Amchitka test solely in his hands gives him an opportunity to show the world a mark of greatness, a mark of appreciation of the dangers of nuclear testing. I plead with him to take advantage of the opportunity for the sake of humanity and for the sake of world peace.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, we are pleased to join the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) as well as the representatives of other parties in protesting against the nuclear tests which the United States are preparing to undertake.
When danger is threatening a nation, governments forget their differences and unite with a view to objecting against the American action. Unity is still more complete as the danger is great and this is why Canada is concerned this morning. Our country is worried. We have always been, Mr. Speaker, against nuclear weapons and have always strongly objected against all nuclear tests by the so-called great powers.
Some people imagine that because the great powers are involved they can do anything, even if they endanger the existence of mankind.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that we should demand of the great powers, both eastern and western, that they put an end immediately to these nuclear tests which represent a threat, as I said before, for the universe, and particularly for areas located near the testing site, such as our country.

October 15, 1971
Amchitka Nuclear Test
It is useless for me to expound lengthily on the consequences of such explosions. We have had concrete examples of radioactive fall-out. Long-term effects and radioactive fall-out are a threat not only for humans but for all forms of life.
The minister said a little while ago that the United States had not as yet arrived at a final decision. I would request the minister and the cabinet to renew, if need be, representations to the President of the United States in order that such experiences be abandoned by his country once and for all. May the United States give the example, since they can claim at this time to be the most powerful country in the world. May they put an end to those most dangerous experiences, feared by all the nations of the world.
And if the United States are experimenting improvements to the continental defence, they have no right to imperil everybody's life in anticipation of an eventual nuclear attack.
Today, in North America, a struggle must be engaged against these great powers, and it is a struggle against a form of pollution. We have already undertaken, in our areas and in our country, a fight against pollution, and today, despite all threats of air and water pollution, the greatest pollution is one to be banned forever, that is atmospheric pollution arising from nuclear blasts.
That is the first step to take, and we can then keep on working together in order to further clean the air and water of this country so that we may live here more contented and healthier.
a m.)


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I want to say a few brief words about the possible environmental effects of the explosion of a five megaton bomb on Amchitka this fall. These effects are likely to be pollution effects. They are likely to be ecological effects. There may not be a major earthquake resulting from this explosion or a tidal wave, but there is likely to be a pollution effect extending beyond the territorial limits of the United States.
Pollution effects have resulted from previous underground blasts. More than one in four of the underground blasts in the United States have resulted in venting-in other words, in the loss of radioactive material from below ground to the atmosphere. Statistics over the past 25 years covering some 230 underground blasts in the continental United States show that 67 have vented, some to a lesser extent, some to a greater extent. So the probability is more than one in four, if we look back on history, of a venting to the atmosphere occurring at Amchitka.
There will, of course, be contamination of ground water as well. The last underground test in the United States was carried out in Nevada approximately a year ago, on December 18, 1970. There was an accidental venting. This was not forecast. Indeed, the United States Atomic Energy Commission said that no venting could occur or would occur. In fact, venting did occur. This venting resulted in a cloud of radioactive dust which was seen locally and which moved slowly in a north and then a northeasterly direction across the United States, and

finally disappeared over Canada in the vicinity of Thunder Bay where it was knocked down by a thunder storm.
We have monitoring stations in Canada, and a few days later the radioactive level over Windsor and Toronto was found to be double the level under normal circumstances. So that the likelihood that venting will occur in the proportion of one in four is proven. The effects may be felt several thousand miles away. Certainly they are likely to be detected.
The proposed explosion of the Cannikin device at Amchitka will involve a charge 250 times as powerful as that used in the last underground test, the one in Nevada I previously described. According to the authorities I have consulted, there is no possibility that seismic waves from the explosion could do damage or even be felt in Canada, and no scientific ground exists for concern about the possibility of triggering an earthquake in western Canada. So that an earthquake is really out of the question in so far as Canadians are concerned.
These same authorities have advised me, after much consideration, that the possibility of a tsunami wave or tidal wave is relatively remote, but the element of risk to Canada cannot be quantified and complete assurance cannot be given because of the inherent uncertainties. So that while earthquake effects in Canada are unlikely, there is a remote possibility of a tidal wave.
To get to the pollution aspect, there is a one in four possibility of releases to the air. There is a certainty of contamination of ground waters in the area. Water moves through underground cracks and fissures. It is more likely to move underground in that part of the world because it is an area which is generally prone to earthquakes. It follows that ground waters which are in the immediate vicinity of the explosion on Amchitka may well seep out in time and contaminate surrounding waters. Amchitka is an island. It has a three-mile territorial limit. Underground waters eventually will percolate out from the rock under the island into the territorial waters and out into the ocean beyond the territorial limits of Alaska and therefore the United States.
In my view, this becomes a matter not only of United States concern but of international concern. It is a matter which is referred to in a general way in the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty of 1963. My reading of that treaty is that no nation can contaminate the environment beyond its own territory. This raises the question in my mind of why the United States chose to move its explosions and testing from the middle of the continental United States to a remote island, like Amchitka, surrounded by international waters.
I would again urge all members of the House of Commons to oppose this explosion, this nuclear test, not only because it is one of a possible sequence of ever larger explosions but because it could have a pollution effect and an environmental effect beyond Amchitka, that is, out into international waters as well as into the waters of the United States itself.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising for the purpose of asking a question?
October 15, 1971


Mr. Aiken:: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If I may I should like to ask the minister a question. Three weeks ago I placed a starred question on the order paper concerning the number of air sampling stations which have been added to the national surveillance network following passage of the Clean Air Act and particularly pertaining to the subject which is under discussion today. There has been no answer. Can the minister give the House any assurance concerning whether there has been a stepping up of the surveillance system or whether we may soon expect an answer to this question?


John (Jack) Davis: The surveillance system is being expanded. Additional monitoring stations are being installed. I do not have the statistics at hand but I will try to expedite an answer to the question.


Mr. Jack McIntosh (Swift Current-Maple Creek):: Mr. Speaker, first I wish to say I find it rather odd that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) made the speech he did in the General Assembly a short time ago and the speech in support of this motion in the House today in view of the stated declaration of policy in the government white paper on defence issued under the name of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald) just a few weeks ago. I would like to say more about this if our time were not limited because there would seem to be a contradiction between the policy of one government department and another.
I wish to commend to hon. members an article which appeared in the Toronto Telegram of October 7 under the authorship of Lubor J. Zink. This article emphasizes the very point I should like to bring out, namely, that there is a contradiction of policy. Members may laugh, but let me tell the House that a few weeks ago we received the white paper issued by the Minister of National Defence which contains the following statement:
The only direct external military threat to Canada's national security today is that of a large-scale nuclear attack on North America-It is far from being the theoretically ideal means of maintaining peace, but the government, while continuing to participate in the arms control deliberations, remains convinced that there is nothing to replace it at present. Therefore. Canada must do what it can to ensure the continued effectiveness of the deterrent system-
From a potential enemy's point of view, however, North America can only logically be seen as one set of targets. Canada's centres of population and industry logically form part of the major target plan for a strategic nuclear attack on North America-
The government concluded in its defence review that co-operation with the United States in North American defence will remain essential so long as our joint security depends on stability in the strategic military balance. Canada's objective is to make, within the limits of our resources, an effective contribution to continued stability by assisting in the surveillance and warning systems and in the protection of the U S. retaliatory capability as necessary. Co-operation between Canada and the U.S. in the joint defence of North America is vital for sovereignty and security-
This over-all co-operation strengthens the U.S. retaliatory capability, and hence deterrence.
Without going further into that, I should like to say I appreciate the concern of members of the House in all parties as well as the concern of the Canadian people with regard to the Amchitka underground nuclear test. I share that concern. I believe the main reason for our concern is the potential use of nuclear power as a weapon of war.
Amchitka Nuclear Test
Let us examine the history of the atomic bomb. We know the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki ended a war. However, the lesson which mankind apparently failed to learn from this event was that these same bombs made it abundantly clear that we must not have another war, particularly between countries that possess atomic weapons. If mankind is to survive and if the governments of the world are sincere in their search for everlasting peace, then their goal must be to abolish war, not just one weapon.
Some historians have stated that total universal disarmament and abolition of war are impossible. Nevertheless, I believe that all governments have no other choice. They must strive to seek some solution to outlaw military conflict entirely. Since 1918 I believe all reasonable people have been against war. In the years between the first and second world wars we made the mistake of believing that we could abolish military conflict by refraining from preparing for it. Unfortunately this approach, as history on many occasions has proved, was not shared by Adolph Hitler, the head of the German government of that day. These facts were revealed to all the world from the testimony of the German generals at the Nuremberg trials. It was because Britain, in particular, was so weak defensively that Hitler was prompted to start his offensive against the world. In other words, it was anticipated by Hitler that because of his modern war machinery there was no power on earth strong enough to deal with an all-out offensive by his forces. He made the assessment that no country had forces that could deter him in his goal of world domination.
I often think of the lives that could have been saved and the misery that could have been avoided if the British government had not been swayed by those who believed in unilateral disarmament regardless of the consequences. Britain at that time was considered a major world leader and as such had responsibilities, one of which was assurance to the smaller countries, particularly those in the Commonwealth group, that she was capable and prepared to protect them against aggression from a hostile force. I suggest the British government of that day either ignored that commitment of protection or at least underestimated its capabilities to produce the defence it had guaranteed.
We have been told that because of the arguments put forth by pacifist groups against rearmament and the waste of public funds on defensive measures, the British government was pressured into adopting defensive policies that were totally inadequate and to a large extent responsible for the world disaster that took place during World War II. After the events that took place during that period of our history, many governments were faced with the reality that, so long as there are hostile forces on the world scene, the only way to prevent war is to maintain equal if not superior military strength.
In the interval between the end of World War II and the present, we have not reached an acceptable solution to outlaw or prevent war. I believe the existence of a deterrent force during this period has prevented a major universal nuclear conflict. So long as one major power on the other side, be it Russia or China, has nuclear bombs and the means to deliver them, then the western nations must

October 15, 1971
Amchitka Nuclear Test
also have them, as a deterrent force. Surely the Cuban affair would confirm such a thought.
The American press informs us that the Amchitka test is important because it will be the only one made to test the Safeguard anti-ballistic missile system warhead. They also say cancellation would be read by the Soviet Union as a sign of weakness, possibly indicating that the United States is not serious about developing the anti-ballistic missile. The Soviet Union fired off a three-megaton device underground a few days ago and the U.S. test is a necessary response if the Americans are to bargain for a strong position when the strategic arms limitation talks resume at Helsinki in November.
What we in Canada must decide is, are we against just one tool of war, the nuclear weapon, or against war itself? Whichever way we decide, we must face the realities.
This House can pass all the pious resolutions or motions it wishes, and the government of Canada can make all the self-righteous protests it wants, but the fact remains that the world's dominant nations will not be listening. Under the present circumstances we are powerless to materially change the present battle for nuclear supremacy which is taking place between the world's major powers.
I believe it is about time this country stopped pussyfooting. It is about time we stood up and were counted. Either we want freedom enough to fight for it, or we do not. It is about time we made it perfectly clear we are either proCommunist or pro-democracy.
Because of the actions of this government during the past several years, no nation is sure of where we stand. There is no doubt in my mind that the United States of America is the champion of those things which we as Canadians wish to preserve: individual liberty, political freedom, the rule of law, and democratic government. Surely no Canadian can equate the United States and the Communist colossus equally in terms of Canada's interests.
There is an unpleasant mean-spirited theory current today in this country that we can have our cake and eat it too, that is, that we can enjoy all the benefits of having a guardian without doing anything to help him. Some promoters of this theory go even farther; they would even hold his arm when it is raised to ward off a blow. This criticism of the United States defence plans is part and parcel of a recent and most unsavoury national stance that Canada has adopted since 1963 when the present government came to power. Those Canadians who sincerely wish to see national freedom and individual liberty preserved have no other choice but to stand or fall with the United States. If our own history means anything to us and if we are in any way grateful for the protective umbrella under which we are now and have been living, then we should desist from destructive criticism and from the petty nagging implied in this motion put forward by the government.
It may be that there are some Canadians who look to the day of a communist triumph. This may be the reason why no official protest was forwarded by our government to other nations when it was made known that these nations were preparing nuclear tests. If those of you in

this Parliament are sincere and wish to impress the world with the sincerity of your opposition to nuclear testing, then I suggest you begin in a positive way by banning the production of all uranium within your borders. If, on the other hand, the government is using the sincerity of some hon. members on this topic for political gain or some external scheme, then it is more corrupt and dangerous than I would have believed.
Recent press reports inform us that our Secretary of State for External Affairs espoused in the General Assembly of the United Nations the cause of Communist China and complained about nuclear tests. They further stated that the Canadian minister called for an end to nuclear tests and became the first western spokesman to point the finger at the United States and the Soviet Union.
Many Canadians, as well as the people of other free countries, are wondering why he did not point the finger at other nations, such as France and Mainland China, who were known by him to have programs of a similar nature. Was he protecting Canadian uranium interests or were the countries he failed to mention preferred customers whose involvement he did not wish to disclose? We are entitled to an answer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member but I interrupt him to bring to the attention of the House that the hon. member's time has expired. He can complete his remarks with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John (Jack) McIntosh: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. My impression was that there was not unanimous consent. Perhaps I might inquire again whether there is unanimity to allow the hon. member to complete his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will have heard that there is not unanimous consent, so the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Fraser Valley West.


Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, as one who has been interested in the issue of nuclear tests on Amchitka for a long time, in fact as the one who first raised it in the House as early as July of 1969, naturally I am very pleased to speak today in support of the motion before us. I wish to thank and congratulate the House leaders of all parties for the successful negotiations leading to the debate today in which members have an opportunity to express their views on the lunacy of further nuclear testing by those countries described in the resolution as the nuclear powers.
I can fully appreciate the position taken by some members, particularly the hon. member who has just spoken, who sincerely feel and believe that some of us are always ready to jump on the United States for its transgressions but remain silent when some other country such as Mainland China or the U.S.S.R. indulges in similar actions.
October 15, 1971

That is one reason why I am pleased to support this all-party motion, and I hope it will pass unanimously. This motion avoids pointing a self-righteous finger at the United States alone but instead condemns further nuclear testing by any country as a threat to the human existence on this planet.
But the Amchitka blast is of urgent and pressing consideration. Understandably enough, the concern is most emphatically expressed on the west coast of both the United States and Canada, notably in British Columbia and Alaska, but I might add that Japan is a good deal closer to the test sight than is Vancouver and the Japanese are equally concerned about the test, and so are many private organizations and even American government departments.
The reasons for this opposition are, of course, fairly well known. There is the threat of earthquakes and tidal waves triggered by this five-megaton blast predicted to register at least seven points on the Richter scale, a system for measuring such explosions or earthquakes. The Atomic Energy Commission in 1969 admitted the dangers of explosions of such magnitude in a pamphlet issued in that year.
It said:
The Amchitka test area merits special attention because it is located near one of the earth's most seismically active regions. Inasmuch as earthquake mechanisms are not completely understood, no absolute statement can be made about the possibility of triggering an earthquake of large magnitude in this area.
People are also concerned about the $190 million cost of such a risky explosion to test a warhead which has already been declared by United States defence experts, or at least by some of them, as an obsolete part of the United States ABM weapon system. There is also the threat of contamination of the environment through nuclear leakage into international waters, which could poison the seabed for centuries. Finally, and most gravely, there is the contribution to the nuclear arms race that such a test will stimulate in the other nuclear countries at a time when the strategic arms limitation talks or SALT talks are progressing.
These reasons seem greatly convincing to me, and I hope they will be equally convincing to the President of the United States who is solely in charge and completely alone in deciding whether or not this horrible device is to be detonated. His is an awesome responsibility.
I have it on excellent authority that seven secret American government department reports on this topic were submitted to President Nixon of which five, including a report of the U.S. Department of the Interior, opposed the Amchitka detonation. Efforts to get copies of these reports by American elected officials such as Senator Mike Gravel of Alaska have been frustrated completely. Americans are continuing through court injuctions, appeals by elected officials and other interested people such as environmentalists and by other means to oppose the Amchitka test. I hope that this debate today will assist these Americans in persuading President Nixon to decline approval for the trigger to be pulled.
noon)
What we are discussing today is an issue so important to the future of life on this planet that our present problems
Amchitka Nuclear Test
of unemployment and other serious issues facing Canadians, as real as they are, shrink microscopically in proportion to the question of human survival that is before us. I am prepared, on the invitation of Senator Gravel, to go to Washington next Thursday with a few backbenchers from all parties-three have already agreed to accompany me- to support and assist in any way I can the American opposition to the proposed test.
I am pleased that we in this House have at least had an opportunity to discuss and debate this issue fairly fully with the co-operation of all parties. It is an issue that has grown in magnitude through the initiative of many Members of Parliament, again in all parties, and through public representations over the period of two years or more since we first raised this question until the point we have reached today.
I also hope that all appeals and especially the appeals of west coast school children will not go unheeded and that the President of the United States will listen and decide against the insanity of continued nuclear testing and, as the head of the world's major power, as the head of a state which is probably our best friend, best customer and best protector, decides that nuclear testing must be stopped and that Amchitka would be an excellent place at which to stop it.


Mr. Douglas A. Hogarth (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is extremely significant that the majority of the members who hope to be able to participate in this debate today are from the west coast. The fact that the proposed Amchitka blast is to take place on the Pacific rim is of deep concern to all west coast members, indeed to all the people living in the state of Alaska, in the territory of the Yukon and in the province of British Columbia.
I know, Sir, that the short remarks I am going to make will be made on behalf of every Member of Parliament from the province of British Columbia. We have discussed the matter sufficiently over recent weeks, regardless of our party affiliations, to be assured that each of us has done something and each of us is diametrically opposed to the proposed nuclear test at Amchitka. If other hon. members from British Columbia, on either side of the House, do not speak on this issue today it is merely because duties have taken them elsewhere and because the matter has come before the House today with some suddenness.
In the last analysis, and with the greatest respect to some of the remarks made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), I think that to a large extent the general public is becoming weary of delays in the progress with regard to the banning of nuclear testing. I think that the failure of the major governments to agree has left the peoples of the world constantly living in an atmosphere of insecurity, regardless of how remote nuclear warfare might be.
It is now 20 years since Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All of us remember the absolute terror created by the devastation of atomic bombing. The horror of the picture of what took place at that time, is still with us despite the fact it is now 20 years since that event. It is contrary to all the instincts of manking that this type of activity should ever be contemplated again, but as long as nuclear testing continues the possibility remains.

October 15, 1971
Amchitka Nuclear Test
With the greatest respect to all the diplomats in the world I think that the peoples of the world are fed up with "diplomatise", excuses, constant rationalization and constant suggestions that if they do this we might do that, and if we do that they might do this. I think this is very much brought home to us by the new generation which last week in British Columbia peacefully paraded in the streets showing their pacifism and how deeply concerned even they are about this furtherance of nuclear testing.
The news that the Amchitka blast may be set off is a drastic setback to the cause of peace. Regardless of how one looks at it, it is contrary to all common sense and it is contrary to all moral sense.
I appreciate the argument put forward by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. McIntosh). It is the argument we have heard for so many years. It is the argument that leaves us still under a cloud of possible annihilation. The concept that this nation should stand and fall with the United States, is in my opinion, a concept conceived in nonsense and nurtured in possible destruction. We should always stand or fall with mankind, but regardless of what the Americans do we must do whatever we can to stop them when we think they are wrong, and the same with the Russians, the Chinese, and any other nations that pursue this course.
Apart from that concept, and apart from any environmental damage that might be caused by this blast, as set forth by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis), or the remote possibility of earthquakes or whatever may result, apart from all that I think that if President Nixon proceeds with this program it will be disastrous for the relationships between Canada and the United States. It will certainly be disastrous for those relationships on the west coast. There will set in not necessarily a hatred, not necessarily a violent anti-American reaction, but a very deep resentment, the kind that exists when your best friend has betrayed you. The good will that has been built up for almost a century with the American people will be destroyed completely.
Economic differences between Canada and the United States can be resolved. We may be resentful of what they have done but those differences can be resolved. We can survive economically. We can see their position on Viet Nam even though we do not agree with it, and it does not build resentment up among us. But for them to be indifferent to the survival of mankind because of their own nationalistic ends will leave in the people of the province of British Columbia the deepest possible resentment. It is true that the Russians are going to do testing and have done so, and also the Chinese. But we do not expect much from them. We never have. But from the United States we expect appreciation, and we expect moral evaluation, and if this test goes ahead we will not get it.
With the greatest respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it can be suggested that the white paper put forward by the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald), in which he says we will co-operate with the United States, means co-operation to the extent of annihilation. Of course we will co-operate with the United States. Of course we realize our common interests and common destiny, but if they are going to go ahead with the destruction of the ecology and fiddle around with the whole destiny of the human race we are not going to stand idly by and co-operate.

That is the time when co-operation ceases and resistance should begin.
In that connection I am very satisfied that the people of British Columbia, certainly the people I represent who are most concerned, are properly concerned. I think they have protested in every conceivable way that could be said to be peaceful protest, and I am beginning to wonder when peaceful protest may stop with regard to actions of this kind if the United States does not react appropriately. I am quite satisfied, too, that the Members of Parliament from British Columbia in all parties have done what they can. Certainly we have all wired President Nixon, we have all spoken to Americans on the embassy staff as and when we could. The last step which the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) has suggested is a good one, but one wonders how effective it might be.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs is to be commended for the stand he has taken. The suggestion that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) should go to Washington is somewhat futile when one considers that the government, not one member of it, speaks for this nation. We should not endow the Prime Minister with some greater power than the government because he does not have it although on occasions the opposition accuses him of having it.
This debate should terminate with the unanimous adoption of this resolution representing the views of all parties, and certainly the Secretary of State for External Affairs should see to it that the United States ambassador, as a special favour to this nation, draws it to the attention of the President of the United States immediately and personally.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I am going to take a little different tack as I start my remarks and I am sorry that the member for New Westminster (Mr. Hogarth) has left the chamber. I hope he really does not believe that sneering at what he called "diplomatise" is very relevant in this debate. It was George Ignatieff of Canada who at the Geneva Disarmament Conference was able to have the Soviet Union and the United States accept most features of a draft treaty presented as an alternative to a treaty that those two superpowers tried to foist upon the nations that make up that conference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fairweather:: I do not think that the cause that most of us apparently espouse, the end of nuclear testing, is helped if we allow ourselves to denigrate the real and extraordinary work done in Geneva in the last couple of years.
Ten minutes is ample time in which to express a view about the proposed underground testing of a nuclear device at Amchitka and to say that I am against all nuclear weapons testing, no matter what the excuse. As a consequence I am very pleased to support this resolution. I know that in some quarters it is considered pious for Canadian Members of Parliament to express a view on a test that should not be made unilaterally when it affects
October 15, 1971

the people of so many countries beyond the borders of the United States.
It seems to me that one of the troubles of the world today is that the meaning of words has become diminished because of the way that statesmen-to use a cliche-use them. Some years ago, with the signing of the test ban treaty, we thought the treaty meant what it said until we read the fine print and found that our bravos were really quite hollow because the fine print said that underground testing could continue.
I think the extremely clear statement made by the Minister for the Environment (Mr. Davis) on the leakage, I think the word was, from the Nevada-


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Venting.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I am afraid a poor lawyer has not the capacity to keep up with the language of nuclear testing but I am told the word is venting. Venting or leaking, it is an intolerable situation that any country in the world can explode a device which affects the people of other countries. It is a well known concept of common law that if I do damage to my neighbour, my neighbour has cause for action. But unfortunately there is no device by which innocent people of the world can bring an action against nations because we are still tribal people.
Surely the business of government should be that of safeguarding and fostering human life. Unfortunately the business of government has recently been preoccupied with death, with killing and being killed. Some people shrug and ask why they should bother with an issue like this when a decision has already been made. But the decision on Amchitka has not been made and I think we would abdicate our responsibilities as a concerned country if we did not make our voice heard loudly, clearly and unequivocally in Washington.
In the September 25, 1971, issue of Saturday Review that great citizen of the world, Norman Cousins, had a most interesting and helpful editorial entitled "Amchitka and Tribalism". I have not time to read it all nor would the House be interested in a long review of the editorial. However, Mr. Cousins does pose two or three interesting questions. One is, where do people turn for protection? They cannot very well complain to the United States since that government proposes to do the exploding if the decision is made. They cannot go to the International Court of Justice because unfortunately at this stage in the march toward civility that court only deals with disputes between nations. An added irony is that we are helping. One of Canada's officials is in charge of the conference to be held in Stockholm next year on the environment, but citizens of the world cannot go there to get any justice.
As the Minister of the Environment said, the pollution aspect of this test is one that concerns all of us. I should like to read to the House one paragraph of this editorial:
Here, then, is the tragic flaw in the organization of human society. The ultimate need on earth is for the protection and preservation of life. Yet no workable authority exists beyond the nation. The nation arrogates to itself the authority and the power to decide what it does not only inside but outside its borders.
This is the great dilemma which I face and the frustration I have with the United States and other countries that explode nuclear devices and do harm to innocent people because of radioactive fall-out. There is no place for the
Amchitka Nuclear Test
citizen of the world to turn as the world is now constituted. The editorial continues:
What it does inside or outside its borders may constitute, as the Amchitka test illustrates, a possible danger to other people and to the world environment as a whole. But there is no legal process by which such danger can be averted. In a larger sense, there is no legal process by which human destiny can be protected and served.
Those who know Norman Cousins know that he has tested the conscience of man during this generation. I think the challenge he has put before us is exemplified in how man is able to respond. In Geneva Mr. Ignatieff and other officials are responding in a positive way.
I share the views of those hon. members who hope that President Nixon will be apprised of this debate and will take cognizance of the views of those people in the world who would be directly affected by a decision that he alone can make.


Mr. Ray Perrault (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, rarely in this House has there been such a degree of unanimity on an issue. Today we have heard members of all parties express their opposition and concern about the pending nuclear test at Amchitka.
What is this test at Amchitka? Canninkin is the code name for the largest underground nuclear test ever conducted by the United States. The blast would have the force of five megatons, the equivalent of 5 million tons of t.n.t. or 250 times the power of the bomb dropped at Hiroshima. It is planned, as hon. members know, for an area which is geologically unstable.
The suggestion has been made in this debate that there is a pressing American necessity for proceeding with this test. They suggest that there is virtual unanimity in the United States regarding the desirability of this test. But this view represents an utter distortion of the actual position.
There is substantial American opposition to the pending test, to the credit of many enlightened friends in the United States. The hearings which have been held in Alaska brought forth the fact that there is great opposition to the test. Indeed, only those with a special interest in defence seem to be pressing the alleged need for the test at present. Let me quote to the House the views of a spokesman for the Federation of American Scientists, the outstanding scientific group in the United States:
Jeremy J. Stone, director of the 2,000-member Federation of American Scientists, claims Cannikin was conceived by the AEC in 1966 under President Johnson to test the Spartan missile, an anti-Chinese missile defense system. However, Mr. Stone contends, the Nixon administration in early 1969 revised the ABM program to have the defense of Minuteman ICBM's against a Soviet threat as its primary purpose, with the defense of cities from a China attack as a supplemental program. "There now is ample reason to believe that a majority of the U.S. Senate will not support an anti-Chinese ABM," he says, adding that the Spartan missile isn't necessary in the ICBM defence system.
"Basically," Mr. Stone argues, "Cannikin is a bureaucratic oversight-an experiment that has been waiting to be cancelled."
The suggestion made is that the project has been tied up in military bureaucracy for a number of years and there is now no rational basis for proceeding with it.

October 15, 1971
Amchitka Nuclear Test
Other testimony developed at the Alaska hearings indicated that the defence department of the United States has announced an intention to develop an improved Spartan with a warhead of much lower yield. The improved Spartan is designed to give the Safeguard system a greater ability to intercept submarine-launched missiles as well as intercontinental missiles. Many defence planners believe, according to testimony given, that in essence there is nothing important which the basic Spartan can do that the improved Spartan cannot do better.
It is really difficult to come to any conclusion except that certain military planners in the United States want to proceed with the test merely for the sake of going ahead with it. The events which may have provided justification for the test at one time have now passed. We are particularly concerned in the Canadian northwest with this United States proposal for testing at Amchitka. Our view in no way should be construed as one that would tolerate, on the other hand, nuclear testing by other nations. All testing poses a danger to man, and it is fallacy to suggest that any part of the world can remain immune from the effects of testing, be that testing atmospheric or underground.
In 1969, when I was with the Canadian delegation at the United Nations, I had an opportunity to serve on a committee which reviewed the report of the United Nations Scientific Committee set up to determine the effects of nuclear radiation. The UNSCEAR Committee was formed in 1955. It is made up of scientists of many nations. Canada, the U.S.S.R. and the United States have representatives on the committee. Despite major differences in the ideologies of the countries represented on the committee these scientists agreed, on the basis of scientific evidence which they had collected, that even underground testing poses the risk of environmental pollution. These scientists from all over the world expressed concern about the possibility of brain damage to unborn children resulting from radiation.
They warned that severe damage to the nervous system can be caused by radiation, whatever the source of that radiation may be. They pointed at the real danger of severe mental retardation in these unborn children. Exposure to radiation may result in an increase in the number of chromosomal aberrations, they say. These aberrations, we are told, are clearly of genetic importance and may in fact comprise the major component of the genetic damage resulting from radiation exposure. World scientists are engaged now in the process of checking the findings gathered thus far, findings which indicate that the very chromosomes which decide the future genetics of mankind and the ability of man to survive are affected by nuclear radiation.
According to a report recently issued by Professor Ernest Sternglass, professor of radiation physics at Pittsburgh University school of medicine, the deaths of 400,000 children in the United States and 100,000 children in Britain had resulted from nuclear tests in the mid-1960's in the United States and Britain. He estimated that 10,000 die with each megaton detonated in atmospheric testing.
In the face of this kind of counsel by world scientists, what has been the Canadian government's actions? I would remind those who are critical of the Canadian government's position that no nation has spoken out more (Mr. Perrault.]
vigorously against all nuclear testing than this nation and no government has spoken out more vigorously than the Canadian government. On many occasions the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has made representations at the Geneva Disarmament Conference, at the United Nations and at the intergovernmental level. He has expressed the continuing Canadian concern and opposition to nuclear testing on the part of any nation in the world. This opposition has not been restricted to testing by the United States; it has been extended to and includes other nations.
Some critics suggest that the Prime Minister of this country has remained silent and has been unwilling to make any representations in this field.


Mr. Brewin:: Who has suggested that?


Raymond J. Perrault: They either do not know or neglect to observe that on October 17, 1970 the Prime Minister said:
-the whole problem of nuclear testing is being discussed and Canadians aie saying things and the government and its representative in Geneva are talking very much about this. We have advanced certain means-if we can agree to the prohibition, for instance, of underground testing. We have advanced certain Canadian devices which will permit to police this prohibition. Therefore we are very much concerned with it-
Then he commented about the Amchitka Aleutian test and said that we object, using these words:
-some people rightly or wrongly think that there would be a direct menace to the lives on the west coast.
The Prime Minister then went on to say:
We have taken the position that we want a moratorium on testing; we want the countries of the world to stop their testing. We have added support to the strategic arms limitation talks. We have encouraged both the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A. to get on with them. We have participated actively in all the discussions on nuclear bans in Geneva. We are a member of the 18-nation disarmament conference. We are as active as we can be in them, but we cannot yet dictate policy to the countries which are proceeding with these tests. But we are a signatory, as you know, to the non-proliferation treaty and we are trying to get other countries to sign it-
That shows just some of the efforts made by the Canadian government in recent months and years. Clearly, this government is opposed to testing in any form on the part of any nation in the world. We have provided this kind of leadership because we are convinced that the future of mankind is threatened not only by underground tests at Amchitka but by tests conducted by other nations including the Soviet Union, the People's Republic of China as well as by the atmospheric testing carried out by France.
We are all concerned about the possible effects of nuclear radiation. No one can feel complacent about nuclear testing, and it does not matter who does the testing and what form the testing takes. The pending Amchitka test is just as deplorable as the Soviet tests which were undertaken a few days ago. The sooner the people of the world make known their absolute opposition to testing by any country, the better will be the chance that battered mankind will be able to survive. It is gratifying to see the unanimity in the House at this time on this question.


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, there are two particular reasons why I wish to add a few words to the discussion today on the resolution before us calling for the halting of nuclear tests in general and the
October 15, 1971____________________COMMONS DEBATES_______________________________________8745
cancellation of the Amchitka underground nuclear test in particular. My first reason stems from the fact that I have recently returned, along with other hon. members of the House, from Washington. We went to one of the national parks of the United States and spent a whole week in an intensive appraisal of the operation of the United States national parks system. During the course of that week we had the opportunity to participate in discussions with the top people in their national parks service. These people are dedicated to the preservation in perpetuity of natural beauty in an unpolluted state in some of the choicest areas that lie within the boundaries of our neighbouring country. We also had an opportunity of meeting with members of the National Advisory Council on Parks, a very interesting and important body of citizens in the United States. We had discussions with the heads of all the great voluntary national conservation organizations in the United States, organizations comprised of thousands of citizens.
As a result of that experience I am much more aware than I might otherwise have been of the fact that literally millions of President Nixon's fellow citizens are today hoping and praying that he will see fit to cancel the Amchitka test. They will be encouraged and happy because of the fact that a motion in the terms now before us is being discussed in the Canadian House of Commons. This is one reason why it is most fortunate and opportune that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has today brought forward this motion for discussion and, hopefully, unanimous endorsation, by the Canadian House of Commons.
I am not going to attempt to cover the ground that some of the previous speakers have covered with regard to the broad issues involved in nuclear testing, underground or otherwise. In speaking as they have in this chamber today they have spoken not only on behalf of all Canadians, not only on behalf of citizens in other places throughout the world, but have also voiced the sentiments that I know are held by many millions of citizens in the country to the south, our closest neighbour, upon whose executive head has been placed the responsibility of deciding whether this test will be carried out.
My second reason for wanting to say a few words is that, if there are immediate disastrous results from this test should it take place, it is my constituents who will be in the first line of fire. I have a very vivid recollection of the events on a certain Easter weekend not many years ago. As a result of a natural earthquake in Alaska and the tidal wave resulting therefrom, many citizens and many communities in Comox-Alberni suffered disastrous effects. The present Minister of Public Works (Mr. Laing), who visited the area shortly afterwards as a member of the Canadian government, can confirm what I am saying. The memory of that situation is still very fresh in the minds of the residents of Comox-Alberni who suffered from the effects of that tidal wave.
Many reputable scientists have said there is a possibility that the effect of this underground nuclear explosion in the proportions which are contemplated could directly or indirectly trigger another earthquake or tidal wave. When the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) spoke earlier he suggested that the possibility of direct earthquake
Amchitka Nuclear Test
effects is remote. The advice he has received may very well indicate that this is the case. I certainly hope this is so. He did indicate there is a possibility that there might be a resulting tidal wave. This is one of the reasons why my constituents in particular are gravely concerned about the possible results that may flow from this underground nuclear explosion if President Nixon does not cancel it. My constituents in particular are hoping and praying that they will not be subjected to an avoidable tidal wave. We recognize the fact that we live in one of the more unstable geological regions of the world and that there is always the possibility of a major earthquake and tidal wave which may affect us. However, we feel it is complete insanity for man to accelerate or increase the possibility of that kind of event taking place.
We also recognize that the other pollutant effects to which the Minister of the Environment referred briefly, if they affect Canadians, will affect us as quickly and probably with more impact than any other part of the country. This is further reason for our opposition to this event taking place. It is further reason why the residents of Comox-Alberni, almost to the last individual, are completely in support of the resolution introduced today by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
We all recognize the fact that the decision is not ours. We realize that this motion is only an expression of opinion. However, I hope the remarks that have been made by the members who preceded me and who have gone into various aspects of the matter will be an indication that we have seriously assessed this question from many sides. I hope that through the appropriate channels the discussion we are having today in the Canadian House of Commons will be brought to the attention of the President of the United States and that he will give it proper weight in his consideration leading to the decision which he has been asked to make by the Congress of the United States.
I hope this resolution will be passed unanimously and that shortly there will be an announcement which will enable us all to breathe a little more freely.


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether we have not seen today how much virtue there can be in short speeches. We are nearing the end of two hours of debate but even so we have heard almost every aspect of this question canvassed and canvassed very thoroughly. Ten minute speeches have been the rule and I believe that as a result those who have taken part have concentrated their thoughts more closely than usual and have, frankly, made better speeches than they would have made had they used 20 or 30 minutes. I intend to attempt to use less than ten minutes, possibly only five.
It is not my purpose to attempt to cover ground which has been so ably covered by speakers on both sides of the House. I wish to deal only with one small aspect of this matter which I have not yet heard raised during the debate. I believe it strengthens the decision which this chamber is, hopefully, about to take unanimously. I should like to raise the question whether the proposed blast at Amchitka would not constitute a violation by the United States of the nuclear test ban treaty. I want to read

October 15, 1971
Amchitka Nuclear Test
a section of this treaty, paragraph (b) of article I. For the sake of clarity I will have to read paragraph (a) first. It states:
1. Each of the Parties to this Treaty undertakes to prohibit, to prevent and not to carry out any nuclear weapon test explosion, at any place under its jurisdiction or control.
(a) in the atmosphere; beyond its limits, including outer space; or underwater, including territorial waters or high seas; or-
This is the significant section for my purposes:
-(b) in any other environment if such explosion causes radioactive debris to be present outside the territorial limits of the State under whose jurisdiction or control such explosion is conducted.
The section continues, but the foregoing is the significant point, Mr. Speaker.
The blast at Amchitka will in all probability cause pollution of ground water at the very least and it is almost inconceivable that this contaminated water will not extend beyond the three-mile territorial limit of United States waters. It is inconceivable upon the evidence-and I refer now to the figures given earlier by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis)-if there is leakage into the atmosphere as occurred in 67 out of 230 tests in Nevada, one out of every four, that this contamination would not be carried in the atmosphere into Canada.
The United States is not, of course, the country most grievously at fault in this matter. The Chinese and the French have been detonating in the atmosphere itself and we know from our pollution readings that when they do radioactivity increases in the Canadian skies. But those countries are not signatories to the test ban treaty. The United States is. I suggest there is a serious question to be raised as to whether the United States, if it proceeds with the Amchitka test, would not be in violation of the treaty it has signed.
There are others, Mr. Speaker, who wish to be heard in this debate. I shall take my seat in a moment. I hope Parliament will express itself unanimously in favour of this resolution. Perhaps parliamentarians of other nations will also speak up as this Parliament is doing and speak for the people of the world. I trust that our voices will be heard and heeded. I thank hon. members for their attention.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I need say anything on the substance of the debate. I believe the views which have been expressed have all been directed toward one end, namely, to confirming that this motion is one which deserves support generally throughout the House. And I presume the motion will shortly be passed. I am hopeful that this matter might well be disposed of before one o'clock in order that when we return at two o'clock we shall be able to carry on with Routine Proceedings.
I wish to bring only one other point to the attention of the House. I do not think the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) was deliberately in error, but I think some credit should be given to the Official Opposition for their co-operation on this occasion, something of an impasse having been reached on finding ways and means of bringing this motion before the House in a form which would provide an opportunity for the expression of opinions. Our party did agree to forgo one opposition day, a day which would normally be ours, in order that this 
time could be so spent. If I may say so without partisanship, that is something of a sacrifice when one considers there are so many opportunities of usefully spending opposition days.
The House has initiated a debate on this matter. We hope it will be concluded and that the motion will secure the support of hon. members.


Mitchell William Sharp: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, in connection with the matter raised by the House leader for the Progressive Conservative party, I know the hon. member shares my view that it is desirable to have evidence of the very strong support which is being given on both sides of the House to this motion. I would suggest that the vote might be taken as soon as we reassemble at two o'clock. This would not be more than the two hours which had originally been allotted. I should like, for example, to have the Prime Minister here and I am sure he would wish to have leading members of this party present in the House when the question is decided.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: We would agree to this. Perhaps if there are no more speakers at this point we could call it one o'clock and take the vote when we come back at two o'clock.


Gerald William Baldwin: I wonder how the question can be put. Is it the intention that there should be a recorded vote? None of us knows that. Maybe the question might be put, and then we could reassemble at two o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion now made is that the question be put at this time and, if there is to be a formal vote, hon. members would reconvene at two o'clock for the afternoon session and the bells would be allowed to ring and members would be called in for the vote. Is this the way in which we should proceed?


Mr. Deachman:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, at this moment there are a number of people who are not in the chamber but who are within the grounds of Parliament and who will be here for the question period. I believe we would be better advised to leave the matter of the vote until after the lunch hour when we shall have a fuller House and a more expressive idea of the will of Parliament on this issue.


Mr. Speaker:: There would have to be agreement then since, normally, as soon as a debate is ended the question has to be put. But if this is the desire of hon. members we shall call it one o'clock.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: Order. Pursuant to the agreement made prior to one o'clock today the Chair will now put the question on the motion which was under debate this morning. All those in favour of the said motion will be please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.
October 15, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay. Mr. McIntosh: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried on division. Motion agreed to.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the United States has granted an exemption from the 10 per cent surcharge to various nations that are exporters of textiles in return for certain concessions, is the government confident that the Canadian case with respect to exemptions has been put forcefully and eloquently enough by the Canadian government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I realize that this is the first question of the question period and that I should not be too difficult procedurally, but it does seem to me that the question might be rephrased and put in another way. The hon. member is asking whether the government is confident that a position has been put in a satisfactory way. A question asked in those terms invites the expression of an opinion, and I am wondering whether it should be accepted. As I said, I do not want to be difficult so perhaps the Prime Minister might be allowed to reply.


Gerald William Baldwin: The Chair said you might be allowed to reply.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says I can try to answer. I think there is a bit of confusion in this question. There is no indication that the United States has made any concessions to the Japanese beyond those they made to Canada a long while ago. The lifting of the surcharge is conditional upon these textiles and other items going on quota. As hon. members know, though perhaps not the hon. member, there is no surcharge on our goods going to the United States on quota.



UNITED STATES IMPORT SURCHARGE-POSSIBILITY OF BILATERAL DISCUSSIONS FOR REMOVAL-MORE FORCEFUL REPRESENTATIONS BY CANADA

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, apparently the Prime Minister and I are not ad idem; as usual, he is a little distance behind. May I ask him a very simple question. It now having been established that the United States will conduct bilateral discussions with other countries regarding removal of the surcharge, will the Canadian government not step up its efforts and, in the language of Mr. Speaker, rephrase its request to the United States and make it more forceful and eloquent?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we will continue to make our representations to
Inquiries of the Ministry
the United States. Once again so far as the premise of the question is concerned, the hon. member should realize that from the very outset there was toward Canada this kind of bilateral exemption of many Canadian goods from the United States surcharge. The Japanese have not been as forceful and persuasive as we because they have taken several months to reach the stage that we reached in a week.



UNITED STATES IMPORT SURCHARGE-FAILURE OF PRIME MINISTER TO NEGOTIATE DIRECTLY WITH PRESIDENT NIXON

['The hon. member should really recall that the first head of state, so far as I can recall, I did contact by a personal visit after my election was the President of the United States of America. Now, the fact I have also visited the Premier of the USSR a couple of years after that, is surely vindicated by the fact that the President of the United States is now saying he is going to do the same thing.']
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that has been put in different ways to the Prime Minister, but in view of what happened last night he might like to answer it. Since the Prime Minister has neither telephoned nor written personally to the President of the United States, would he advise the House and the country why he will not seek direct contact with the President and, as Prime Minister of this country, try to negotiate with the President a better deal for Canada, as has been done in the past?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am really overwhelmed by the confidence that is repeatedly expressed in me by members on the opposite side. I am certain that this will lay to rest forever the charge that it is I, rather than they, who is working toward a presidential system. They should know that under the parliamentary system when relations between countries are normal, exchanges and representations are made at the highest level between ministers responsible for foreign affairs. Therefore, we have made representation to the United States at the very highest level in contacts between the two countries. If the opposition want me to embark on types of personal diplomacy toward the United States, once again I can only thank them for approving of the type of personal diplomacy which I thought was valid in relation to other countries, but which did not seem to have their wholehearted endorsement.



Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would share the diplomacy and tell us whether there is any merit in the suggestion that Canada urge upon the President of the United States that that gentleman make a visit to this country before visiting the USSR and mainland China or would he tell us when it is expected that the President will visit Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have no firm dates yet, but the United States government let it be known to us they would seek a visit sometime in the first half of next year, I understand sometime in the spring. The dates have not been firmly set up, and I

October 15, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
do not think anyone knows yet whether it will be before or after Mr. Nixon visits Peking and Moscow.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I ask one more supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Calgary North on a supplementary, and then the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I hope you do not take this as argumentative, but in view of the answer could the Prime Minister now explain to the House and the country why he contacts directly heads of state of other countries but not the United States, such as the USSR and others.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member should really recall that the first head of state, so far as I can recall, I did contact by a personal visit after my election was the President of the United States of America. Now, the fact I have also visited the Premier of the USSR a couple of years after that, is surely vindicated by the fact that the President of the United States is now saying he is going to do the same thing.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Was the Prime Minister stating government policy at his noon hour press conference when he indicated that a certain amount of unemployment is necessary for a healthy and growing economy, and can he say what level of unemployment he thinks would achieve this purpose.


An hon. Member:: He did not say that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if I understood what I think I understood the question is based on a false premise.



ENTRY OF WOMEN INTO LABOUR MARKET-REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER EXPLAIN REASON

Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary to the Prime Minister in respect of his noon hour speech. He expressed concern that women who, up to this point, apparently have been satisfied to play bridge and carry on works of benevolence have suddenly got it into their heads to join the labour market. Would he be willing to make an early statement concerning the reason for this sudden change, whether it is economic or merely the result of whim or the effect of the media upon women.


Mr. lamieson:: They can't stand their husbands.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid the Minister of Transport really got in ahead of me. I was going to say that I do not object to making a statement but, in this particular case, I am at a loss to be able to explain why the women want to get away from their husbands at any particular time of life. I have no particular explanation for it but I am embarked on a case study now which might bring some light to it.



UNEMPLOYMENT-REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF ALLEGED STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER CONCERNING REASONS PEOPLE SEEK WORK

Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary for the Prime Minister as a result of his press conference at noon. Would the Prime Minister care to clarify his statement to the effect that people are saying, when surveyed they are looking for work, for religious, philosophical and ethical reasons. Did the Prime Minister mean that they are not really looking for work.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have some doubt whether questions of this nature, in respect of a press conference which took place outside the House, which go from sentence to sentence and which could be commented on for 40 minutes, are in order. However, the Prime Minister may wish to reply to this question. It seems to me there might be other questions other hon. members might like to ask.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question itself surely translates a very curious misconception. When I say people are doing things for philosophical or religious reasons, obviously I do not mean they are not really doing things. I am surprised at the hon. member's suggested philosophy that when people do things for religious purposes they really do not mean it.



POSSIBILITY OF FURTHER SELECTIVE TAX CUTS TO ASSIST LABOUR INTENSIVE MANUFACTURING INDUSTRIES

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that the corporate tax cuts announced yesterday were across the board, are further selective cuts to be introduced to assist labour intensive manufacturing industries.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I knew this would happen, but not on the first day. No matter how many tax cuts we announce, I am sure there will always be on the next day representations from the opposition that we should do more somewhere else. The answer is no, not today, Mr. Speaker.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has been commenting on opposition tactics. In light of the fact that the government has now adopted the oppsition's proposals, I would think he might be a little more careful in his statements.
October 15, 1971



POSSIBLE TAX INCENTIVES TO STIMULATE PURCHASE OF CANADIAN EQUIPMENT AND MACHINERY

Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, of course we are trying to focus in upon the point at which there is need in this country at this rather sad moment. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government intends to introduce special investment tax incentives to stimulate purchases of Canadian equipment and machinery.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member suggests we have overlooked an important area while his House Leader says we have adopted their own measures, so perhaps they should get together.



CORPORATE TAXES-CONTRADICTION BETWEEN GOVERNMENT PROGRAM AND BILL C-259-POSSIBLE WITHDRAWAL OF BILL

Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I might be able to help the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the statement made last night and Bill C-259, which is still before the House, are contradictory in that one would cut the taxes of corporations and the other would increase them, is the government going to withdraw Bill C-259?



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Len Marchand (Kamloops-Cariboo):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Is any special attention being paid by his department or by other government departments to the inclusion of Indian communities in the benefits under the economic incentives program announced last night.

Hon. ]ean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development): Mr. Speaker, the Indian reserves have been included in the government program in the same way as other municipalities of Canada.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the minister could advise the House if these efforts are being made through his department or through other departments or both.


Mr. Chretien:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. How many jobs does the government estimate will be provided by the program that was announced by the Finance Minister last night involving $1 billion.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I suppose it would be possible to make some rough calculations of the number of jobs affected by these measures, but how many jobs will be created and how many people will change their jobs to take new ones I cannot say and I do not think I can obtain the figure.



NUMBER OF JOBS PROVIDED BY NEW PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF ESTIMATE BY DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE

David Orlikow: Would the Prime Minister consider tabling the estimates for employment which would have been provided this winter in the absence of the program announced last night by the finance minister which would be prepared by the economists working for the Department of Finance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.



PUBLIC WORKS


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint ]ohn-Lancaster):: My question is for the Minister of Public Works and it is in connection with the announcement made last night regarding public works programs. May I ask the minister whether he expects that the Newfoundland portion will be announced before, say, October 28.
In view of the fact that the minister is not replying, may I ask a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member might try asking another question. I doubt that he should ask a supplementary question to the first one.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I ask, then, whether these announcements of the Newfoundland public works will be made by the minister's colleague, the Minister of Transport, or will they be made in the usual way by the premier of Newfoundland?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: May I
rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I do not have any resentment with regard to the matter; I am only sorry

October 15, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
that since there is not a Newfoundland member on the other side of the House they have to fall back on the New Brunswickers.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I say on the point of order, Mr. Speaker, that there was to be one Newfoundlander here every day, but unfortunately that gentleman is sick today.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: My question is for the right hon. Prime Minister. In Winnipeg the Prime Minister stated that certain representations will be made to Premier Kosygin regarding the treatment of political prisoners in the Ukraine. Before the premier's visit, will the Prime Minister inform the House what those representations will be?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I told the group which I was meeting that if they made certain representations on which we agreed verbally, then I would transmit them to Premier Kosygin. If they do transmit these representations to me, I will have no objection to making them public, but for the time being I have not received them and therefore I cannot speak of them.


Mr. Robert Borrie (Prince George-Peace River):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Public Works. Can the minister advise the House when we may expect the second meeting of the American and Canadian officials to deal with the upgrading of the Alaska Highway?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: The
second meeting took place in Washington on Thursday of last week. The results were not as optimistic as I had hoped.


Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In his absence I was going to put it to his parliamentary secretary, but I do not see him here either at the moment. Perhaps someone opposite might take notice of the question. Actually, it is a question which I tried to ask yesterday as a supplementary question to one asked of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs about misleading advertising. This is the question I want to ask of the Minister of National Health and Welfare: can the minister indicate what is the status or progress of the talks which I understand are going on between represent-
IMr. Jamieson.]
atives of his department and the cigarette industry with regard to the termination date of cigarette advertising. I hope someone will take notice of the question.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: have a question for either the Minister of National Defence or the President of the Treasury Board. Is it the intention of the government to increase the salaries of members of the armed services, and does the government intend to increase them by 18 per cent retroactive to October 1970?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: The question of the pay and allowances for the armed forces is now being considered, and I hope to make an announcement within a month.


Robert Carman Coates: Could the minister indicate when the announcement will be made?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I hope to be able to make an announcement within a month.



FAMILY INCOME SECURITY


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Recognizing the difficulties between the Quebec and Ottawa governments with regard to family allowances, and as the Quebec premier indicated yesterday that he was willing to discuss the matter personally with the Prime Minister, can the latter tell us whether he is ready to take it up with the Quebec premier, and when could he do so?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have absolutely no objection to personal negotiations, Mr. Speaker, but we felt negotiations were making good progress between the officials and the ministers; as I trust them implicitly, I should prefer the talks to continue at that level. But if the Quebec premier wants to deal with me personally, I am quite agreeable to that.



THE CANADIAN MINT


Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: My question is for the
Minister of Supply and Services. In view of the minister's
October 15, 1971____________________COMMONS DEBATES______________________________________8751
statements in Manitoba, can he tell the House if and when the new Canadian Mint will be located in Winnipeg?


Hon. lames Richardson (Minister of Supply and Services):: I have advised the House before that no decision has been reached concerning the location of the new facilities for the Mint.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: My question is for the Minister of Supply and Services apropos the $50 million that was allocated last night to municipal bodies for works in the immediate future. Since the federal government has direct control over this, would the Minister of Supply and Services use his good offices to see that Saskatchewan gets perhaps more than its share because there was another situation over which we had no control-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; that is a representation, not a question.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Arthur Portelance (Gamelin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
We have now reached the middle of October and, some two weeks ago, the minister told us that a policy would be announced or at least that a report from the Textile and Clothing Board would be presented at this time. Can the minister give us any information on that?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I must confess, with regret, that I shall be two or three days late.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask him whether he has looked into the matter of the reduction of consists of the CPR train "The Canadian" taking effect today, and would he report to the House as to what the situation is?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I understand that at this time of year it is normal to change the consist of a number of trains. I would draw to the attention of the House that the requirement is that the number of cars be adequate to the traffic
Inquiries of the Ministry
operation, but I will obtain more details and inform the hon. member.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: May I ask the minister whether, in view of the fact that the consist will now be made up of one sleeper from Montreal to Vancouver and one from Toronto to Vancouver, which is not adequate in the opinion of many, the minister would take a mean pill and make representations to the CPR on behalf of the government requesting a larger consist of this train for the rest of this year.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It may not be adequate but it will be cosy, and I will be glad to make these representations.


Stanley Howard Knowles: You took the wrong kind of pill.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: My question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that moneys allocated to the Cape Breton Development Corporation are almost depleted, and this was confirmed by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion in the House two days ago, and in the light of the statement of the Minister of Finance, will more funds be made available to Devco immediately for their work in providing and stimulating employment in Cape Breton rather than having to wait until estimates are brought in, as was suggested by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have to say that the suggestion of the minister is the one which I would want to repeat today.



PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT POSITION

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of the Environment take the first opportunity to make a full statement to the House in connection with the federal government's position on the James Bay project, the extent to which the federal government will be observing the needs for environmental protection, whether or not the government of Quebec has made application under the Navigable Waters Protection Act, the federal government's position with respect to that act and what has to be done in this regard?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to take the hon. member's suggestion into consideration.

O ctober 15,1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-PROTECTION OF RIGHTS OF INDIANS

David Orlikow: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development at the same time give consideration to making a statement on what the government is doing to protect the traditional rights of the Indians now residing in the James Bay area to make a living?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said before that we have a committee of federal and provincial officials, and representatives of the Indians Association working on this problem. I understand the Indians met with the Quebec premier a few weeks ago in that regard, and we keep a close watch on the way things develop.



CROWN CORPORATIONS


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of the Environment. Will the minister press his colleague, the Minister of Transport, to introduce an amendment to the Navigable Waters Protection Act which would bring all Crown corporations under its provisions?


John (Jack) Davis: That sounds like a good idea, Mr. Speaker.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport arising from the answer just given to my colleague, the hon. member for Kootenay West, by the Minister of the Environment. Would the Minister of Transport be willing to accept, as a precedent, my bill which is on the order paper and which would accomplish the purpose of amending the Navigable Waters Protection Act-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Were the winter works programs announced last night developed after first having had consultation with the provinces and/or the municipalities?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, consultation will take place and indeed has taken place. When the minister was speaking yesterday evening I believe he indicated-but perhaps he did not-that his officials already that afternoon had contacted the depart-

ments of the treasury of all provinces and had told them we wanted to meet with their officials as early as possible next week to explain the details of the program to them as they affect the provinces and municipalities. I believe that now they are trying to arrange such a meeting for the middle of this coming week, to be followed some time afterward by a meeting of ministers of finance.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. It was part of the minister's announcement that there would be this meeting, but my question is concerned with what happened before that. Were there consultations with the provinces and/or the municipalities before this announcement was made, and did they approve of the federal government's initiative?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. The House knows that we have too much respect for the parliamentary system to consult with provinces on a budgetary measure of this kind before making it known to this House.



WINTER WORKS PROGRAM-METHOD OF ALLOCATING FUNDS

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Will any limits be placed on the amount granted to a province for assistance to municipalities, or will this be done on a first come, first served basis until the funds are used up?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this fund will be apportioned according to a rather complicated formula involving many factors, one of which, of course, will be the rate of unemployment in various parts of Canada, the need-and especially the possibility-of getting ahead with the work as soon as possible.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. John Burton (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the fact that the minister's announcement indicated that there is no representation from farm organizations on the committee established to advise the government on preparations for the UN environmental conference in Stockholm next year, could he indicate whether he has taken any action to remove or correct this oversight, or is he considering taking such action?


John (Jack) Davis: We have already taken steps in that connection, Mr. Speaker.
October 15, 1971



POLLUTION


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. Is he in a position to inform the House of the actions his department has taken since its formation to eliminate the mine-dump fire that is still in existence at the town of Springhill?


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the minister can reply briefly to the question. The hon. member has invited the minister to say what action has been taken by his department over a period of time. That question should normally be answered by a statement on motions. As I say, I hope the minister can reply briefly.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, this matter has been under investigation jointly with the province of Nova Scotia. I cannot report further at this moment.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Donald Craig Stewart: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the reports last week that the government plans laws to save endangered wildlife, will the government be reinstating its "dollars for wetlands" program which encouraged and compensated farmers to leave sloughs and potholes in their present state?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think this question should be addressed instead to the Minister of Environment, who is now responsible for the Canadian Wildlife Service.


Donald Craig Stewart: I will redirect my question to the Minister of the Environment. In view of reports last week that the government plans laws to save endangered wildlife, will the government be reinstating its "dollars for wetlands" program which encouraged and compensated farmers to leave sloughs and potholes in their present state?


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions with the Prairie provinces and we are considering a new program to cover crop depredation.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.
Inquiries of the Ministry INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, in order to plan our weekend, I ask the Prime Minister if there will be any more hour-long broadcasts on national television by any member of the cabinet to try to explain this latest, crazy budget?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, The hon. member will appreciate that the question as asked is not in order.



THE CANADIAN COASTGUARD


Robert Muir: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Is he in a position to advise whether a decision has been reached with regard to the future of the Canadian Coastguard College, with particular reference to location, possible expansion and other types of training?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No
decision, but a progress report, Mr. Speaker. The group has certainly narrowed down the number of options and, as I mentioned the other day, I am sure this will be a joint school now, which will mean a larger one. The hon. member's location of Sydney is still very much in the running.



NATIONAL PARKS


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can the minister inform the House if the entire Kluane game sanctuary in the Yukon is actively being considered as a site for a national park?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question should be placed on the order paper.


Randolph Harding: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I advised the hon. member that the question should be placed on the order paper, so he cannot ask a supplementary. He can also put his supplementary question on the order paper.



SHIPPING


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. Can the

October 15, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Minister say whether he has received a communication from the Canadian Merchant Service Guild in regard to the safety manning regulations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows he cannot ask a question in those terms. He can ask whether action is being taken, but for a member simply to ask whether a communication has been received by a minister is not sufficient.


John Leroy Skoberg: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In view of the communication having been received by the Minister of Transport, can he say whether he is going to allow ample time for the Canadian Merchant Service Guild to make representations to his department?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, since I suspect the hon. member had a hand in writing the question, perhaps he can also lend me a hand in writing the answer.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: While I am on my feet, Mr. Speaker, I might say I will be able to give the delay the hon. member for Moose Jaw was asking about.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, may I try something on for size with the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs? Because of the backlog and sheer volume of veterans' cases to be decided by the Canadian Pension Commission, is any thought being given to appointing extra bodies to deal with this problem over the next year?


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice.



EXHIBITIONS


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. In view of the money being made available for class A and B fairs, is the government considering a grant for the Saskatoon exhibition to erect a horse barn as a memorial to the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would suggest to hon. members that they consider allowing the Chair to call orders of the day. I think a number of questions asked might have been deferred. I would suggest to hon. members that there is no necessity to repeat, for the sole purpose of filling the 40 minutes allotted, questions which

have been asked on a number of occasions. I would invite hon. members to give this matter some thought. The hon. member for Mackenzie.



TRANSPORT


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In view of the representation made several years ago to instal flashers on train engines because of the numerous accidents that happen at crossings, can the minister inform the House whether we are any closer to the date that this will be done?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: would hope so, Mr. Speaker, but I really could not say. I recall having passed this information on to the CTC, and I know it is one of the matters being investigated.



ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY POSSIBLE INCREASE IN TOLLS-FURTHER SUBMISSIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. In light of his inability several weeks ago to give a definite answer, and in view of the 49 submissions in opposition to St. Lawrence Seaway tolls, could the minister now tell the House that the government will not approve an increase in these tolls?


Mr. Speaker:: Again, it seems to me that the hon. member has reiterated a question which has been asked on a number of occasions. However, I shall allow the minister to reply.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, the only answer could be that this matter is still under consideration and more submissions are coming in, though I think they are all in the negative.



AIR TRANSPORT


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport arising out of an exchange he had earlier this week with the member for Central Nova. Will the government give new direction to the Canadian Transport Commission so that in effect Canadian Pacific Airlines may become the second national coast-to-coast carrier in Canada?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to argue with the hon. gentleman,
October 15, 1971

but unfortunately when he talks about coast-to-coast he is usually referring to Halifax and Vancouver-


Robert Jardine McCleave: I was thinking of it in terms of Bonavista to Vancouver Island.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: That matter is under consideration, Mr. Speaker.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


John Stratford Burton: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Can the right hon. gentleman inform the House whether Canada asked for any specific arrangements, as opposed to a general exemption, arising out of the imposition of the U.S. import surcharge and, if so, could he indicate what the response of the United States has been to such proposals?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as I think I said in answer to an earlier question today, our representations to the Americans cover a very wide area. I told the House leader of the Conservative party that in some cases the Americans indicated to us very quickly that we would see exemptions of the 10 per cent surcharge applied to large sectors of our economy, but I cannot give a more detailed answer unless the question is put in some other way.



POST OFFICE


Barry Mather: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for either the Minister of Communications or the Postmaster General. However, I do not think either minister is in the House at the moment so perhaps somebody else will take notice of the question. Would the ministers concerned look into the many complaints which, in common with other members, I am receiving about the delays in delivery of mail? I should like an early report on this matter.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. When in the near future he meets with Premier Kosygin here in Canada, would he ask Premier Kosygin to intercede with the U.S.S.R. government on behalf of Lithuania so that the persecution of those of the Christian faith which has continued in that country since 1947 may be terminated?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I shall take that into consideration, Mr. Speaker.



AGRICULTURE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, would the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture discuss with his minister the question of proclaiming the Farmers' Creditors Arrangement Act which is in full force but does not apply to current conditions in light of the very difficult cash position of farmers?


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I shall bring that question to the attention of my minister on Monday morning.


Gerald William Baldwin: A supplementary question. Would the parliamentary secretary also bring to the attention of the minister the possibility of making an acreage payment to farmers, as was done by previous governments with very effective results?


Mr. Drury:: It was offered and you turned it down.



TRANSPORT


John Stratford Burton: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Is the minister in a position to indicate when the government will announce its policy with respect to the many rail line relocation projects which have been under study for some time in respect of a number of Canadian cities such as Regina?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Not
an actual date, Mr. Speaker, although I am pleased to advise the House-and I seem to recall having made reference to it a few days ago-that a substantial contract has been awarded for a study in Winnipeg which is now under way with the agreement of all parties concerned and is designed to arrive at a national program for all such projects. I would think this project would be completed during the current year.


An hon. Member:: You said that about a year ago.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.

October 15, 1971
Northern Canada Power Commission Act



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-193, to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, as reported (with an amendment) from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) moves motion No. 1 as follows:
That Bill C-193, an act to amend the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, be amended by deleting line 9 on page 1 thereof and substituting therefor the words "five members".


Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, before discussing this amendment I have what is probably a question of privilege in connection with the obligations of the government to file the annual financial statements of Northern Canada Power Commission. The financial statements of the commission are prepared to the end of March each year, and by the laws of the country the government is required to table these financial statements each year. This year, the current financial statement of the commission was tabled on October 8.
In addition to the tabling requirement there is a requirement that the report receive certification by the Auditor General. Quick reference to the document tabled in this House on October 8 will reveal that because of the highly unsatisfactory state of the commission, the Auditor General withheld his approval of the financial statement.
The financial report that should have been filed normally consists of a breakdown, by plant, of the operating expenses of the plant and of the income received as a result of its operation. In the document that was filed on October 8 that statement is missing. During the last three years I have had to write to and call officials in the department and in the commission. I wanted them to produce that independent station-by-station breakdown which they are required to keep under the provisions of the Northern Canada Power Commission Act. I submit that the station-by-station, or plant-by-plant breakdown is part and parcel of the financial statement of the commission. Since it was not available, the Auditor General withheld certification of the document that was tabled on October 8. That was one of his reasons.
My question of privilege resolves itself to this: the commission, or the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) through whom the commission reports to Parliament, has not complied with the law as set out in the Northern Canada Power Commission Act and has not tabled the financial statement that the law requires to be tabled.
We cannot debate intelligently requirements under the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, the legislation which the government is trying to amend, unless the existing law is complied with. One provision of the act, as I have said, requires each plant in the system to be self-sus-

taining. We have no way of knowing whether plants within the system are self-sustaining unless an individual, plant-by-plant breakdown is tabled as part and parcel of the accounts of the commission.
Information required by law to be tabled in Parliament has been withheld from Parliament. That omission, in my submission, ought to be rectified immediately before we continue this debate. The withholding from the House of information which is required by law to be tabled by the minister, any government official or government agency, constitutes a breach of the privileges of this House. That information has not been made available.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the report was duly tabled in the House. I must add that the reports brought in by departments and Crown corporations are still dealt with by the Public Accounts Committee, and each year the committee's report is submitted and may be considered. I do not know exactly what the hon. member is talking about. Furthermore, he has not given me notice to the effect that the question would be raised. I think that within the committee we could give the necessary explanations, but this question is not at all relevant to the consideration of the bill at this stage, the report stage.
I do not think that this question of privilege is in order. [English]


Mr. Speaker:: I have listened to the hon. member's presentation, and although he may have a grievance I do not think the matter can be brought under the umbrella of breach of parliamentary privilege. The hon. member submits that the minister or someone on behalf of the government is in breach of the law in that there has been a failure to file a document.
Although I appreciate that any such omission may complicate the consideration of a piece of legislation before the House, I do not think it can be considered to be a breach of parliamentary privilege which can give rise to a motion and the referral of the matter to a committee. Even if that were the case, I suggest to the hon. member that the matter which is before the House would still be before us and we would have to consider the amendment standing in the name of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I do not think I can be of much assistance to the hon. member with regard to his suggestion that the matter be considered by way of breach of parliamentary privilege.


Erik Nielsen: With great respect, perhaps Your Honour's lack of knowledge of the Northern Canada Power Commission Act, the government's amendments now before us and my amendment has prevented the Chair from appreciating the full import and seriousness of the omission in this case. Each year so far the provisions of the Northern Canada Power Commission Act have been complied with. A full and complete financial disclosure has been made and the commission's financial statement has been tabled. This is the first year in which the commission and the government have departed from that course.
There is no way for us to debate this bill intelligently, in light of amendments before the House, unless we are given the type of information that I hold in my hand. This
October 15, 1971

information was tabled last year; it is part of the financial statement. It is entitled "Northern Canada Power Commission statement of income and expenses for the year ended March 31, 1970". This is a three-sheet breakdown of income and expenses, by plant. We cannot intelligently consider the amendments before the House unless the current information is placed before us and the minister is prepared to table it immediately. Only if that is done can I and others wishing to participate in this debate compare the information on an annual basis. If the information is not made available immediately, I am prepared to move the adjournment of the House until such time as the minister brings it foward, as he is required to do by law.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there is to my knowledge no provision in the law for the chairman of the Commission to produce a statement of those expenditures-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member and to the minister that the point has been made clearly. I am not saying that the hon. member for Yukon does not have a point and I did not wish to disagree with the hon. member when he suggests that the Chair does not understand the situation. Such a suggestion has been made before and I do not deny the hon. member's right to repeat it.
The hon. member has the right to certain recourse if he thinks a matter cannot be proceeded with intelligently and logically. I have in mind that there is perhaps only one logical recourse of which he and other hon. members may avail themselves when a matter is difficult to proceed with. When such difficulties arise, very often an understanding is reached among representatives of the parties as to the possibility of postponing consideration of the bill. If no such arrangement can be reached among the parties, I see nothing wrong with the course of action contemplated by the hon. member for Yukon. [Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, that question of privilege should be addressed to the House without notice. I am told that I should table that report. I do not object, but I am not the chairman of that corporation. Also perhaps the hon. member should have had the courtesy to tell the House that he had asked the chairman of the Commission for the information he wanted to have, and that he received it yesterday.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, only 20 minutes or half an hour ago the government deigned to inform the House that the bill before us would be the first item of government business. As for the minister's arguing that he is not the president of the corporation, that argument bears little weight. We know that. Nevertheless, he is the minister responsible for the commission.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We have nothing to hide.


Erik Nielsen: He is the minister responsible for the actions of the commission and he is the minister through whom the commission reports to Parliament. I have an alternative suggestion to make to the minister, because
Northern Canada Power Commission Act neither I nor anybody else on this side of the House has any wish to impede the progress of the business of this House. Since the information must be readily available in order to have an intelligent debate on this subject, since it has always been made available in the past-the law requiring it to be made available-and since the Auditor General has refused to certify certain documents because the information has not been made available, I am prepared to suggest to the minister that he should adjourn the debate until such time as this information is brought to him by his officials.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this bill is before the House and I am ready to proceed with it. We have nothing to hide. The hon. member has certain information. If he wants to use it, he may do so.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Yukon has the floor.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, in face of the truculence of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) I see no alternative. He says he has nothing to hide. Then why was this information not tabled, as the law requires? Why did the Auditor General not certify the accounts of the commission? Something is wrong. We will not know what is wrong until we get the plant-by-plant breakdown. And when we get it, I know what we will find wrong. We will find that the commission has been in breach of the very law by virtue of which it exists. One provision of the act requires that eery plant be self-sufficient. The commission will be wrong, because the only plant in the system that is making huge profits-and we know that reductions are being applied as is required-is the one that exists-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he should either deal with his motion which is before the House or take some other action. I would indicate, in all kindness to the hon. member, that in view of the fact that he already has a motion before the House he cannot move a second motion. If it is his intention to suggest there should be an adjournment of the debate, he should yield the floor to another hon. member who will have the opportunity to make such a motion. As the hon. member well knows, no member can have two motions before the House at the same time.


Erik Nielsen: I intended to say that the only plant making a huge profit is at Whitehorse. It is the consumers there who are suffering because of this breach of the law. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin):
That the debate be adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member failed to hear me. I said he cannot move another motion because he already has a motion before the House. It is not competent for him, procedurally, to move such a motion. If the hon. member has completed his remarks the Chair will recognize another member who will be given an opportunity to move the motion.
8758

October 15, 1971
Northern Canada Power Commission Act


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. I wish to inform the House of the facts. There is no requirement by law-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The hon. member has received a copy-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: He can table it if he wants.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is obviously a dispute between the hon. member and the minister as to the circumstances of this matter. That is not what is before the House at the present time. The hon. member for Yukon feels the matter is one which should be dealt with by way of a question of privilege. After consideration I indicated that is not the way in which it should be considered by the House. The importance of the matter, from the point of view of the hon. member, was brought to the attention of the House by a motion in the form suggested by the hon. member for Yukon. We should not have a debate on the aspect of the matter which is now being brought to our attention by the minister.


Erik Nielsen: I rise on a question of privilege which is quite separate from the other. I want to make it clear that my remarks thus far have not been on my amendment but only on the question of privilege and to deny categorically that I have received the 1971 statement, as has been asserted by the minister. I wrote for it some time ago but have not yet received it.


Grant Deachman: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the question of privilege which the hon. member has raised. If every member of this House who wanted to debate a bill did not like what was going on and moved the adjournment of the House, how could we make progress?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, in light of the discussion, which I will not repeat, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams):
That this debate be adjourned.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.
The House divided on the motion (Mr. Baldwin) which
division:
was negatived	on the following
 YEAS Messrs:
Baldwin	McCleave
BeU	Muir
Bigg	Nielsen
Cadieu	Noble
Coates	Paproski
Dinsdale	Ryan
Fairweather	Stewart
Gundlock	(Marquette)
Harkness	Thomas
Horner	(Moncton)
Howe	Thompson
Korchinski	(Red Deer)
MacRae	Woolliams-23.
 NAYS Messrs:
Allmand	Legault
Andras	Lessard (LaSalle)
Barnett	Lessard
Barrett	(Lac-Saint-Jean)
Basford	L'Heureux
Bfechard	Lolselle
Benjamin	Macdonald
Benson	(Rosedale)
Blair	MacEachen
Blouin	Maclnnis (Mrs.)
Borrie	McBride
Boulanger	Mcllraith
Buchanan	McNulty
Burton	Marchand
Caccia	(Kamloops-
Chretien	Cariboo)
Clermont	Mather
Cobbe	Munro
Comtois	Noel
C6t6 (Richelieu)	Ny strom
Cyr	O'Connell
Danson	Orange
Davis	Osier
Deachman	Pepin
De Bane	Perrault
Drury	Portelance
Dupras	Pringle
Duquet	Richard
Forget	Richardson
Francis	Rochon
Gauthier	Rodrigue
Gleave	Roy (Laval)
Goode	Serre
Goyer	Sharp
Gray	Skoberg
Guay (St. Boniface)	Smith
Guay (L6vis)	(Saint-Jean)
Guilbault	Stewart
Harding	(Cochrane)
Hogarth	Stewart (Okanagan
Howard (Okanagan	Kootenay)
Boundary)	St. Pierre
Jamieson	Thomas
Knowles (Winnipeg	(Maisonneuve-
North Centre)	Rosemont)
Lachance	Trudel
Laing (Vancouver	Turner
South)	(London East)
La Salle	Wahn
Latulippe	Walker
Leblanc (Laurier)	Watson
LeBlanc (Rimounski)	Weatherhead-92.

October 15, 1971
[DOT]	(3:30 p.m.)


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I declare the motion lost.


Gerald William Baldwin: Four o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Because of the fact that we worked the staff rather late last night-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: -and in view of the fact that there have already been discussions regarding the possibility of suspending the private members' hour, and since we are not now making very good progress and since we did something worth-while earlier today, I suggest we call it five o'clock.
[DOT]	(3:40 p.m.)


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, on the understanding that fatigue has gripped the opposition, I would be happy to call it five o'clock.
Northern Canada Power Commission Act


Gerald William Baldwin: That is correct, Mr. Speaker; we are nauseated by what we heard last night.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Muir: I did not see you here this morning at 2.30, Allan.


Mr. Dinsdale:: I rise on a point order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the House leader has called it five o'clock, I should like to extend an invitation to all hon. members to hear some good music in front of the Peace Tower. It will commence almost immediately. The staff band of the Salvation Army is playing there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: "Music hath charms to soothe the savage breast". It will pave the way for a good weekend.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: According to the agreement just made, this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m.
At 3.43 p.m. the House adjourned, without queston put, pursuant to Standing Order.
24319-65)

Monday, October 18, 1971