1973-02-01

['Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21 this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later this day.']
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the House will grant me the indulgence of saying a few words regarding a former Prime Minister of Canada, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, who celebrates his ninety-first birthday today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I have for him an admiration bordering on affection. He sat in this House for a period of 16 years during which he was Minister of Justice, Secretary of State for External Affairs and Prime Minister. Prior to coming into the House he had a record as a most distinguished lawyer and was President of the Canadian Bar Association. Our relations throughout the years intertwined, one with the other. When he occupied the position of President of the Canadian Bar Association I was one of the vice-presidents, as I remember. When he was Minister of Justice I was the opposition critic. When he became Secretary of State for External Affairs, in the latter days of his tenure I was the opposition critic. He then became the Prime Minister and later I followed him in that position.
In all those years the great proprieties of parliament were upheld by him. He is a man who was always a gentleman, a statesman who gave of his best, and one who had a deep appreciation for the meaning of the monarchy within the parliamentary system. Indeed, it is sometimes forgotten that it was he who suggested to Her Majesty that it would be most helpful to the parliamentary system in Canada if she would open parliament. It was his suggestion that brought this about, although it came into being after I became Prime Minister.
We wait too often until men who have devoted themselves to their country pass on before acknowledging their contributions. This does not have the same meaning as conveying to a living person such as Mr. St. Laurent the feelings of all of us in the House. My suggestion, Sir, is that on this anniversary this House do something which has not been done before. I suggest that we have you, Sir, convey to the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, a Privy Councillor of Canada and an Imperial Privy Councillor, of which there are only two now, Mr. St. Laurent and I, the good wishes, the felicitations and the congratulations of all of us, coupled with the hope that he will have many more years with us and that his life will be one of serene realization that in his day and generation he gave of his best.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues of the Liberal party, I would like to associate myself fully with the comments expressed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). I think he is in a better position than anybody else to evaluate the task and the greatness of the man he has praised. He has lived through that period himself. He has seen Mr. St. Laurent at work and I think that those sitting on this side of the House, who have naturally a special esteem for Mr. St. Laurent, are very happy to hear these words from the right hon. member for Prince Albert.
Since I have been Prime Minister, I too, must recognize that I have become more unfluenced by the remarkable talents of this man. I have become aware, through documents, programs and legislation which I must look after, of the path he has laid out and the wisdom which characterized his leadership of Canada in the course of the years he was a minister and Prime Minister of this country.
Furthermore, we endorse the suggestion made by the right hon. member. Mr. Speaker, I would like to add that I hope-

-that the right hon member, when I am 91, will be able to stand in this House and utter-


John George Diefenbaker: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -perhaps not the many, many deserved compliments that he paid to Mr. St. Laurent, but at least that he will be able to say about me the same words about his admiration bordering on affection.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my leader, the hon. member for York South, has graciously suggested that I say a few words on behalf of our party on this occasion. I am extremely happy to do so. However, I wish to make it clear that I am not 91.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I say that because of the next sentence I wish to utter. It does so happen that Mr. St. Laurent and I were first elected to the House of Commons in the same year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thus, I had the privilege of being here throughout the time he was a

Questions of Privilege
member ol the Liberal cabinet and, finally, Prime Minister. I was also here, of course, during the session when he sat on this side of the House as the Leader of the Official Opposition.
On my own behalf and on behalf of my colleagues I wish to underline what has been said about the unfailing courtesy of Mr. St. Laurent. He was always the gentleman. It was midway through his career as Prime Minister that he became known as "Uncle Louie". Indeed that designation was not something coined in jest but rather in affection because we found him to be just that kind of person.
It must also be said that he made a singular contribution to the development of this country in terms of national unity, and in terms of making progress with respect to the achieving of a constitution that might meet all our needs. I suspect that historians will some day discover and point out that if it had not been for the Korean war, which interrupted certain plans that I know he had, we might well have made further progress than we did in that respect while he was Prime Minister.
We remember him with affection, and we feel that the House is quite appropriately taking a few minutes today to extend to Mr. St. Laurent our warmest greetings and congratulations on this his ninety-first birthday. I join with the Prime Minister in associating this group with the suggestion made by the right hon. member for Prince Albert that you, Sir, extend to Mr. St. Laurent the cordial greetings of this House of Commons and our best wishes to him for many happy returns.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, on my own behalf and on behalf of my colleagues of the Social Credit Party of Canada I should like to join in the good wishes extended by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to the former Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent on the occasion of his 91st birthday.
I did not have the good fortune, as did my two colleagues of the opposition, to see at close range this great statesman at work, but I did work under him. When Mr. St. Laurent was head of the country, I was in a position to see that he gave the best of himself, that he led the country and acted according to what he thought was best. Naturally, like all political men, he did not have unanimous approval from all Canadians in everything, but the fact remains that the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent played a very important role in the history of Canada. I join all my colleagues in this House to wish him many more years of happiness.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall be happy to convey the good wishes and congratulations of this House to the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, former Prime Minister of Canada.



Mr. Speaker:: I should bring to the attention of hon. members that the Chair has received notices of a number

of questions of privilege, as required by the Standing Orders. Indeed, I think that today we have established a record in the history of parliamentary democracy in the number of such notices received. I would invite the hon. members concerned to be as brief as possible in their presentations for the guidance of the Chair. I will call on the several members who have sent notices in the order in which the notices were received. I first call on the hon. member for Skeena.


MR. HOWARD-WORDS USED BY PRIME MINISTER IN REFERRING TO MEMBER
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the question of privilege I raise relates to a situation that occurred in the House yesterday and is reported in Hansard on page 826, following a point of order I had raised. Following that point of order there was a comment by the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). To put it in its context I think I should read the comment:
It may be the hon. member-
In that instance referring to me, I believe.
-was part of the riff-raff outside the hall when I was talking inside. He perhaps does not know-
Then there were interruptions. My question of privilege is that yesterday, because of the racket and the noise from this rabble that calls itself the Conservative party-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Nielsen:: You just destroyed your point of privilege.


Frank Howard: -I was not able to hear the comments of the Prime Minister. If I had I think I might have raised a legitimate question of privilege at that time, which of course would have been the time to do it. The question of privilege I raise now is that my rights as a member were interfered with by the noise in the chamber. Based upon that, I move the following motion, seconded by my colleague the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House calls upon the Leader of the Official Opposition to attempt to instil in his followers a sense of propriety and responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That is a waste of the time of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members know that the duty of the Chair is simply to decide whether there is a prima facie question of privilege. Obviously, the way the matter has been put before the House would tempt me to suggest to the hon. member that there is a bit of non sequitur. I would not think, in my humble opinion, that there is a relation between the motion that the hon. member proposes and the basis of the alleged question of privilege. In the circumstances I would think there is no
February 1, 1973

point in suggesting to the House that the motion which he has proposed under the guise of privilege be debated at this time. I do not think there is a prima facie question of privilege.


Mr. Stanfield:: Mr. Speaker, I do not rise on a question of privilege but I should like to make it very clear that I take no exception at all to the description of my party as a rabble because it is my understanding that rabble means the common people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MR. FORTIN-PROTESTS RESPECTING RECORDED TELEPHONE MESSAGE
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit Party of Canada has been informed that people who dial a certain phone number in London, Ontario, hear a recorded message against the Negro population of the United States as a group. At the end of the message, the listener is invited to write to the Social Credit Party of Canada at a local address and in Ottawa.
In the name of the Canadian Social Credit Party, I want to put on the record of the House that neither the telephone number nor the address given in the recorded message has the slightest relation with our party. The Social Credit Party of Canada believes in the brotherhood of all human beings and that message has never been authorized by our party which entirely repudiates its content.


Mr. Speaker:: Again I very much doubt that the hon. member would expect the Chair to render a ruling concerning his question of privilege. The hon. member has submitted his remarks for the consideration of the House and I believe he should not pursue the matter any further.


MR. REILLY-REPORT IN &quot;LE DROIT&quot; ALLEGING DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CERTAIN MEMBERS OF HOUSE OF COMMONS PROTECTIVE STAFF
Mr. Peter Reilly (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which I believe affects all members of the House. It is based on a report in yesterday's Le Droit in which it is alleged that certain members of the protective staff of the House complain that they are being discriminated against. It says that many ministers of the Crown are aware of the complaints and sympathize with them but that they would rather an ordinary member of the House of Commons raised the issue. I hereby raise it, Mr. Speaker, because this House is a symbol of opportunity and justice for Canadians and I believe that allegations of this kind should be investigated. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. O'Sullivan):
That the subject matter of my question be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.


Mr. Speaker:: I have received notice from the hon. member and have given the matter some thought. With respect, I suggest to the hon. member that there is no
Questions of Privilege
question of privilege. The hon. member suggests that his rights as a parliamentarian or his rights in the discharge of his function as a Member of Parliament are impeded in some way. The grievance or matter to which he has made reference is one, rather, of administration, and I would think that if there is a complaint it should not be considered in the way the hon. member has proposed, that is, by way of parliamentary privilege.


MR. BALDWIN-STATEMENT BY PRIME MINISTER CONCERNING ABORIGINAL RIGHTS OF INDIANS
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to follow that pillar of pure parliamentary propriety, the hon. member for Skeena, on a question of privilege. Nevertheless, I raise an issue which involves a statement made by the Prime Minister yesterday, to be found on the same page of Hansard as that already referred to by the hon. member for Skeena. On page 826 the following exchange is recorded:


Frank Howard: Would the Prime Minister tell the House today whether his statement in 1969, which then reflected government policy of rejecting aboriginal rights, still stands?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member will recall that spokesmen for his party as, indeed, for the Conservatives approved the government statement which was made in 1969.


Gerald William Baldwin: No.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If hon. members look up the record of what they said in Hansard, they will see that the only comment they had to make about the minister's policy was: "Too little, too late".


Gerald William Baldwin: Not on that issue.
I might have been inclined to let the matter go on the basis that it might have been part of the prime ministerial repertoire of red herrings, but it happens that on January 26 the right hon. gentleman, responding to a question from the hon. member for Yukon, answered as follows:
Mr. Speaker, if I might disagree with the premise of the question, there has, of course, been a very clear statement by the government on the question of aboriginal rights. It was made in the House of Commons at the time of the publication of the policy paper on Indian Affairs, and it was wholeheartedly supported by the spokesman for the Conservative party and the speaker on behalf of the NDP at the time.
I do not know whether it was because of lack of knowledge, ignorance or intent on the part of the Prime Minister that the statement was made. I am concerned about this very important issue, I followed the advice of the right hon. gentleman and examined the text of the statements which were made. Although it is true that both I, answering on behalf of my party, and the hon. member for Skeena, answering on behalf of the New Democratic Party, gave some qualified approval to some of the proposals dealing with the issue of Indian problems the right hon. gentleman's assertion is not in accordance with the facts. On page 10583 of Hansard for June 25, 1969, appear two sentences, which is all I will read from my remarks of that time. The first reads:
There is bound to be some contention about aspects of the statement.
The second, in the next paragraph, reads:
The statement involves what would seem to be a limited interpretation of existing treaty rights, and a reluctance to deal with specific claims of aboriginal rights.

February 1, 1973
Questions of Privilege
How the right hon. gentleman can construe those statements now as being wholehearted support of the government's policy on aboriginal rights is beyond me. I had contemplated moving a motion, but if, at any time a motion were to be moved referring to a committee the matter of misrepresentation by the Prime Minister or other members of the government, it would be a very busy committee indeed that would be handling the issues.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether there ought to be any debate at all.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
The Chair is required to determine whether there is a prima facie case of privilege. However, it is traditional and according to practice to allow another hon. member whose statements have been brought into the question of privilege to comment briefly on the statement made in order to make it easier for the Chair to rule. The difficulty here, of course, is that there is no motion and, in any event, the eventual ruling would be that there is no question of privilege. At the same time, I suppose the hon. member who has been brought into the discussion will probably rise to claim his own privilege and would have to be recognized for that purpose.
Therefore I think it is good practice to allow the member who has been brought into a question of privilege to reply briefly, and then the Chair will make its ruling.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the authorization you have given me. I will not abuse it but will do the same as the hon. member for Peace River did, read from the debates of June 25, 1969, but quote paragraphs different from those quoted by the hon. member for Peace River. This statement was made by the hon. member on behalf of his party near the beginning of his remarks:
Many of the thoughts which the minister expressed in his statement were good thoughts, repeating the thoughts in the report of the committee
We welcome the statement by the minister. It amounts to an acceptance of many proposals made by the Indian people through the years, and made by those who have worked on their behalf, in this party and elsewhere.
He goes on at some length, but I will go to the paragraph from which the hon. member just quoted, the one that talks of aboriginal rights. This is followed by the phrase I believe he read.
There are bound to be some very serious problems about who has the right to be consulted and the fullness of the consultation. By and large this must be regarded as a welcome statement and a step forward toward equality for the Indian people of Canada.
I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if the red herring is not one created by the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) wants to argue the point, I also have something on what he has had to say.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would rather not bring the hon. member for Skeena into the discussion. Obviously this is a matter of dispute between two members of the House as to a statement of fact. In any event, it is clear that a dispute as to facts cannot be the basis for a question of privilege. Again I have to refer to the fact there is no motion proposed so that facilitates the task of the Chair.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege because my name, position and the statement I made on that date have been brought into the matter. The rules prevent me from reading my own statement of June 25 in its entirety. Unlike the Prime Minister or the hon. member for Peace River, I will not extract pieces to support a particular contention. I simply suggest it be read in its entirety and it will be seen that what the Prime Minister said yesterday with regard to what I said-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Gilles Caouette (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House with a view to discussing an issue which cannot be delayed any longer.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member resume his seat? I apologize to the hon. member but I am under the impression that he wants to move a motion under Standing Order 43. Perhaps it would be more suitable if the Chair allowed the hon. member to move this motion later when motions are called.


MR GLEAVE-ANSWER OF MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR WHEAT BOARD CONCERNING AGREEMENT WITH RAILWAYS ON USE OF HOPPER CARS
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to an answer the minister in charge of the Wheat Board gave me on January 15. At that time I asked him whether the two major railroads, the CPR and CNR, had agreed to bear certain charges with regard to depreciation and the cost of operation of certain hopper cars that the government had purchased. His answer was that there was such an agreement and he would provide it. Yesterday I was informed in committee that such an agreement did not yet exist. I think the minister owes an explanation to me and the House and should give more complete information than he gave at that time. I would not charge the minister with a deliberate attempt to mislead the House, but I do think his statement was incomplete. I would, therefore, ask that he correct it at the earliest opportunity.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think this would be the time for the minister to make a further statement. Perhaps he could do this on motions or, if the hon. member wishes, he can take the opportunity provided by the question period to ask a further question when we
February 1, 1973

reach the third row. The hon. member will be given an opportunity to do so at that time.


BANK OF CANADA
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the House that the board of directors of the Bank of Canada has recommended the appointment of G. K. Bouey, senior deputy governor, to become governor of the bank. The Governor in Council today approved that recommendation. Mr. Bouey succeeds Louis Rasminsky who is retiring after being associated for more than 32 years with the Bank of Canada.
I should like to take this opportunity to express deep appreciation to Mr. Rasminsky for the integrity and dedication he has shown in the service of this country throughout his years with the bank and particularly as its governor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to seek the unanimous consent of the House pursuant to Standing Order 43. The urgency and pressing necessity of this matter arises, so I am informed, because of present and combined activity by some, perhaps all, of the major oil companies to change thousands of contracts with retail gasoline outlet dealers. As a result, Mr. Speaker, control of consumer prices for gasoline will shift from the retailer to the supplier. With present concern over the cost of living at the stage where price controls may be necessary, the effect of such private and concentrated control over the price of a product that is a necessity to millions of Canadians requires action by the House.
With unanimous consent, I would therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser):
That the matter hereby raised be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and that it be an instruction to the committee to report back to this House as quickly as possible with its recommendations.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Oxford. Under the terms of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Aboriginal Rights of Indians


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has noted, as I have, that there is not unanimous consent. The motion cannot be put at this time.


FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN MONTREAL OLYMPIC GAMES-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Gilles Caouette: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House with a view to discussing a question which cannot be delayed owing to the financial and national implications involved, and I mean the 1976 Olympic Games. The federal government contribution is still problematical not only for the people responsible but for all Canadians. Given the importance of this question and because those games will be a reflection of Canada's image throughout the world and in view of their financial implications, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte):
That a special debate take place within the shortest delay, after discussion with the House leaders, on the general participation of the federal government to ensure success of the 1976 Montreal Olympic Games.


Mr. Speaker:: Under Standing Order 43, the motion moved by the hon. member necessitates the unanimous consent of the House. Does the House agree unanimously?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent. Therefore, the hon. member's motion cannot be moved at this time.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to Standing Order 43, concerning the matter of aboriginal rights of native peoples throughout Canada.
The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to the claim of the Nishga nation of Indian people has resulted in a deadlock. It is now a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, because of the many projects going on in Canada that affect the native peoples, their lands, their environment and their rights, that action be taken by parliament.
I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Taylor):
That the matter of the aboriginal rights of the native peoples be referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development and that that committee be convened forthwith to deal with this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

February 1, 1973
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: The motion proposed by the hon. member requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. I regret, therefore, to advise the hon. member that the motion cannot be put at this time.


RESIDENTIAL MORTGAGE FIN AN091G BILL     ESTABLISHMENT OF CORPORATION, RECOGNITION OF SPECIALIZED MORTGAGE INVESTMENT COMPANIES UNDER LOAN COMPANIES ACT AND TAX TREATMENT
Hon. Ron Basford (Minister oi State ior Urban Aiiairs) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-135, to provide additional financing mechanisms and institutions for the residential mortgage market in Canada.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government Notices of Motions:
This House welcomes the conclusion of the agreements on ending the war and restoring peace in Viet Nam and notes the provision for an International Commission of Control and Supervision as part of the cease-fire arrangements, in which Canada has agreed to participate for the initial period of 60 days as provided for in the note, dated January 27,1973, from the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the four parties to the Viet Nam cease-fire.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21 this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later this day.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see the Prime Minister back in his seat. I thought for a moment that he had rushed off to establish a line of credit with the new governor of the Bank of Canada. I should like to ask the Prime Minister an important question about any regulations that may be laid down within the government in regard to conflict of interest as far as members of the government are con-

cerned. In particular, are there any rules laid down and in force with regard to the ownership of property by ministers, and are there any regulations or rules regarding disclosure or the imposition of what is ordinarily called a blind trust?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think I can say that there are no regulations or legally binding rules. I go on to say that I, in conjunction with my colleagues in cabinet, have applied some rules such as those the hon. gentleman has referred to. I would willingly at some point discuss them at greater length if the House so desires. I would merely remind the Leader of the Opposition that the Speech from the Throne indicated a desire to bring this whole matter before parliament, and I would prefer to do this at a time when we might look nQt only at rules relating to ministers but for members of parliament and, indeed, members of the civil service. It is this total package that I would like to see discussed in parliament. Some of this may entail legislation, particularly changes in the act affecting the Senate and House of Commons. Other facets of the matter would probably be dealt with more in the form of a statement of policy by the government.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the Prime Minister indicate at this time whether these informal practices that are followed require disclosure of property owned by ministers or require the establishment, in the alternative, of some kind of blind trust? Can the Prime Minister indicate to the House very succinctly what the situation is?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As succinctly as I can, I would say a blind trust is the vehicle recommended in cases when ministers are in a position where they be involved in market transactions in connection with securities. The disclosure of property has been requested by me of ministers essentially in cases where expropriation by the federal government is involved.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Are there any actual regulations or informal understandings or requirements regarding senior civil servants or senior officers and directors of Crown corporations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, in the sense of general directives conveyed to them by their ministers. But here again I would repeat what I said a moment ago, that it would be my desire to formalize them and make them the object of a policy statement which would be along the lines I have just indicated, and deal with the whole matter. To give an example, in the case of senior civil servants who are brought into the service and who have substantial securities, a blind trust arrangement is requested of them before their appointment is made.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the Prime Minister's reference to the desirability of covering this matter in a comprehensive way, I wonder whether he would take a look at Bill C-38 in my name and, if it is acceptable, he could take it over and bring it in?
February 1, 1973


CONFLICT OF INTEREST-REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON LAND HOLDINGS IN PICKERING AIRPORT AREA
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the imminence of the expropriation of land in the Pickering airport area, would the Prime Minister undertake to make known to the House, and therefore to the public, the names of all of his ministers or senior civil servants who may presently have land holdings in the area?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in the case of ministers I believe I could give the answer right now if the House so desires. In the case of senior civil servants it would probably take longer to canvass them all, but I will undertake to attempt that. The answer to the first part of the question is that there is one minister, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who has property in the area to be expropriated. He has had it for many years, indeed, before he became a minister and before expropriation was ever thought of or contemplated.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Skeena.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I am told that it is not even in the area to be expropriated. I believe it is in the noise zone, or something like that.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Frank Howard: Obviously, Mr. Speaker, the noise must be very close to this chamber. I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister arising out of the decision yesterday of the Supreme Court with respect to the Nishga nation land claim. Without getting into whether it was a 4-3 or 3-3-1 decision or whatever it was, would the Prime Minister be prepared to meet or to have someone in his cabinet meet with representatives of the Nishga nation or the Nishga tribal council to see whether or not the government of Canada can co-operate with that nation of people to the end that their claim is recognized and dealt with?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take the suggestion under consideration.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Among the numerous measures that the minister is suggesting, and in view of the seriousness of unemployment and the great number of families at the poverty
Oral Questions
level, would the minister tell us whether family allowances will have priority over other projects submitted for consideration?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered this question in the speech I made in this House last January 11.


Henry P. Latulippe: Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell us whether the provinces have stressed the importance of a family policy, in order to develop as soon as possible a scheme of increased family allowances.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, this is not only the provincial point of view, but the federal government has clearly stated the importance it attaches to the improvement of a family allowance system.


FAMILY INCOME SECURITY PLAN-INTRODUCTION OF NEW LEGISLATION
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
Could the minister tell us whether the bill which has been introduced during the last session of the 28th Parliament will be reintroduced during this session?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have already indicated to the House that the legislation concerning the family income, introduced last year in this House, is being reviewed and that we would introduce a new bill to the House during this session.


REPRESENTATIONS TO UNITED STATES CONCERNING BURKE-HARTKE BILL
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of increased support in the United States for the Burke-Hartke trade restriction bill, has the minister made any direct representations to the United States government recently to assure that the Nixon administration will oppose this bill and, if necessary, veto the bill if it is passed by the United States Congress this year?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the Burke-Hartke bill and its protectionism, and I am also aware that there are business groups in the United States that oppose it. I am hopeful that the administration will oppose it as well, as did the last administration.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, is the minister aware of speculation that the enactment of this bill, which incidentally insiders in Washington say is virtually a certainty this year, could end up costing Canada as many as 300,000 jobs and, if so, is the government going to take immediate and energetic action to remove this threat to our vital

February 1, 1973
Oral Questions
interests, or is the government simply going to cross its fingers and hope for the best from the efforts of the United States administration?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member's postscript puts him out of order.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: A further supplementary, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member, but it is somewhat irregular for hon. members to take advantage of the situation by asking a question which is clearly out of order and then seeking to ask a supplementary question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I also recognize that the hon. member for Trinity is not the only one who is doing this, so he will, of course, be recognized for his supplementary question.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I thought the minister might have answered the first part of my question. I direct my supplementary question to the President of the Privy Council. Would he use his good offices to arrange a meeting at the earliest possible date of the Canada-United States parliamentary committee so that members of parliament from all sides of the House can impress upon their U.S. counterparts the stake both countries have in resisting protectionist impulses and working for a greater easing of world trade restrictions?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I would be delighted to use whatever good offices I have, but this is an entirely new jurisdiction that the hon. member has conferred upon me this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Trinity, who has been associated with the group of questions, knows there is a method he may follow to have the subject included on the agenda. His representations and questions have been noted.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the question put by the hon. member for Trinity to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In answer to the question whether or not the government is willing to approach the United States government regarding non-passing of the Burke-Hartke bill, the minister said he hoped it would not pass. Can the government not do any better than hope and pray on an important matter like this? Can they not get the lead out and take some action on this important matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


REDISTRIBUTION OF RIDINGS-SUGGESTED ACTION TO PREVENT REDUCTION OF NUMBER IN CERTAIN PROVINCES PENDING FURTHER STUDY
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I directed questions to the Prime Minister concerning the redistribution of seats and a decrease in the number of constituencies from the present number in Newfoundland, Quebec, Nova Scotia, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
As provincial commissions are sitting and working on the redistribution to be made, it is necessary to have early action on this matter; otherwise they will have completed their work and any question of amendment of the constitution will be virtually out. I would ask the Prime Minister whether the government has given any consideration to a start in the direction of actually providing, while the whole question is being canvassed at length, that the number of seats in the respective provinces shall not be reduced? Something along that line would enable a full and complete study and would be assured, I believe, of a reasonable degree of support in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I looked around anxiously to see whether the statement by the right hon. gentleman that such a procedure would get a reasonable amount of support was accurate. I saw our own ranks applauding rather vigorously, but I did not notice too much on the other side.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: You certainly have to coach your applause, Pierre. It doesn't come easy, does it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I indicated the other day in dealing with this question, any solution such as that suggested by the right hon. gentleman might have the effect of either changing the principle of representation by population or have the consequence of a much larger number of members in the House. Let me just say that if a consensus could develop among the various parties along the lines of the suggestion that has been made, or along other lines such as perhaps delaying the application of the present redistribution, this party-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It would seem, Mr. Speaker, that our suggestion has more support than that of the right hon. gentleman. Both are suggestions that we are prepared to discuss. Let me just ask our House leader to consult the leaders of the other parties to see if such a result can be obtained.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Inertia always has excuses. The right hon. gentleman received applause from those behind him who are generally afraid to support anything that comes from the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
February 1, 1973


An hon. Member:: It was your side.


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the Prime Minister whether he will treat this matter seriously because, after all, while representation by population has its place, regionalism has always been accepted in redistribution of seats from the earliest days.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we should not engage in a debate. It is perhaps more a matter of statements than questions in which we are getting involved now. I suggest we should limit ourselves to questions and answers at this moment, and for that purpose I will recognize the hon. member for York South.


REDISTRIBUTION OF RIDINGS-REQUEST FOR SPECIAL COMMITTEE TO STUDY ALTERNATIVES TO REDUCTIONS IN CERTAIN PROVINCES
Mr. David Lewis (York South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. In view of the fact that merely delaying the results of the present redistribution plan will not accomplish anything in respect of representation in this country as far as certain parts of Canada are concerned, and in view of the fact that discussions among the House leaders could not possibly cover all the various suggestions that might be made, will the Prime Minister give serious consideration to setting up a special committee to study various alternatives that he or his advisers might suggest, as well as those suggested by the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert and others, and perhaps come up with some suggestion that could be acceptable to all parties in the House as a final step, instead of merely delaying the application?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, this idea of referring the matter to a committee is one with which we would agree. I merely hoped that a discussion between the House leaders might provide a quicker solution than the one suggested by the hon. gentleman. Certainly I will consider this and, if the member has no objection, I will ask our House leader to consult the other leaders to see whether they prefer the committee route, the route we suggested or the route suggested by the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert.


POSSIBLE SALE OF MINI-TYPE SUBMARINE TO RUSSIA
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It has to do with the arrangements for the sale of the Pisces. I am wondering whether or not his department has withdrawn its objections to the sale of this underwater craft to the Russians?


Alastair William Gillespie: If the hon. member is talking about a new order, the department has indicated to the manufacturers that we would be prepared to issue an export permit for
Oral Questions
the export of this vessel to the U.S.S.R. provided certain conditions are met.


J. Michael Forrestall: As this is so very germane to good relations with the United States, I ask the government in all seriousness whether they are satisfied that no compromise of classified information, technological information, for example, is involved, and do we have the approval of the United States for such a sale?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Is the hon. member opposed to business for western Canada?


J. Michael Forrestall: I am opposed to making a mess of our trading relations with the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are getting involved in debate at this point.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, may I take the opportunity of answering the second part of the question asked by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East? The conditions to which I referred are those respecting the classified materials. We have received verbal undertakings, or verbal statements that there is no problem as far as materials are concerned, or with respect to black boxes and so forth, but we want to be sure of that before we issue the export permit.


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Can the hon. gentleman inform the House whether the $850 million ceiling provided under section 30 of the Export Development Act has been exceeded by the Export Development Corporation as of today and, if so, to what extent?


Alastair William Gillespie: It has not been exceeded to my knowledge. We shall have an opportunity of reviewing the outstanding loans and commitments of the Export Development Corporation very shortly, perhaps tomorrow on second reading of Bill C-3.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I should like to ask the minister a supplementary. When the financing which has now been authorized by the board of directors of the Export Development Corporation in the form of offers outstanding is added to the outstanding liabilities under section 30 of the act, is the ceiling exceeded and, if so, to what extent?


Alastair William Gillespie: That is the purpose of Bill C-3 which I hope the House will deal with expeditiously. The success of the Export Development Corporation has been very substantial, as I believe the hon. member will recognize. He has some knowledge of the banking industry. We have

February 1, 1973
Oral Questions
now reached the point at which we need further authorization from parliament to raise the ceiling-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. May we have order, please? There are a number of hon. members seeking to ask supplemen-taries on this subject. I suggest we return to it later. Clearly, we are again getting into debate. I will recognize the hon. member in a moment, but at this point the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Transport arising out of a matter which was raised in the House last May and June and revived again yesterday in a committee of the House. In view of the statement made yesterday by an official of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce to the effect that almost half of the railway track in western Canada is unfit to carry the hopper cars the government purchased for grain movement, can the minister advise what action is being taken by the railways to upgrade this track to standards which will permit wider use of the cars and tell us whether the government is requiring the railway companies to take any action to ensure this upgrading?


Hon. lean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: I will take that question as notice, Mr. Speaker.


GRAIN HOPPER CARS-ALLEGED UNRESOLVED CONDITIONS OF PURCHASE
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That is the sixth or seventh question the hon. gentleman has taken as notice. I hope he will reply to all of them one of these days. My supplementary is directed to the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. It concerns the same matter. In view of the fact that a number of conditions were laid down by the government when supplying these hopper cars to the railways for grain movement, and since these have not been resolved, will the minister tell us briefly what these conditions are and which ones are in dispute with the railways?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: The premise stated by the hon. member is not accurate. The hopper cars are going into service on those lines where they can be used to greatest advantage. It is true there are many lines that cannot handle them, just as there are many elevators that do not have adequate scales for large-sized modern trucks. Both these questions, and the urgent need to develop better facilities to handle the hopper cars and the trucks, are searching questions to be resolved in the course of discussions at the Canada Grains Council level about the future of the grain handling and transportation system. That is exactly why I attach such importance to those discussions, and to moving ahead with them so that we can bring about improvements on the positive side

instead of always being concerned about the negative side of the problems that go with new developments.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the minister has answered the question I asked the Minister of Transport but he has not answered the question I asked him. What conditions laid down by the government are not resolved with the railroads in connection with the handling of these hopper cars? Would he specify these conditions that have not yet been resolved?


Otto Emil Lang: There are no conditions laid down that have not been resolved. As I indicated to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar a couple of weeks ago, an agreement was reached between the Canadian Wheat Board and the railways with regard to the initial use of the cars. A further and final agreement is being developed at this stage. The actual use of the cars is a matter which, under that agreement, is basically one for discussion between the Canadian Wheat Board and the railways. Those discussions are proceeding without any hitch whatsoever, and I know of no difference of view between the railways and the Canadian Wheat Board about the best use of those cars.


GRAIN HOPPER CARS-PAYMENT OF COSTS OF OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: In view of the fact that the railways are making use of the hopper cars on a free basis, can the minister say whether or not the government or the Wheat Board has been required by the railways to pay operating costs, repairs and depreciation costs in respect of these cars?


Otto Emil Lang: The interim agreement deals with some of these questions. The initial cost of maintenance is at present being borne by the railways. The question of the final disposition of these costs is one of the matters which is being further discussed in connection with the final agreement. The position, basically, that I have taken throughout is that the objective is to assure that the additional grain moves, and that no additional profit accrues to the railways through the use of the cars. Our basic provision of the cars and the capital involved was made with the objective of ensuring that the additional grain does move.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could the minister assure the House that every step has been taken to protect the Canadian mission in Viet Nam against the use and traffic of drugs?
February 1, 1973___________________COMMONS DEBATES	859


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State ior External Aifairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think I can say yes. The Canadian government and the Department of National Defence in particular, which has most of the personnel there, are very much aware of the problem and are taking all necessary precautions.


An hon. Member:: A supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to allow supple-mentaries on this subject. Hon. members will appreciate that there is to be a debate later today on this very subject.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Solicitor General a question. In light of the fact that a man by the name of Head has been convicted of the murder of Tanya Busch while he was on one of those temporary absences from prison, a man who had been charged on four different occasions with raping girls between the ages of six and seven and who was released without any supervision over him, would the minister agree to have a judicial inquiry into the temporary release system which has sabotaged the good parole system set up by the Diefenbaker government?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, changes were made in the temporary absence system last summer as a result of that and other events. As a matter of fact, dangerous sexual offenders are no longer allowed out on temporary absence under any condition. Also, last summer a task force was set up to study all questions relating to temporary absence and parole, under the chairmanship of Judge Hugessen, and I received its report just before Christmas. That report is under study by officials in my department at present, and a report on it will be made to the House shortly.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. In light of the fact that when I first raised this question in the House he asked me on that occasion if I was linking the two together, the release of Head and the murder of the girl, and in light of the fact that the law has now linked them, does he not consider under these circumstances that he should have a judicial inquiry into the temporary release program? I am sure the Prime Minister recalls the Head murder case.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, I recall it very well, but at least until the appeal procedures have expired I would not subscribe to the statement made by the hon. member. As to the part of his question about an inquiry into temporary release, I think the Solicitor General answered that very thoroughly.
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for York-Simcoe who has a supplementary to his earlier question.


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of his answer to my earlier question that indeed a ceiling increase is needed, and in view of his predecessor's comment that he anticipated that there would be some $500 million worth of financings agreed to by the Export Development Corporation during 1972, does the minister now agree with an official of that corporation when he says that he feels this is an emergency measure that is coming before the House and, if he does, would the minister explain why it was not brought before the House last summer?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I take exception to two aspects of the question asked by the hon. member. The question may be important and interesting, but the hon. member is asking the minister whether he agrees with a statement made by an official outside the House. That clearly is not in order. Perhaps later on, if he has a further opportunity, the hon. member might rephrase his question. For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.


REQUEST FOR MEASURES TO INCREASE EXPORTS TO JAPAN-REDUCTION OF RESTRICTIONS
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary in the area of export credits. In light of a recent study commissioned by the Canada-Japan Trade Council in which Canadian inability and apathy toward taking advantage of tremendous opportunities to increase exports to Japan are linked with what is generally felt to be cumbersome and often inadequate government programs to aid exporters, could the minister tell the House what initiatives he is now planning to remedy this situation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister will be allowed to reply briefly, but the hon. member is asking for a statement which normally should be made on motions. The minister might indicate whether he proposes to make a statement; otherwise the question would hardly be in order.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think it important to put on the record that Canadian exports to Japan last year increased by 15 per cent. There has been a major export drive by Canada so far as Japan in concerned. It was started by the former minister, my predecessor, with a

February 1, 1973
Oral Questions
major mission. I think the Japanese have responded in part by the liberalization of their trade regulations but, from our point of view, not nearly enough. We think much more needs to be done and we have made representations to that effect.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Sacmich):: In light of the minister's latter remark may I ask him, can he now assure the House that Japan is living up to the promises made to his predecessor that there would be substantial reductions of restrictions on Canadian imports, and when can we expect a full report on this subject to be made to the House?


Alastair William Gillespie: As I indicated in my first reply, we believe the Japanese government have made a number of important moves. We do not think they have gone far enough yet and we will be urging them to go farther.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce with regard to trade with Japan. Is is not a fact that practically all of that increase, and in fact almost all of our trade with Japan is in raw materials, which provides practically no jobs at home, and would he stop being so proud and patting himself on the back?


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



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact the Royal Insurance Group has raised premiums on fire insurance for home furnishings by 91 per cent in some cases, while the cost of home furnishings has risen by only 9.8 per cent in the last five years, would he consider investigating whether this raise is justified?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to ask the officials to see whether this is a matter that can be looked into under the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased with the minister's reply. Will he also investigate whether tenants, as a result of these increased premiums, are being asked to offset higher costs of providing fire insurance for homeowners and landlords?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I will ask my officials to bear this in mind also.



SOUTHWESTERN ONTARIO-POSSIBLE FEDERAL AID TO REPAIR DAMAGE

Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. The minister is aware of the urgency of speedy reconstruction of dikes, seawalls and roads around the lakes in southwestern Ontario because of tremendous storm damage, and is also aware that direct provincial aid has been held up for some weeks pending a federal announcement of financial participation. Can the minister say whether such a decision can be expected in the next day or so?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I talked to my provincial counterpart earlier this week and late last week. I understand that they are making submissions to the Ontario cabinet in Toronto today, and I understand that a submission is going to be made here possibly around the first of next week.



INCOME TAX


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue, or perhaps to the Minister of Finance. Under the terms of the Income Tax Act effective January 1, 1972, beneficiaries of trusts had a period of election ending in February of this year, depending upon regulatory instructions. Since the regulations have not been issued will the minister kindly advise when they are going to be issued, or do they have to await the budget, and is his budget to be presented after March 1 next?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to look into that matter and report to the hon. member.



REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF SECTION 12 OF 1972 TAX RETURN GUIDE

Mr. Duncan M. Beattie (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Revenue. In order to keep the government's attractive 1972 income tax return guide crystal clear, would the minister tell the House whether the Department of National Revenue is going to issue an explanation of the statement in section 12 that "the amount to be reported a 'taxable amount of dividends from taxable Canadian corporations' is the actual amount of dividends received plus one-third of this total."?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is inviting the minister to make a statement on motions. The hon. member for MacKenzie.

February 1, 1973



ACCEPTANCE OF VALUATION OF FARMLAND-REQUEST FOR GUIDELINES FOR FARMERS

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue concerning persons who are running about the country claiming that they can evaluate farmland and assess the farmers. In actual fact, they are conning many farmers out of money. Can the minister indicate to the House and the country whether the valuations that these people place on farmland will be accepted by his department or is there a possibility that they will all be rejected and the farmers' money wasted?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure to whom the hon. member is referring but I gather they are not employees of the Department of National Revenue. If he will give me the details I will be glad to look into the matter.


Stanley James Korchinski: Would the minister also have his department prepare guidelines for the use of farmers so that they can set up these evaluations themselves instead of being fleeced by those so-called experts. Perhaps the Department of Agriculture might assist in this matter.


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Agriculture and I will be glad to get together and see if we can provide anything more than has been already. We want to help farmers, as other taxpayers, get the full value of tax reform.


George Harris Hees: If they can only wade through it.



REVISED TD-1 FORMS PERMITTING $1,000 DEDUCTION TO PERSONS 65 AND OVER-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF INSTRUCTIONS TO OFFICES

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I asked the Minister of National Revenue if he would produce the instructions that went out with the revised TD-1 forms last August in connection particularly with the position of Canadians who are 65 years of age or over. The minister undertook to look into the question. Can he now report to the House?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I have sought the advice of my officials and hope to be able to answer the hon. gentleman tomorrow.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the minister be able to inform the House at the same time whether any other revised forms have been sent out that would be available on request and are more favourable to the taxpayer than the forms that are actually being circulated?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, I can inquire but I do not think that the hon. gentleman would suggest that people who wanted to take the opportunity to have their deductions on the basis of the proposed higher age exemption should have been prevented from doing so. On the other hand, they should not have been required to do so either because, of course, until the House passes the new law there can be no assurance that this will actually be the exemption allowed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have just about come to the end of the question period and there are still a number of supplementaries on the subject. The Chair is prepared to recognize the hon. member for Assiniboia.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Bill Knight (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. In view of the fact it is the responsibility of the railways to supply and maintain sufficient equipment to meet transportation needs, and the government has assumed some of its responsibility by purchasing hopper cars, is consideration being given to having the railroads buy the equipment from the government to carry out their responsibilities or is it the intention of the government to retain ownership?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the specific reason for the involvement of the government in the purchase of this equipment was the difference of view about whether the railways could actually carry all the grain offered in the equipment they had if the elevator companies went to a complete seven-day-week system, as well as the difficulties the elevator companies had in connection with that system. In the area of fixed rates, negotiations were not proving to be very fruitful. As a result, the government entered into the matter with the purchase of hopper cars to make sure that the grain moved. The dispute on the issue obviously is an ongoing one. At the time it may be resolved I think it would be appropriate for the railways to take over the equipment.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I recognized the hon. member for Assiniboia because I thought he had a supplementary to the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. As I have said, we have reached the end of the question period and my intention was to recognize supplementaries on that question. The hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo.


Mr. Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: It is
not a supplementary but it is an important question.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will have to call orders of the day. I apologize to hon. members. The hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo can be recognized tomorrow. I have to apologize to many hon. members in the fourth and fifth rows who were not called on today. I hope an effort can be made tomorrow by the Chair to give them some priority. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Mr. Crouse:: No, Mr. Speaker. I had a supplementary to the question put by the Leader of the Opposition.


Mr. Speaker:: I did say there could be one supplementary; perhaps I might allow the hon. member to ask it.
Oral Questions INCOME TAX

February 1, 1973



POSSIBLE CLASSIFICATION AS INCOME OF COMPENSATION AWARDED TO SWORDFISHERMEN

Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, the question is related to the income tax problem and is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. It is a very serious problem in Atlantic Canada. When compensation was awarded to the swordfishermen in Atlantic Canada it was to cover their capital loss on their fishing gear. Is it the intention of the government to classify this compensation as income and require the fishermen to pay full income tax on it? If so, what steps is the government going to take to pay the fishermen for their capital losses?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, it would not be my intention to charge people income tax on any more than is necessary. I shall look into the question for the hon. member but I cannot answer today.


George Harris Hees: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oxford on a point of order.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I refer to my motion proposed earlier today under Standing Order 43. When Your Honour asked for unanimous consent I could not help but see a great many members on the government benches exhibiting approval, but one member on the government side has become so accustomed to saying no that he did so automatically without looking at his colleagues. I wonder if Your Honour would consider putting the question again, because I know that the government is interested in keeping consumer prices down.


Mr. Speaker:: I suggest that it would not be regular to put the question more than once. We must assume that it has been decided today. As an exception, the hon. member might be allowed to propose the motion again tomorrow and we will put the question a second time.


George Harris Hees: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. As Your Honour has correctly pointed out, each day at the end of the question period, because of the limited time, a number of members are not able to pose questions on behalf of their constituents. Would it, therefore, be possible to have a meeting convened, with Your Honour as chairman, of the House leaders to see if the question period could not be extended to one hour by changing the rules of the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that I doubt that this would achieve the purpose he intends. I would have other suggestions to make but I shall not make them now.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the government House leader about the business of the House from now until the end of next week.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, today we will debate the Viet Nam resolution. Tomorrow, I propose to call Bill C-3, the Export Development Act, and if my hon. friend the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce succeeds in having that bill adopted on second reading we might consider Bill C-132, the Investment Review Act. Following the Export Development Act tomorrow, I am holding a priority place for the reports from the Standing Committees on Labour, Manpower and Immigration and Miscellaneous Estimates. I reserve the opportunity to bring on their reports as early as possible. With the bills I have mentioned and the reports of the committees, certainly the early part of next week will be occupied.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance if negotiations on the budget have progressed to a satisfactory state with the junior partner in the coalition so that he can tell us when the budget is likely to be presented?


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: There have been no negotiations whatsoever.


George Harris Hees: Is it not necessary?


John Napier Turner: I hope that I will be in a position to announce the date early next week.


David Lewis: Tell the hon. member not to be so
"smart-alecky."


An hon. Member:: Tell him again.


David Lewis: I will tell him again if he does not stop that kind of rubbish.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader whether the government's legislation respecting old age pensions will be on the order paper and available for consideration next week.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot offer my hon. friend that assurance, but it will be available to the House in an attractive form at an early date.


Gerald William Baldwin: That is false packaging.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mitchell William Sharp: February 1, 1973

This House welcomes the conclusion of the Agreements on ending the War and restoring peace in Viet Nam and notes the provision for an International Commission of Control and Supervision as part of the cease-fire arrangements, in which Canada has agreed to participate for the initial period of 60 days as provided for in the Note, dated January 27, 1973, from the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the four Parties to the Viet Nam cease-fire.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I believe there was agreement among the House leaders, the announcement of which has probably been overlooked in all the excitement, respecting the length of speeches in this debate. Perhaps the government House leader could inform the House about this matter.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think it would be agreeable to this House if the initial speeches were 40 minutes each in the first round and if all subsequent speeches were limited to 20 minutes. That limitation would provide greater opportunity for participation in this debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this House had already had the opportunity for a preliminary exchange of views between party spokesmen before the departure from Canada of the first group of observers to the new Commission in Viet Nam. Despite the shortness of time, personnel from External Affairs and from our defence forces are already in the field. On behalf of the international community, they will observe and report on the implementation of the agreement on ending the war and restoring the peace in Viet Nam.
When the moment of decision came, the parties to the cease-fire had radically compressed the expected timetable. Consequently, the government was faced with the need to decide in time to have the Canadian delegation take off from Montreal on Saturday of last week if we were to comply with the terms of the agreements. Indeed, the parties asked us to do so on the basis of complex documents, some of which we saw for the first time on Wednesday of last week. Our participation, I think, was perceived by all sides in this House as necessary. Certainly, the speeches that were made by the party spokesmen when I made my first statement supports that position. I believe it was seen by the great majority of Canadians, as necessary. It was so because all Canadians, and indeed people the world over, so ardently desired that the fighting should stop in Viet Nam. As I explained to the House on January 24, the day of the government's decision, Canada had a choice to make that day.
On the face of it, it was a dilemma: we could, on one hand, accept membership in the new commission with whatever reservations we saw fit. This is what the parties to the agreement were asking us to do. But it would have meant committing Canada to an important step to which there are Canadian preconditions; and it would have meant doing so well before we could possibly know whether those preconditions were met or, in view of the
Viet Nam
complexity of the agreements involved, whether they were even likely to be met. The government would have regarded that as an abdication of responsibility. I am sure all hon. members would have so regarded it. On the other hand, we could have declined to participate in the new commission from the outset and turned it down flatly. By doing so, we could have stood in the way of ending the fighting in Viet Nam. No Canadian would have wished his country to do that.
We, therefore, decided to take part initially, and make available to the new commission the number of Canadian observers required by the agreements to meet the timetable set by the parties-in short, during that initial period, do all that we could to discharge the obligations of membership. But we were not prepared to commit Canada to open-ended membership before we were satisfied that Canada's preconditions for membership had been reasonably met. I should like to add parenthetically that these preconditions on membership had been enunciated by myself on behalf of the government and by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) on a number of occasions, not only in recent weeks but really over a long period of time when we had been asked to consider the possibility that somewhere in the world we might have to participate in some supervisory operations. Indeed, at the time we debated in this House the question of the bombing of Hanoi and Haiphong, I laid down very clearly the kinds of preconditions we had in mind. I believe it was useful for us to have done so, and I believe that that has had some salutary effect upon the forms of the agreements entered into by the parties and upon the form of the protocol relating to the supervisory commission.
Our participation which will be for the first 60 days, will enable us to evaluate the arrangements made for international observation and reporting and to learn what scope there is for mediation. I must make it clear that Canada's preconditions were not mere gestures of reluctance; they were the product of long and sometimes bitter experience, and they were an effort to point the way toward effective international observation and reporting. Indeed, I think the preconditions that were established will help whatever other supervisory activities may be authorized by anyone anywhere in the world in future. They are the sorts of conditions we have laid down before the United Nations when we have talked about peacekeeping activities and how they might be organized.
We shall see, in the first 60 days, whether the arrangements can be improved. In particular, we shall see whether a continuing political authority is provided. We shall see whether the contracting parties are determined to make the agreements work. We shall see how our associates in the new commission view the responsibilities of our collective role. If we conclude that Canada's conditions are adequately met and that Canada's continued participation would be effective, we may decide to accept full continued membership, with or without reservations. If we conclude that Canada's conditions are inadequately met or that we are likely to be drawn again into an exercise in futility and frustration, as the previous commission had become, we shall decide to withdraw. Whichever decision is made will be conveyed to this House.

February 1, 1973
Viet Nam
To avoid misunderstanding let me add this: we are not going to tackle those first 60 days of the commission's existence in a spirit of diffident and passive caution. We are going to make this commission work, if it can be made to work. Within its properly limited functions, we shall try to make it an active and inquisitive commission and an open, hard working and co-operative one. Frustration, inactivity and ineffectiveness have been forced upon us in Viet Nam in the past. If they are forced upon us again, we are determined that it will be no fault of Canada's.
Members will be aware that the cease-fire machinery includes joint commissions on which the parties to the cease-fire are represented, as well as the international commission on which Canada is serving. Unless these joint commissions function effectively, the international commission cannot function.
There have been great difficulties in setting up these joint commissions. Many of these difficulties seem to be psychological in nature. Given the history of the conflict, this is no surprise. The time of enforced waiting is, however, being put to good use by the International Commission on Control and Supervision. The logistics support and organizational arrangements for the teams and the headquarters are being improved. So far, co-operation between the members of the ICCS has left nothing to be desired. The moment the joint commissions are functioning effectively, the international commission can begin to deploy its teams and get down to work. I was informed today that the first movement of the commissions may begin very soon out to very limited areas. The situation in Viet Nam is still serious. I do not want to minimize the real risks that exist. These can only increase if the ceasefire itself, and the supervisory parties, continue to be ineffective.
In trying to make the commission work, we shall bear in mind that there are things which neither we nor the commission as a whole are expected to do. In particular, it must be clearly understood that neither the Canadian delegation nor the commission as a whole are a force to keep the peace. I regret very much that the shorthand term peacekeeping force is used so frequently because it seems to cause misunderstanding on the part of the general public. We are not sending a regiment to keep the peace in Viet Nam. We are sending a group of civilians and members of the armed forces to undertake a civilian task, which is to supervise a peace which we hope will come. It is the parties to the agreement who bear the responsibility for keeping the peace. We may be able to play a good offices role from time to time if the parties wish to avail themselves of the services of the commission or of the Canadian delegation for that purpose.
To accomplish the tasks which do form part of the responsibilities of the commission, we have provided, and are continuing to assemble, a body of men and women of the first quality. The delegation is headed by a foreign service officer of distinction and experience, including experience in Indo-China, Ambassador Michel Gauvin. It is composed of personnel of the Department of National Defence and of the Department of External Affairs who have been specially selected for the task. Many of them have previous experience of Indo-China and of interna-

tional observation roles elsewhere. They can be counted upon to do all that anyone could, and the government will give them maximum support in their task. The government is mindful of the fact that Canada has been asked by all four parties to participate; Canada and the Canadian delegation are not the nominees, representatives or spokesmen of any one party or of one side in the Viet Nam struggle. The delegation will conduct itself accordingly.
As I told the House on January 24, the texts embodying the international observer arrangements are complex. I am sure those members of the House who have had an opportunity of studying the documents will agree with me that they are not only complex, but I think I can add without casting any reflection on them, they are a bit ambiguous also and, perhaps, deliberately so. We are continuing our careful study and analysis of them, but their full meaning and implication will only become clear in the light of our experience in seeking to apply them. Our publicly-stated conditions seem to have influenced those who wrote the agreements, but serious inadequacies remain.
It is important that the House be aware of what we consider to be the principal inadequacies of the international observer arrangements. One is that the agreements by themselves do not provide for a continuing political authority. It may be, of course, that the international conference envisaged in the agreements will repair that deficiency. I do not make this as a point of criticism particularly, I merely point out that it would have been perhaps impossible for the parties to the agreement to end the war in Viet Nam to have established an adequate international authority to which the supervisory commission should report without having the sort of international conference that is contemplated a few weeks hence. The government would have preferred the agreement and its supervision to come under the aegis of the United Nations. It is happy to note, however, that the Secretary-General of the United Nations will be invited to attend the international conference. This was one of the suggestions that we made very early, that it would help greatly if the Secretary-General could be there. If I may add a word, it would also suit us if he were the continuing political authority to which the supervisory commission might report.
Another deficiency is the obligation of unanimity in the commission's decisions and reports. It seems significant that the parties, wanting an effective commission, should none the less have provided that it must be subject to a rule of unanimity; in other words, to a veto. The effects of that rule are alleviated, as I pointed out before and as hon. members will have noted, by a qualified provision for reporting by individual members of the commission if unanimity cannot be achieved; but such reports would have no status as commission reports.
A further deficiency is that the new commission and each of its teams must act as a single body comprising representatives of all four members. This makes action by one, two or three national delegations impossible. This could turn out to be virtually an invitation to paralysis. We shall also be testing by experience the qualified provisions for the commission's freedom of movement.
February 1, 1973

Another deficiency is that the parties have provided that each of the four commission countries should pay not only the salaries and allowances of their personnel, but a fixed percentage of the general budget of the commission as well. This percentage turns out to be small, 2 per cent. The government is not inclined to make an issue of paying it. But however small, Canada has on several occasions expressed opposition in principle to paying any share of the general budget of the commission at all.
We believe that the provision for the sort of infrastructure and the payment for the ordinary expenses of the commission could have been met elsewhere. I understand the argument that is used in order to justify a token contribution from each of the members of the supervisory commission is that each of us under the circumstances would support economy in the expenses of the commission. This was the argument that was put to me. I said it was not one I could defend very well to the taxpayers of Canada who would in any event be paying the salaries and allowances of the personnel. I thought there were surely more effective ways of ensuring economy. However, as I say, the 2 per cent is very small and I would not for that reason consider that Canada should withdraw.
Then, too, we have been concerned that the task of the international observers be realistic and realizable. Yet the agreement provides that the commission shall supervise and control the entry into South Viet Nam of military personnel and all military equipment. This seems to specify a task which is clearly beyond the means of an international commission of this size or, indeed, of any likely size.
Finally, although passing reference is made in the agreement to Cambodia and Laos, no precise arrangements are envisaged for broadening the cease-fire and settlement to these two countries. There seems to be no intention of having them participate in the international conference. We can only hope that, in the weeks ahead, the effects of a cessation of hostilities in Viet Nam will be extended to these two countries, so that the fighting will stop throughout Indo-China. Indeed, it is disappointing that Asian involvement in the arrangements as a whole is so slight. The omission of Japan and the ASEAN group of countries, except for Indonesia, is particularly conspicuous.
Some of these shortcomings in the arrangement are now built in. Others could be altered at the International Conference. Still others could be corrected or alleviated in their effects if the parties and our associates in the commission show enough good will and enough determination to make the commission work and be effective. We shall be watching and working for that. As I said at the outset, we are not taking a passive or a reluctant attitude; we want to make the commission work.
The comments I have made are not intended as the sort of facile criticism that those who were not involved in hammering out the agreement can always level at those who were. Obviously, this was an extremely difficult negotiation. It is a wonder there was any agreement at all.
I am not suggesting that the circumstances could have permitted a better arrangement. What I am trying to do is establish, from the point of view of a conscientious
Viet Nam
member of the International Commission of Control and Supervision, the magnitude of the task given to us and the apparent poverty of the arrangements available to carry it out. This is not an effort to establish some sort of fancied position of moral superiority. It is an attempt to explain why we cannot undertake an open-ended commitment at this time: to lay before the House and the Canadian people the sorts of problems that can be foreseen and that led us to warn we might have to withdraw.
We will do what we can to alleviate the effect of these shortcomings by our own efforts, by the manner in which we approach the commission's operations and our participation in them. I have referred, for example, to the provision for unanimity. We are determined not to be frustrated by it. One way we will do this is by making the commission and its activities and proceedings as open and public as possible. We shall consider ourselves free to communicate our views, and the difference between our views and those of other delegations, to whatever person or organization we think fit, or to the public and the press. This applies to the rule of unanimity or any other provision of the cease-fire that might reduce us to inactivity or ineffectiveness.
For sixty days we are going to put everything to the test: the viability and effectiveness of the international supervisory arrangements themselves, the will and determination of the parties and of our commission colleagues to make the agreements and the commission work, indeed ourselves and our own ability to make the commission work and work effectively. By the end of the 60 days, Canada will form its own judgment of that experience and of prospects for the future. On the basis of that judgment, Canada will reach its own decision on continued participation for a further period.
I want to say candidly now that in some important respects, the international observer arrangements are unpromising. I will not prejudge the government's decision either way, but no one should assume as a matter of course that continued Canadian participation will be forthcoming.
Before concluding these remarks, Mr. Speaker, I wish to take this opportunity to pay tribute to the hundreds of Canadian men and women, civilian and military, who have served in commissions in the past. I say this because, although I have said on a number of occasions that the International Control Commission was reduced to a farce, it was not because of lack of effort on the part of the Canadians who served on that commission. It was just in the nature of the arrangements that had been made and that we are trying to correct on this occasion.
I should like to pay tribute to the men and women who are now in Viet Nam to begin work in the new commission, and to those who are preparing to go there. They went there and they are now going, not because their country has national interests of its own to pursue there, but because Canada recognizes it has a responsibility to contribute to peace in the world if it can do so effectively.
I know of no better way of contributing to Canada's national interest than to end the war in Viet Nam, or to help end the war in Viet Nam.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 1, 1973

Viet Nam


Mitchell William Sharp: The task is difficult: it can also be dangerous. Some Canadians have lost their lives trying to accomplish it. Others may yet do so. We bear a heavy responsibility to them: it is to ensure that their dedication and courage serve to contribute effectively to the maintenance of peace. We must do all we can to ensure their role is effective, and we must withdraw them if, despite their best efforts, their role seems doomed to ineffectiveness.
That is the purpose of the government's policy and of its recent decision. I know it is also the purpose of all Canadians and of this House which represents them.


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, earlier while listening to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), I almost reached the point of asking myself this: Why are we holding this debate? To ratify a decision already taken unilaterally? To discuss a situation that is already settled? After all, we know that the government, strong in its omniscience, did not feel the need to consult parliament.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me the present government has a rather strange concept of the role of this House. Still, at close range, one no longer wonders about the need for a debate, especially after having heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs, after touching upon the main aspects of the situation, tell us off-handedly: Some time later, after the 60 days, we will make a decision and advise the House. In fact, here is what he was saying:

Whichever decision is made the House will be informed. [Translation]
We may wonder, Mr. Speaker, if we shall be advised of this important decision by a press release or by a cabinet statement. In the government's opinion this does not appear to be any more serious than that. This is why it is important to have such a debate. It is precisely this strange behaviour on the government's part which justifies holding a debate in the hope that there will not be any more repetition of this. The government will learn in the next few hdurs, and in no uncertain terms, that parliamentary sovereignty should not be scoffed at in such a way.

There are, Mr. Speaker, certain principles that we in this party feel should and must be affirmed with regard to our participation in the truce supervisory role in Viet Nam. It is our view that parliament and the people of Canada should have a clear understanding of the dangers and difficulties arising out of our country's present situation and, even more important, of what we can do in the days ahead to rectify many of these problems.
It is sad, but true, that our present situation in Viet Nam is precarious, and in many respects a direct contradiction of the conditions that our own minister established for any possible involvement on our part. It is interesting to trace our minister's approach to the conditions of our potential participation in any truce operation in Viet Nam. On December 18 the minister intimated:
We would consider participating in the Viet Nam truce, when, in our opinion, based on the lessons of the past and the circumstances of the request, an operation held the promise of success.
The lesson of the past, Mr. Speaker, was simple and fairly clear. There can be no success when a truce force is unclear as to its procedures, dependent for its supplies and logistics, and based more on an effort of representing opposing interests than any true international presence. It is precisely that type of situation the minister has committed us to, and despite his own conditions.
Our eagerness to participate when the basic conditions were simply unacceptable is even more surprising in view of the previous experience we have already had as members of the ICC in Viet Nam. The documented cases of absolute irrelevance and impotence on the part of the previous ICC should dictate to any sane government to never let this sort of thing happen again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: Indeed, the old ICC had, in many respects, a task far easier and more clearly defined. Although it never had logistical support to do the job or, for that matter, legal freedom to undertake its responsibilities effectively, it at least had a geographical and political frame of reference. The 17th parallel served as a demar-kation line. The old ICC had at least a frontier to patrol. But the present group does not even have that much.
At the time of the cease-fire, troops from the north were scattered in hundreds of enclaves in South Viet Nam, and estimates run as high as 145,000 troops. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how does one patrol this type of cease-fire if, indeed, the firing ever stops? Does one report the movement of a soldier from one enclave to another? Indeed, this proposition is sad, yet despite the difficulties with the task and the indirect nature of our function, Canadians are there.
We had expressed the hope in this Chamber sometime ago that if we were to do a job in Viet Nam this government would ensure that we were given the tools to do that job. This has not happened. Not even the 60-day caveat established by the government has any true meaning. If after the period of 60 days the government is thinking of withdrawing our forces, and if there is not a similar approach on the part of the other members of the truce commission, what then will be Canada's posture? Once we are sure we have in some respects made a commitment, while that commitment was hastier than it had to be and completely out of tune with our sorry experience in Viet Nam, it is a commitment that we in this House must consider positively. While any threat to the safety of our troops should in our estimation be met with a swift contingency operation to withdraw our forces, it is now the role of this parliament to consider carefully the positive steps we can take to rectify the unfortunate circumstances in which our forces now must find themselves.
You will note that I have said "this parliament". I believe, as do my colleagues, that the initiative must be wrested from the Cabinet and from the Department of External Affairs in this matter. Canadian troops as well as civilians have been sent overseas by this government on a poorly contrived and planned mission fraught with uncertainty and political difficulty. The Cabinet preroga-

February 1, 1973________________ COMMONS
tive has been exercised, but what of the prerogative of parliament, Mr. Speaker? It is the prerogative and the sovereignty of parliament that we seek to establish clearly and without any question of a doubt. We intend to give parliament a concrete opportunity to express its volition with regard to our future posture in Viet Nam.

Mr. Speaker, we are obviously confronted with a fait accompli. We are willing to grant the government the benefit of the doubt in this respect. They may well claim to have received valuable information from their good advisers. As a last resort, in the last few hectic days of official war in Viet Nam, the urgent need for some action may have motivated the government. But still we are confronted with a fait accompli. What respect has been sho'wn for parliament? What respect has been shown for democracy? Barely a few moments ago, the Secretary of State for External Affairs told us: "In due course, when we have made a decision, we shall report. We shall have the condescension, the magnanimity and generosity of informing you, through a press release or otherwise".
Mr. Speaker, the questions we asked the government were precise. I refer in particular to the questions I asked on January 24 to echo the concern of Canadians, which we represent here. These questions should have been discussed in the House or in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence when there was still time to do so. It could have been done before January 27, before a first Canadian contingent was sent to Viet Nam.
Mr. Speaker, I would say that our role of representatives of the people and the Canadian image through the world demanded that Parliament hold a debate earlier than today. We had to make sure of the reaction of all parties concerned in Viet Nam to the essential conditions imposed by the government and which we had endorsed. [.English]
Mr. Speaker, I referred a moment ago to the positive measures we can now take. I think it is important for this parliament to give several options a very clear examination. In his statement of January 5 the minister referred to the terms of our participation and said:
The extent to which they were met would also constitute elements in our assessment of the viability of the operation as a whole.
I believe that Canada, as a participant in the international conference, should go a step further. I believe we must view the inadequacy of the present conditions as elements of the cease-fire agreement that could work towards its final undoing. Indeed, there are two ceasefires in Viet Nam. One is a bilateral arrangement between the United States and North Viet Nam relative to the exchange of prisoners and the cessation of bombing and future hostilities. That needs neither policing nor supervision aside from that furnished by the Red Cross. The second agreement, and the more crucial one for the peace of Indo-China, is the four power arrangement implicating all the belligerents in Viet Nam. That is the arrangement which requires policing but which, under the present circumstances, simply cannot be policed. Our position at the international conference must be that of ensuring a viable machinery, both political and supervisory, to police and secure that four-power arrangement.
DEBATES_______________________________________________307
Viet Nam
You know, Mr. Speaker, there are many who have referred to our presence in Viet Nam as international. They are, unfortunately, being imprecise, in their use of the term. The international forces of which we have been part in the Congo, in Cyprus, in the mid-East, have had measures of success worthy of note. Our previous effort in Viet Nam did not. Clearly, it was because our effort in Viet Nam has not been, and is not now, international. We were cast, in 1954 as the representatives of the western interest on the commission. There is little to illustrate that anything less has transpired the second time around. The value of our contribution will always be minimal, as long as we are not part of an international force.
Canada must, therefore, move first and foremost to establish the readiness of the upcoming international conference to have a truly international force in Viet Nam under the aegis of the UN.

Fortunately, Mr. Speaker, it is still time for us to inquire in particular about the condition of political prisoners and also about that of other prisoners, among whom there may be a few Canadians. I was greatly moved at hearing, a few moments ago, in the news report of 3:45, that a 30-year-old Canadian named Lloyd Oppel appears on the list of prisoners held by North Viet Nam.
Mr. Speaker, at the same time, I therefore ask the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs to bring a particular attention to the fate of many Christians in South Viet Nam who are only accused of publishing and commenting, before the cease-fire agreement, resolutions on justice in the world passed by the synod of bishops gathered in Rome in 1971.
Canada could have made many representations and had stronger guarantees had the present government condescended to better inform this House and really resort to Parliament.
Incidentally, Mr. Speaker, we find it difficult to understand why the government has waited so long before informing the House. We find it difficult to understand that the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs was somewhat taken aback by all this matter. We find all this very difficult to understand as we know that Canada has in the Department of External Affairs a service of experts who are rightly known to be among the most loyal and the most competent in the world.
If the government does not mind gradually losing its credibility, it is free to do so, but we do not accept that it causes Parliament to lose one more inch of its credibility before Canadians, in particular before the members of the armed forces and their relatives. Nor will we let it lessen Canada's credibility across the world because of a lack of foresight and a lack of timely firmness.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, to accept the fait accompli referred to in the resolution we must have the assurance that the amendment I am about to move will be approved by hon. members of the House.
As the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in other circumstances, verbal guarantees are not enough, we need written guarantees.

February 1, 1973


Claude Wagner: I therefore invite all my colleagues in this House to join with me in affirming parliament's right to determine the nature and the quality of our activities in Viet Nam. I invite my colleagues to establish clearly the precise role we can and must play in future negotiations and activities with reference to Viet Nam.
I am aware, Mr. Speaker, that in matters external to our normal domestic scene there is often a tendency, out of confusion or a desire not to muddy the waters, to put trust in the government and not challenge its basic assumptions or positions. Sir, parliament is more than a forum for domestic problems. It is the assembly through which Canadians can express their views as citizens of the world.
Parliament has clear and direct rights which must be respected. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues in all parties not to abdicate those rights to any government or to any minister. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of moving, seconded by the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse):
That the motion be amended by adding thereto, next after the words "Viet-Nam cease-fire", the following:
"and stipulates that a decision by Government of Canada concerning continuing participation and the conditions for such participation in the said International Commission beyond the initial period of 60 days shall not be effected unless and until it is affirmed by a Resolution of this House."


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I say immediately that I have asked my colleagues behind me to look at the amendment. It seems to me that this is a basic proposition which we had urged earlier about parliament having to make the decisions. I will say a word or two in a moment about the initial decision made by the government without coming to parliament, which may not have been avoidable, but I do not think there is any reason why, beyond the 60 days, that decision has to be taken by government without consulting parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Viet Nam
Mr. Speaker, the stand in the House must clearly indicate that any decision on the part of Canada regarding its participation as well as the terms of its participation in the international commission in Viet Nam beyond the initial period of 60 days should not take effect unless it is ratified by a resolution passed in this House.
Mr. Speaker, our long-term image at the world level depends on our vigilance and solidarity and not on precipitated and unilateral decisions.
It is in that spirit of wisdom and solidarity, solidarity within Parliament, solidarity within the Canadian population that we should eventually reconsider our co-operation to the social and economic rebuilding of Viet Nam so that this peace we are all hoping for will be lasting and healing.

There must be reconstruction. There must be an international effort to rebuild that which has been destroyed and replant those areas which have been defoliated. Canada's commitment to accept a field supervisory role in Viet Nam must, at the very least, be matched by a commitment to aid in resolving the social and economic problems which all Viet Nam now faces. There is a tradition in Canada with regard to peace. It is a proud tradition. Surely, in the name of that tradition, we have the right to expect our government to be competent in carrying out the tasks of peace.
In 1954, after difficulties under the United Nations Supervisory Commission for Korea, and upon our embarking on our role in Viet Nam, the Department of External Affairs in a July 28 release said:
The International Supervisory Commission should be able to function more effectively than the United Nations Supervisory Commission in Korea which, because of equal communist and non-communist representation, very often had effective action blocked.
We knew in 1954 what the mistakes in Korea had been and yet we allowed ourselves to commit them once more. Sir, we know today what the mistakes of 1954 were. While it may be the intention of the minister and the government to continue making those same mistakes, that is not what parliament or the people have the right to expect.


Mitchell William Sharp: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, there is little that our troops are doing in Viet Nam today, little that any war correspondent could not do.


Mitchell William Sharp: Downgrade them; that's the way!


Claude Wagner: It is because of the situation of our troops, and the need for positive steps on the part of the government in the interest of a meaningful peace, that the decision as to what transpires before the end of the 60 day period and beyond must not be made by the government alone. It must and should be made by the parliament and the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: I want to emphasize, and I say it kindly to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), that in these situations it is easy to carp, and to say what might have been in the agreements. But Canada did not write the agreements, and I do not think any member of this House, whether in the government or outside it, can be held to blame for that.
There may have been some argument on the part of the Department of External Affairs that, in order to meet the requirements of the Paris Agreements, personnel had to be in Viet Nam last Saturday. However, I agree fully with the statement made by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe that that first step, having been taken by the government under circumstances which it believed forced it to take that step, from now on the government ought to consult parliament on any further step it may take with regard to this role.
What I specifically asked my colleagues behind me, since I was rising to my feet immediately after the amendment was moved-I hope I will have the answer before my remarks are finished-was whether the hon. member's amendment might not be improved by adding "or withdrawal" to it.
February 1, 1973___________________COMMONS DEBATES______________________________________869


Mitchell William Sharp: Why just "continuing"?


David Lewis: Parliament ought to be the body to decide what happens after the 60 days-not merely the decision to participate, but also the decision to withdraw. If such a decision is made, it ought to be made by parliament.


Mr. Fraser:: One is included in the other.


David Lewis: I don't think it is included in the other but, if it is, why not spell it out and then we can all agree? I appeal to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) to yield to the appeal made by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe and have this acceptance of the responsibility of government to come before this parliament, in order to get parliamentary approval for either continuing participation or withdrawal, before it takes either of those steps. I appeal to the minister to accept the supremacy of parliament in this instance and to make the change unanimous on the part of all members of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Before I sit down, Mr. Speaker, I shall suggest the subamendment which occurred to me as the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe read his amendment.
Like every member of this House, Mr. Speaker, and every Canadian, my colleagues and I are uneasy about the role which Canada now plays. I have read and reread the agreements establishing the alleged cease-fire and the protocols attached to it. No one who has studied the documents can fail to have any other feeling than that the situation is dangerous and precarious. I share with the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe the feeling that it is dangerous; indeed, the minister kept emphasizing that he appreciated it was dangerous. I do not think any purpose can be served in blaming any part of the Canadian people, whether in government or outside, for the situation in Viet Nam.
Some of us believed that the agreement would never be signed and wondered whether it could be signed under the circumstances; but when it was signed, the world breathed a sigh of relief that the war in Viet Nam might now come to an end. Mr. Speaker, unlike members of the Conservative party in this House, unlike members of the Liberal party in this House and unlike members of the Social Credit party in this House, we in the New Democratic Party always condemned the war in Viet Nam and condemned the Americans for their barbaric involvement in it. On most occasions we have stood alone in our condemnation of that morally indefensible war. Because of that, we feel that the very signing of the agreement is of value to the world, of value not only for the people in Viet Nam but for the people of the world.
During the question period yesterday I was surprised to hear the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) interject. I am trying to find his exact words in Hansard, but if I paraphrase him I am sure he will correct me if I am wrong. I heard him ask if the minister will now find out that the agreement in Viet Nam is the Munich of 1973. I was sad to hear that comment by the
Viet Nam
right hon. gentleman because I am certain that he is as pleased as anyone in Canada that the war in Viet Nam is over. Because of his position in this House, and as a former prime minister of this country, he cannot be unhappy that there is at least a chance that it is over.


John George Diefenbaker: So there was a chance in 1938. I point out to the hon. gentleman that in his last few words he has indicated that he, too, is doubtful whether the agreement entered into will be effective.


David Lewis: We are all doubtful, Mr. Speaker. I now have the words used by the right hon. gentleman yesterday. They appear on page 825 of Hansard at the bottom of the left hand column:
Mr. Speaker, is the minister coming to the point of concluding that the agreement made will, indeed, be the Munich of 1973?
What was wrong with Munich in 1938, Mr. Speaker, was not merely that the agreement did not work but that the world was sold to the most abominable dictator in the history of mankind. That was what was wrong in 1938.


John George Diefenbaker: Today it is Communism, and that you do not very often attack.


David Lewis: If the right hon. gentleman is suggesting that the United States government should not have made the agreement with Communist North Viet Nam and should have continued the war and continued bombing South and North Viet Nam, which is what had happened, all I can say is that I am sad that the right hon. gentleman should take that kind of reactionary and antihuman stand at this time. I have no more use for Communism that he has, but the important thing in Viet Nam was to bring this war to an end. The first step was to have the American forces and other foreign forces withdrawn from Viet Nam, both north and south, and then leave it to Viet Nam, to decide its fate. I hope, with every other member of this rHouse and every Canadian, that they will decide their future peacefully, that they will find ways of having genuinely free elections. Whatever they decide, and with all my heart I hope it will be in the peaceful way, I say that the first thing that this agreement about Viet Nam should accomplish is to give the people of Viet Nam the opportunity to decide their own future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: That would be the first step toward peace in Indo-China. I hope they decide for democracy; I hope they decide for independence from any bloc, but it is time that they had the right to make their own decision. Because this is the major and desirable result of the peace treaties, I welcome them.
It is assumed by some, Mr. Speaker, that all the violations that are now taking place and that may take place will be the actions of the North Vietnamese or the Viet Cong in South Viet Nam. Frankly, I am not convinced that this is necessarily the case. I have no reason to believe that the totalitarian regime of President Thieu is any kinder to the people of South Viet Nam than the totalitarian regime of Ho Chi Minh is in North Viet Nam. History has shown that the so-called elections carried on by President Thieu in South Viet Nam were no more free

February 1, 1973
Viet Nam
than the elections of other totalitarian states of whatever colour. One of the tragedies of the American presence in Viet Nam in recent years has been the American support of government leaders who are obviously out of tune with the genuine needs of the people in South Viet Nam.
I say that we should enter this job in the International Commission for Control and Supervision with absolute neutrality. I want to say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) that from reading about it one must conclude that Canada's role in the old ICC was one of which we cannot be proud. This is not to attack any individual on the ICC, but back in 1967 Canadian journalists, such as Gerry Clark, Tim Ralfe and others, were reporting that Canadian members of the ICC were acting in a completely biased, one-sided way in contacts with the United States authorities. Indeed, there was some suggestion that they were deliberately making themselves conduits for the American authorities in Viet Nam. That was not the role we should have played in the old ICC. I want to make it clear that my colleagues and I say that under no circumstances should the Canadian delegation in the present International Commission act in any way other than as a completely neutral group serving the interests of peace and the interests of all parties to the agreement on Viet Nam. It will be a betrayal of our role if our present delegation, or any member of it, senior or junior, acts in the way in which Canadian members of the old ICC are alleged to have acted. That is my first point.
I have a great deal of scepticism about the agreement, as I have already said. It is extremely ambiguous on points that one hoped would not be ambiguous. I took out of my files and examined again very fleetingly a copy of the Geneva Accord of 1954 that led to the establishment of the ICC. It provides for free elections, and the present agreement contains provision for free elections. I must say my blood ran a little cold when I saw precisely the same sort of ambiguity, precisely the same lack of precision as to how and when the elections will take place. There is precisely the same lack of precision as to who will conduct the elections, under what circumstances and by what instrument; there is precisely the same failure in the present agreement to set out the conditions of peace in clear terms as there was in the accord of 1954. One is afraid that this time it may fail, as it did the last time. The fears are there, Mr. Speaker. The ambiguity about the future of Viet Nam is very disturbing. There is terrible ambiguity and lack of precision in the agreement. Also, there is a certain lack of honest intention in the agreements and protocols with respect to civilian political prisoners, a subject with which my colleague, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) will deal in more detail. I will therefore not take the time of the House in discussing this point.
Some parts of the agreement, however, are fairly clear. There is a clear undertaking that there shall be a ceasefire, that the warlike activities are to end, or should have ended last Saturday.


Mitchell William Sharp: All the parties agree.


David Lewis: All the parties have agreed to that. The agreements are clear on that point. There is to be no more fighting. The agreements also provide clearly that the parties in Viet Nam are not to receive weapons additional to those they now have and that any new weapons or armaments are to be substituted on a one-for-one basis. One of the duties of the commission in which we are interested is to see that that is done.
I and my colleagues therefore turn our attention to this very simple point, to this basic point: will the cease-fire agreement be kept? Will the fighting end everywhere in North and in South Viet Nam? If the fighting ends in a day or two, I think there will be a role for the International Commission to play. If the fighting does not end for some time, and I am not putting any time limit on my remarks, it will become clear that the International Commission cannot function. That is why we greeted with pleasure the government's announcement; it had sense enough to put a 60 day limit on our participation in this force.
I think it is important for hon. members of the House to know that the 60 days provided for Canada's participation in the commission coincides with the 60 days during which all foreign troops are to be withdrawn, and the 60 days during which military and other prisoners are to be exchanged. If things go as they ought to, by the end of the first 60 days of Canada's involvement in this commission, the American and other forces in Viet Nam should be gone. By then the prisoners ought to be exchanged and the Vietnamese people could then begin to keep the peace among themselves. As I said earlier, that, to me, would be the immense accomplishment of the agreements which established the International Commission. Once the Vietnamese people are left alone to decide their own destiny the help of the international community will become possible on a basis on which it was not possible so long as the war was, essentially, a war between the United States and parts of the Vietnamese people.
Our concern must be a twofold one. First, there is the safety of Canadians who are there; second, there is the avoidance of Canadian involvement in anything other than the specific tasks for which this commission has been established. I deliberately did not say "force" as the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) did. I am sure he does not disagree with me. I do not regard this as a force. No one in his senses thinks that 1,160 men, some military, some civilian and some support, from four countries, could possibly constitute a peacekeeping force. Half a million men probably could not do the job; certainly, 1,160 men cannot do it.
I think it is important to point out to the people of Canada that what we are participating in is not a peacekeeping force. If that were the suggestion, certainly, we would not support it in view of the conditions that now obtain in Viet Nam. We are merely participating in an observer force and it will try whatever moral suasion can accomplish, as I see it. We hope that the presence of observers from four countries, two of them generally sympathetic to the north and two generally sympathetic to the democratic group-and I do not say with the South Vietnamese government because I am not for President Thieu-may have some kind of moral influence on the
February 1, 1973

combattants on the spot so that the cease-fire may be observed by them. As I see it, we are trying, under the agreements for setting up this commission, to ask a group of people representing four independent, neutral countries to tell the world what violations are taking place, in the hope that the international community will be able to influence the various parties in the situation to cease those violations.
I am emphasizing that we support what is taking place and that is not to provide a peacekeeping force. We would not support Canadian participation in a peacekeeping force under these circumstances, and I underline "under these circumstances". We think it is Canada's duty to take part in the observer force. When the four combatants, North Viet Nam, the provisional revolutionary government of South Viet Nam, President Thieu's government and the government of the United States wanted Canada to be a member of that International Commission, we had two alternatives. We could have said, "Go to the devil; we have been critical of the war and critical of the bombing and, when this supervisory task arises, we are not even going to look at it." We could have said that. Judging by the remarks of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, he might have wanted to say that. I see he shakes his head. I am glad to note that he would not have wanted that. Or, we could have said, as we did, I think quite rightly, "We will participate in the commission for 60 days and our decision as to whether we will continue beyond that will depend on what happens during those 60 days." If the peace is kept, if the cease-fire is valid and if we can perform a function, we will remain. If the cease-fire is not kept, if it is continuously violated and if the commission cannot perform a useful function, we will withdraw.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: That is what I understood the Secretary of State for External Affairs to say. I want to tell him that is precisely what my colleagues and I in caucus, after careful consideration, wanted those of us who are speaking in this debate to say to the minister. As he is the person in charge, I am pleased that he has said this himself.
We believe that the international authority to which this commission should report must be an absolute condition for continuing participation in the international commission. To have to report to the joint military commission of the four-nation combattants is obviously a frustrating thing. As long as the international conference cannot establish a genuine international authority to which the commission reports, the commission's work will be frustrated and useless.
I join the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe in urging on the government that when the international conference is held, the government be not merely a passive member, but that it take the initiative in a number of directions, particularly in the direction of insisting that as a condition of the international commission there must be an international authority to which the commission reports. In our view, that international authority is there and ought to be used, namely, the security council of the United Nations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Viet Nam


David Lewis: If the international conference cannot be persuaded to make the security council the international authority, then I say that Canada should not agree to any international authority of which at least the Secretary-General of the United Nations is not a member. Even if the security council is not directly the supervisory body, the Secretary General of the United Nations would be and, of course, would make representations to the security council, the United Nations Assembly and to the world. I want to emphasize that it seems to us to be an absolutely indispensable condition for the situation.
I support the general amendment moved by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe. In a moment, I will move a subamendment to it which, I hope, is now being prepared.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: If it is not, Mr. Speaker, without appearing to be presumptuous, I will move it from the floor. Before doing that, I wish to take two or three minutes to indicate a hopeful note. Many of us have been sceptical, and rightly so; doubtful, and rightly so; disturbed, and rightly so. However, I want to point out that there are also two indications of positive results from the Paris agreement. The first is a statement by Mr. Brezhnev, leader of the Soviet Union, just a day or two ago, that he regarded the Paris agreement as an important step toward improving relations between the Soviet Union and the United States and that this could be a possible guide for the settlement of problems in the Middle East. Mr. Brezhnev's words clearly indicate that the removal of Americans from the terrible, barbaric and immoral war in Viet Nam has opened another door to the possibility of the improvement of world relations.
Second, I must say that I greet with pleasure the announcement that Mr. Kissinger is due to go to Hanoi next week. Publicly we are told, and I hope this is the truth-forgive me for having some scepticism-to make a diplomatic announcement. I hope it is true that Mr. Kissinger is going there to discuss economic aid to North Viet Nam.
I have no hesitation in saying that while Canada and every other member of the world community ought to give every assistance possible to help in the rebuilding of North and South Viet Nam, the prime responsibility lies on the country that is responsible for the destruction in Viet Nam. That country is the United States of America.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: They have the primary responsibility for rebuilding that which they destroyed.
The invitation to Canada by all four signatories is an expression of confidence. I hope we will act in a way which will show we deserve that confidence.
I have already said that we support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe. I hope with all my heart that the minister and the government will accept it so it can be an unamimous expression of this House. However, I want to move a slight subamendment. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin):
872

Viet Nam
That the amendment be further amended by adding to the amendment after the words "continuing participation" the following words "or withdrawal".
The amendment would now read:
"and stipulates that a decision by government of Canada concerning continuing participation or withdrawal and the conditions for such participation in the said international commission beyond the initial period of 60 days shall not be effected unless and until it is affirmed by a resolution of this House."


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to bring to the attention of hon. members that it is five o'clock. Normally we would proceed with private members' business unless arrangements have been made otherwise.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe it is agreed to dispense with the private members' hour today in order to give more time for this particular debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.

Before recognizing the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) I must inform the House of the questions to be raised tonight.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds)-Airports-Vancouver	International-Proposed
runway-Date of completion of expropriation hearings; the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)-Manpower-Local initiatives program-Request for additional funds; the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte)- Social security-Old age security pension-Possibility of lowering eligibility age to 60.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp:
This House welcomes the conclusion of the agreements on ending the war and restoring peace in Viet Nam and notes the provision for an International Commission of Control and Supervision as part of the cease-fire arrangements, in which Canada has agreed to participate for the initial period of 60 days as provided for in the note, dated January 27, 1973, from the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the four parties to the Viet Nam cease-fire.
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, it is rather difficult to examine all side-issues of the matter now under consideration, when we can only note that we are asked our opinion after the decisions have been taken.
I feel that such a procedure should never be followed. Moreover, there is a precedent in this connection which only goes back to 1964 when the House decided to send a Canadian expeditionary force to Cyprus. We are now wondering why for our active participation to a Viet Nam cease-fire such a procedure was not followed.
It could be objected that there was some urgency and very quick action was necessary, but I will answer that there can be nothing more urgent than the upholding of democracy. Consequently, an example of active and speedy participatory democracy could well have been given if just the same parliament had been asked to vote on the matter. Even now, as a result of current events in Viet Nam, we must ask ourselves to what extent that decision was wise.
Mr. Speaker, we understand that no effort must be spared to bring peace to that part of the world. We are all concerned about the painful situation that has existed in Viet Nam for years, as it is, of course, the duty of our country to be concerned about peace in that area of the world. But this must not make us overlook the fact that some actions are more or less indicated.
A while ago I heard the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) say that his party is the only one that has clamored for years against the war in Viet Nam.
Mr. Speaker, I must set the facts straight. If any party can brag about having opposed the war, any war, ours can. The leader of the Social Credit party of Canada (Mr. Caouette) has often been chided for too often making comparisons with the war of 1939-45 with regard to issuing credits.
Not only is our party against war, it also tries to make the leaders of our country, and those throughout the world, understand that there exists one excellent means of avoiding them: accepting for peaceful ends the credits that are accepted to wage war. I could give the example of the billions of dollars that the United States spent to make war. If the same amounts were spent on peace and if people decided once and for all to adopt a positive rather than a negative attitude and if all economic and material
February 1, 1973

advances were channelled toward permanent restoration of peace it would be possible to reach that objective.
In the same line of thought, Mr. Speaker, until we find pacific means of settling world problems we will always be faced with international disagreements. And when financiers and leaders of all countries, particularly ours, will understand that all the money now being spent on war, defensive or otherwise, could be allocated to the establishment of permanent peace, then we will be able to say that our aspirations for peace have been reached. In fact, there is no doubt that what is happening in Viet Nam is not peace but rather a ceasefire and the developments that followed this famous ceasefire prove that peace is very far.
To sump up the present situation I should like to read an editorial heard on radio station C JTR in Three Rivers and entitled "A step in the right direction but no peace yet".
People had been talking sporadically about it for a few years and in more concrete terms since last fall, and it finally came through Tuesday when Messrs. Kissinger and Le Due Tho finally signed the document ending the American and North Vietnamese intervention in South Viet Nam.
It is actually a cease-fire agreement and not a peace treaty. We should not delude ourselves. War will continue in Viet Nam between the North and the South. It will certainly be less extensive and less lethal, due to the absence of the American military might, including the famous B-52's, but it will remain cruel because death and misery will continue their work of devastation for some time, i.e. until either one of the two governments, probably North Viet Nam, succeeds in controlling the whole territory which was arbitrarily divided in 1954.
It is truly unfortunate that this should be so, but it cannot be otherwise. Those people have been fighting too long to stop when they are so near their goal. They fought against the Japanese during the World War, then against the French who, as colonizers, did a great deal for Indo-China, but the Asians wanted their independence and for eight years they harassed the territorial army until the fall of Dien Bien Phu in 1954.
Then, after a few relatively quiet years, the Americans, fearful of communism 6,000 miles from their coast, decide to intervene, at first discreetly, and then, caught in the mesh of circumstances, it turned out to be a real genocide with the greatest war machine in history sweeping over a tiny country.
During almost ten years, an atrocious and barbarous war cost the lives of 1,000,000 Asians and 50,000 Americans, many of whom never knew why they were killed. To that must be added a hundred thousand physically and morally wounded and mutilated men who, for years to come, will remind their fellow citizens of that war to which, for reasons of honour, the leaders could not manage to put an end.
For us as well as for millions of human beings in all countries of the world, and particularly the most developed, it is to be hoped that the withdrawal of the United States from Viet Nam will mean more than the disappearance from our papers and television of horror pictures and the live reporting of massacres involving men, women and children, that could be seen every day like any other sports news.
Mr. Speaker, I endorse that editorial, because it summarizes a cruel state of affairs and because Canada's participation in the cease-fire agreement will only be useful if the parties involved show good will.
Now, that is precisely what was being questioned in the editorial I have just read and this is the very reason why we have to ask ourselves seriously whether the Canadian mission now in Viet Nam will prove useful. Of course, the
Viet Nam
minister asserts that it is only a supervisory role, but we never knew exactly what that meant. We were told that as a member of the International Control and Supervisory Commission Canada accepted the rights as well as the duties. What are exactly those duties? I believe that the minister perhaps has not thrown enough light on the subject.
And no doubt the hasty decision to participate without first informing the House was due to the fact that a de facto situation was meant to be established. That is why apparently the famous 60-day initial period was accepted, subject to subsequent review.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps for a minority government such as ours, it was a way to avoid imbroglios, but I think that democracy is getting the short end of it.
Mr. Speaker, I must point out that there is only one French-speaking member in the Progressive Conservative party, namely the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner). I was somewhat surprised a moment ago when I was given his amendment in English only. I think that if the Progressive Conservative party wants to show that it is a little more Canadian, the only French-speaking member of this party should have the decency to introduce his amendments in both official languages.


Claude Wagner: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


René Matte: Now then, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe is rising on a point of order.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it known also that I hastened to translate that amendment and send the text to the hon. member who is speaking now.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I must point out that it is upon my request that the hon. member has done so.
In any case, Mr. Speaker, I think that notwithstanding the language in which it was drafted the amendment itself deserves our attention. In my opinion, with such an amendment Parliament could recover the authority it should never lose in any kind of situation and especially such as this one.
I should point out at this stage that all countries form an opinion when they realize that Canada is a member of any committee. In such cases they say this is the position of the Canadian people as a whole. So, if this decision is not made directly by Parliament, it may well be considered throughout the world as not reflecting public opinion. This is why we should always ensure that decisions are made by Parliament itself. After these 60 days-nothing can be changed now-the government should act only after consulting this House.
Mr. Speaker, this war that has been going on for years has been discussed extensively and some grievances could be expressed against Canada. For instance, I wonder to what extent the North Vietnamese are interested in the Canadian participation, as we are aware that in many instances Canada, by accepting American sub-contracts, was materially participating in this war. It would be appropriate to ask whether it is logical to establish differ-

February 1, 1973
Viet Nam
ences between the humanitarian feelings now being shown for the sake of peace whereas, at the same time, for vulgar economic purposes, we are participating in a war in a certain way by supplying weapons and accepting all kinds of sub-contracts from firms which only profit from the war.
Mr. Speaker, there should be no two ways in such circumstances. It is always unfortunate to realize that millions of human lives are being sacrificed so that industry might continue its production. If economic matters have precedence over true humanitarian problems, I wonder whether the North Vietnamese, because of our closeness to the United States, are a little fearful of us. It must be a well known fact in that part of the world, as everywhere else, that Canada and the United States are often considered as one entity, especially in economic matters. Consequently, I wonder to what extent Canadian participation could be considered as being truly neutral. Nevertheless, I believe we could be playing a peaceful role in Viet Nam, but not necessarily in the manner we are doing it now.
On the other hand, I would say on concluding my remarks that the best way for Canada to succeed in establishing peace in the world is still by leading the way. Our country can show the entire world that it is possible to establish genuine peace by insuring its own citizens true freedom and respect for human beings. If by implementing adequate legislation we prove that we can guarantee everyone a vital minimum income, we shall prove that these conditions are essential to peace. There will be wars as long as there will be misery and poverty next to wealth.
It would be highly desirable if the ceasefire in Viet Nam were to become a real treaty of peace. However, eveyone doubts it for one rather expects that the war will go on, but I think that in the long run we should take advantage of this opportunity to think seriously and wonder whether our country could not do more to prove to the whole world that peace can exist, but only if one respects the freedom of everyone else. Now, the way to respect such freedom is to consider each human being as it must be considered, that is to assure everyone that he will live without any problems and that he will be able to develop himself in healthy freedom. Canada will then perform peaceful work.
Mr. Speaker, before we achieve all these things, I sincerely hope that our involvement in this peace effort in Viet Nam will be successful.
As a conclusion, I would like to stress that if our involvement happens to have no result, the government will have to decide then and there to withdraw its force from Viet Nam so that Canada will not have to pay the piper.


Hon. lames A. Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday night I went to the barracks at Long Point, Montreal, to meet with our Canadian Forces personnel on the eve of their departure for Viet Nam. It seems to me it might be appropriate to begin my participation in the debate on the resolution before us if I were to repeat some of the thoughts I

expressed on that occasion in an informal way to our troops.
I said, first, that I was honoured to be meeting with them as their Minister of Defence on the eve of their departure on a mission which I considered to be important to Canada and to the world. None of us know yet whether this mission will be successful, but one thing I do know is that it is important for all of us that we, as Canadians, should at least try to play a useful and effective role in maintaining peace in Southeast Asia.
When I was speaking to our men on the eve of their departure I said in my view it was characteristic of the Canadian way of life that they, as fighting men, as part of a military organization, should be leaving Canada, not to fight but, rather, in order to help prevent fighting. Some may consider it a paradox of our time that fighting men should not be leaving our country to fight. But there are many in this House and across this nation-and I am one of them-who believe it is a triumph of our times that Canadians in military formation should leave Canada not to fight but to prevent fighting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: I went on to say on Friday evening that it was the military capability, the military training and the military discipline which would enable our personnel to be effective as an observer force. In today's world it is not enough just to be idealistically opposed to war; it is essential to be trained and disciplined and equipped if we intend to aid the cause of peace.
I told our men I was personally confident that before they returned to Canada they would have added lustre to Canada's reputation as a country committed to peace. Under the leadership of the late Lester Pearson and under the leadership of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) there is no country in the world which has enjoyed a better international reputation for the work it has done to ease tensions and bring understanding to the so-called "trouble spots" of the world-no country other than Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: In this respect we have probably not done nearly as well as we should, but we have managed so far to do better than anyone else. I also said last Friday evening that although our men were not being sent from Canada to fight, none of us underestimated the difficulties, and even the dangers, that they would face in Viet Nam: there will be difficulties of language, difficulties in connection with living conditions in a war-torn land. I believe no Canadian should underestimate the sacrifices that Canadian personnel have willingly accepted in this sense.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, as I spoke on a person to person basis with our Canadian contingent as they departed for Viet Nam, I told them about the government's concern, and my personal concern, for their safety in the event that hostilities might be resumed, or continued indefinitely. I told them, as I told the House on an earlier occasion, that we had made contingency plans to evacuate them from Viet Nam if such a course should become necessary. One
February 1, 1973

of our plans in this respect became apparent last Monday when our destroyer, the Terra Nova, sailed from Vancouver for the west Pacific. I should like to make it absolutely clear to the House and to the world that the Terra Nova is not part of Canada's contribution to the International Commission of Control and Supervision. The Terra Nova, which carries supplies for 60 days and which can be resupplied at Pacific ports, has a double purpose. One purpose, a normal part of our naval operations, is to carry out extensive training exercises. The other is to provide us with a sealift capability in the event we should wish to evacuate Canadian personnel by this means. It has been made clear to all concerned that the Terra Nova will not enter the territorial waters of either South or North Viet Nam. In fact, most of the time she will be several hundred miles from Viet Nam. We are also keeping at least one Hercules aircraft either in Saigon or within three hours flying distance at Bangkok. At present we have two of our Hercules aircraft in Southeast Asia, one at each of these airports.
My most pleasant duty in Montreal last Friday was to introduce the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to our Canadian contingent. Following the tradition of the late Lester Pearson, no Canadian has done more than our Prime Minister to enhance Canada's international reputation. His visit to our Canadian forces on the eve of their departure was symbolic of the importance which he attaches, and which the government attaches, to their mission.
At one o'clock on Saturday, January 27, a Canadian Forces Boeing 707 left Montreal for Viet Nam carrying Canadian personnel who were leaving to take part in the 12th peacekeeping and truce-supervisory mission upon which Canada has been engaged since the second world war. On board that first aircraft were 130 military personnel, 15 men and women from External Affairs and eight Canadian newsmen. The same day a Canadian Hercules aircraft from Trenton took off for Viet Nam carrying initial supplies and support cargo to Saigon.
Before the departure I said to our Canadian forces that I hoped to be able to visit them personally in Viet Nam before the completion of their tour of duty. I had to say, because of the exigencies of government, that this was being expressed as a personal wish rather than as a plan that had been formulated. But I do hope that, accompanied by others who may wish to go, we can visit our Canadian personnel before the end of their tour.
I believe all hon. members know that our personnel and supplies have reached Saigon safely and in good order. On each day since their arrival I have been in direct contact with Major General McAlpine and his senior officers. This morning I spoke personally on the telephone from National Defence headquarters to General McAlpine in Saigon, and I am therefore able to report directly to the House that our commander in Saigon advises that the Canadian contingent is in excellent shape and all personnel are actively engaged in preparing to take up their new duties.
I have brought with me to the House this afternoon a transcript of my conversation with General McAlpine. I
Viet Nam
believe that the House will be particularly interested in some aspects of it because it provides the most immediate and direct information available about our Canadian personnel in Viet Nam.
General McAlpine told me, and this is a direct quote:
Our arrival operations went well. We arrived in Saigon on schedule. We opened our headquarters at 800 hours on January 29th in accordance with the requirements set by the agreements and protocol.
General McAlpine went on to say that Commissioner Michel Gauvin is currently making arrangements for the International Commission to conduct their first reconnaissance of the regional headquarters' sites. He advised that three reconnaissance missions were being planned for tomorrow into the regions of Hue, Danang and Pleiku. I asked how many Canadians would be involved in these reconnaissance missions and he confirmed that there would be a total of six, four military and two personnel from External Affairs.
Later in the conversation I told General McAlpine that we were continuing with plans to send a second aircraft carrying additional Canadian personnel on February 10 and that we would keep to this plan subject to the possibility of conditions deteriorating. I asked him specifically if there was any reason that he could see why we should not proceed with our plans to send a second aircraft. His direct and clear reply was:
I can see no reason why the second aircraft should not come out.
In another part of our conversation General McAlpine said:
The troops are getting along extremely well with their colleagues from the other three countries on the International Commission and I think they should work well when we get together in the future on the key sites.
He said:
To sum up, things are progressing very well. We are making up our operating procedures now and our support arrangements are becoming firm, and I can assure you we can meet all the obligations in the agreement and protocol.
This is a final direct quote from my conversation with General McAlpine this morning:
I certainly do not intend to hazard my troops until their safety can be assured by all parties to the agreement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: My reply, understandably, was that that is the kind of assurance we wish to have. Although none of our Canadian forces have yet proceeded to their stations in the Vietnamese countryside I am certain that hon. members will be interested in the proposed deployment of the International Commission in South Viet Nam. The headquarters of the commission is to be in Saigon and there are to be seven regional divisions throughout South Viet Nam, with regional headquarters established in each region. Each of the four national members of the commission will provide five personnel to each of the regional headquarters.
In addition to the seven regional sites there will be 55 team sites throughout the regions. Depending on the nature and function of the individual sites, each of the four participating nations will contribute either two or three observers to the individual site. As well as the

February 1, 1973
Viet Nam
observers at the various sites there is a requirement tor 116 support personnel to provide the necessary service for the functioning of the contingent.
When these figures are broken down it means that we will have 62 military and External Affairs Canadian personnel functioning on headquarters' staff, 112 carrying out direct supervisory and observation duties and 116 providing operational support. This totals 290 personnel, which is the Canadian commitment to the International Commission of Control and Supervision.
As I have advised the House on earlier occasions, a requirement of the protocol is that our total contingent of 290 personnel should be in Saigon between 15 and 30 days after the cease-fire. We are now planning as I have indicated, but subject to review of circumstances, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has also stated, to send the remainder of the Canadian contingent from Montreal on February 10, which means that they will be arriving in Viet Nam on the sixteenth day following the cease-fire.
There has been, understandably, some expression of concern about the cost to Canada of participating in the International Commission. There have been questions in the House, some of which have been answered by my parliamentary secretary. Understandably, some members have wondered whether our expenditures in Viet Nam would bring about reduced activity on some of our bases in Canada. It must be evident that many of our expenditures are ones which we would be incurring in any event and are already within our budget. For example, the Terra Nova would have been on a training mission, the Hercules aircraft would have been flying supplies, and certainly all of the personnel would have been receiving their regular pay and allowances whether they were in Viet Nam or in Canada. However, we will be paying personnel in Viet Nam a foreign service allowance of $150 per month for single personnel and up to $180 per month for married personnel. The total cost of these foreign service allowances will amount to under $50,000 per month.
I can assure hon. members that our participation in the International Commission will not have a significant effect upon other operations in Canada. More important to me than any dollar cost that might be involved is the opportunity for Canadians to play some part in the role in which we as a nation have become recognized as world leaders.
My conversations with Canadian personnel leaving for Viet Nam revealed that they were proud to be representing Canada as members of the International Commission. I believe that most Canadians share that pride and welcome this opportunity for Canada to serve the cause of peace. In saying that, Mr. Speaker, I am not unaware of the difficulties, I might almost say the apparently insurmountable difficulties that face us as part of the International Commission.
I have said before on other occasions that some decisions that we make are decisions of the mind, they are logical and reasoned decisions, and there are other decisions which are decisions of the heart. It would be easy for us to find logical and sensible reasons to stay away from Viet Nam but it would be, I believe, inconsistent with
the prospects which Canada holds for the world for Canadians to refuse to at least try to help the cause of peace in this or in any other part of the world.
I might say, in conclusion, that my conviction about our decision-and it was a serious decision-to send our Canadian forces to Viet Nam as part of the new International Commission is well expressed in the words from a play which some of you may remember; it was a musical called "The King and I". The words which the king applied to himself might also be applied to a country, particularly to our country, in the present circumstances. His words were:
This is a man who thinks with his heart A man who is not always wise,
This is a man who stumbles and falls,
But this is a man who tries.
Only time can tell if our mission will be successful, but I am certain, as I stated at the beginning of these remarks, that it is characteristic of the Canadian people that our military forces should leave Canada, not to fight but to help prevent fighting. When we are asked to try to help maintain peace, I am certain there are very few Canadians who would say that we should not, at least, try.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather).


Mitchell William Sharp: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am sure the hon. gentleman would grant me a moment, because of the urgency of the matter and its interest to all members of the House, to say that the name of Mr. Lloyd Oppel whose whereabouts we had been concerned about is now on the prisoners' list provided by North Viet Nam, and we are trying to secure his early release.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I endorse the tributes paid by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) to the armed forces and to the officers of the Department of External Affairs who are engaged in what we have all come to know as a difficult operation. I think that all hon. members appreciate the fact that it is because we share the gratification expressed by the two ministers that we want to make as certain as debate and discussion can that this special Canadian mission in Viet Nam is a productive and useful one.
Canada will have an opportunity to validate our involvement in Viet Nam at the time of the convening of the international conference under the provisions of article 19 of the agreement. The conference is to be held before the end of February. It has many more chances of success than did the one in Geneva in 1954.1 suggest three reasons for optimism in this regard. Firstly, the Secretary General of the United Nations is to be a participant and this means that for the first time the United Nations will have a role in the tragedy which is Viet Nam. This is of


fundamental importance. Secondly, the People's Republic of China has been invited to participate. This invitation acknowledges, albeit very late, that China has a stake in the future of Indo-China. Thirdly, Canada and the other three countries of the International Commission of Control and Supervision will be at the conference. Thus we have an opportunity to participate in decisions relative to the reconciliation and healing of a country which is exhausted by almost 30 years of fighting.
One of the most perceptive comments I have seen about the matter of our role was made by John Holmes, writing in the Toronto Star on January 24 last. Mr. Holmes was an official of the Department of External Affairs and has experience in Indo-China. He wrote:
After almost 19 years, the parties are back to an agreement which looks a lot like that reached in Geneva in 1954.
The hope is that everyone concerned, the great powers and the Indo-Chinese peoples, have digested a basic lesson about the validity of war and violence as instruments of policy. We have had a confrontation of two concepts of the just war: on the one hand the war of national liberation and on the other the principle of collective defence against aggression.
Both concepts have their place but not when they are applied fanatically, simple-mindedly, and without discrimination. One side set out to overthrow the armistice and achieve its ends by guerrilla terror. The other responded with gross overconfidence in its ability to apply disciplined military force to defend a country whose internal conflicts it could not understand.
Mr. Speaker, anybody who wants to know the tragic story of this should read a book, which is perhaps the best one written on Viet Nam, called "Fire in the Lake" by Frances Fitzgerald. The author writes not only of the terrible destruction of a country but of 1,000 or 2,000 years of its civilization. The article by Mr. Holmes continues:
The concepts seemed all very well in their respective textbooks, but the theories were mechanical not human. War fed on war. The sense of purpose was lost in insensate escalation.
That the lesson may have been learned in Washington, Moscow, Peking, Hanoi and Saigon is our ground for hope. This armistice presumably has a better chance of holding than that of 1954 because the chastened powers may be more grimly determined to maintain it. Unless they do, there is no role for an international supervisory commission.
The major lesson of the war is that foreigners, either with guns or with white armbands, cannot lead or drive the Vietnamese people to live with each other.
Mr. Speaker, this is a theme on which I want to make a few remarks about what I should like to call the internationalization of a war that has had tragically little internationalization up until now. No purpose would be served if I were to list the grim statistics of Viet Nam. Death and devastation no longer seem to shock a world which has body count totals tatooed into its very soul. Philosophers and poets can jog the conscience of men about what horror war has wrought in a cause which has been long since drained of meaning to all except the beleaguered Vietnamese.
I seek for Canada no ideological stance. We lost our virginity on the old International Control Commission when, perhaps unwittingly, we allowed ourselves to become identified with one side in the struggle. We cannot regain what we have lost, but we do have an opportunity to underpin the ongoing and continuing authority of the United Nations as a legitimate peacekeeper. There must be no slip up this time, Mr. Speaker.
Viet Nam
This is what the debate is all about. Observing and reporting are not enough. After all, that role-this is in no way meant to disparage the Canadians who are on the spot-can be filled by the wire services and broadcast networks. If we were just observing the next withdrawal and the return of prisoners, one could say that such activities have been carried out for 20 years by the wire services and various broadcasting agencies. There is a terrible litany of observations; they have had decades of experience at observing.
What we must do is seize the chance offered by the conference to initiate certain objectives. The real question, after all, is not the interpretation of what to my simple mind is an Alice in Wonderland protocol and agreement. The real question is: Will there be peace in Indo-China at last?
During the next 60 days the United States will withdraw her troops from Viet Nam and, in return, American prisoners of war will be released. This is a bilateral bargain; this is peace with honour. One need not be very perceptive to predict that America will be extremely reluctant to renew her entanglement in Viet Nam. Now that the Secretary General of the United Nations will be a member of the conference, the Security Council can be the continuing political authority to which the ICCS can report. All the powers who want or have a vested interest in peace are on the Security Council. It is to the United Nations and its specialized agencies that we must look for leadership in the massive job of rehabilitation in Indo-China. I submit we must substitute statistics of tons of seed and fertilizer for tons of bombs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fairweather:: We must transform body counts into lists of men-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: May I say this, Mr. Speaker; if man ever again is foolish enough to be engaged in war, I hope the scandalous term "body count" will be exorcised from our language. We must transform body counts into lists of men, women and children supplied with prosthetic limbs and rebuilt faces. We must reunite families and provide homes for refugees. We must do all these things, and more, through the agencies in the world already established to deal with these things. And thank God they are ready. I am referring to the World Health Organization, the Food and Agriculture Organization, the Commission on Refugees, the United Nations Development Program, and even to the World Bank. Elections, I submit, must be supervised by a polyglot spectrum of the earth's peoples. Africans and Asians and others have a role to play here. Colour should mean more than ideology in choosing countries for various roles for ensuring political stability and peace.
Thousands of South Vietnamese civilians, Mr. Speaker, whose offence is that of being opposed to the government have been imprisoned for as long as American prisoners of war. The Americans are now to be released under the agreement signed also by Saigon. We have been reminded

February 1, 1973
Viet Nam
by the recently established international committee to free South Vietnamese political prisoners from detention, torture and death. This committee includes officials of many groups in Canada. The Canadian Council of Churches, the Anglican Church of Canada, the United Church, the Voice of Women, and Amnesty International are concerned, as I am sure we all are, about the fate of political prisoners held by the Saigon government.
Chester Ronning, about a generation ahead of his time and a distinguished retired public servant, writes that he "fully supports the initiative which the international committee is taking to draw the attention of Canada to the plight of these South Vietnamese people who continue to be punished for the crime of wanting peace in wartorn Viet Nam." Canada can do something about these political prisoners at the February conference.
Dr. Kissinger, at his press conference of January 24, said:
Chapter III deals with the return of captured military personnel and foreign civilians, as well as with the question of civilian detainees within South Viet Nam.
This, as you know, throughout the negotiations, presented enormous difficulties for us. We insisted throughout that the question of American prisoners of war and of American civilians captured throughout Indo-China should be separate from the issue of Vietnamese civilian personnel detained, partly because of the enormous difficulty of classifying the Vietnamese civilian personnel by categories of who was detained for reasons of the civil war and who was detained for criminal activities.
And secondly, because it was foreseeable that negotiations about the release of civilian detainees would be complex and difficult and because we did not want to have the issue of American personnel mixed up with the issues of civilian personnel in South Viet Nam.
Canada has no such inhibitions. Canada will have the opportunity at the end of next month, along with other countries, to make very certain that the release of these prisoners takes place. Dr. Kissinger went on to say:
This turned out to be one of the thorniest issues that was settled at some point and kept reappearing throughout the negotiations. It was one of the difficulties we had during the December negotiations.
Then he says the issue of Vietnamese civilian personnel will be negotiated between the two Vietnamese parties over a period of three months. Canada will be there and I submit that Canada has an urgent role to play. If Saigon and Hanoi cannot agree, Canada should insist that the human rights aspect of the political prisoners question must be protected by the International Committee of the Red Cross as part of the quid pro quo of our membership on the ICCS.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: We have the awful example of the failure of the old ICC to obtain the release of internees and prisoners of war and to exercise control over the movement of refugees. I do not want to be misunderstood; I make no charge against the old ICC. We have learned from it. We ought not to repeat the mistakes of the Geneva accord; the 1954 failure cannot be allowed to be repeated in 1973.
I seek, as one response of my party to the resolution we are debating, what I might call the internationalization of the rebuilding of peace. The Security Council can create

the basic infrastructure upon which peace can be built. Viet Nam, both North and South, must solve the juridical problem; no outsider's writ can run here. After all, like it or not, civil war is the privilege of a people. The Americans have experience of this. Imagine what would have happened in the American Civil War if one of the great European powers had attempted to interfere. History is indeed a paradoxical part of man's story. I seek a latter-day UNRRA-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are prepared to let the hon. member finish.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I will take only a minute or two more.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I think the hon. member for Gamelin (Mr. Portelance) also would like to seek the unanimous consent of the House to revert to an earlier item of business for the purpose of presenting the first report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. I ask if there is consent that this be done.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Mr. Speaker, I thank you and my colleagues. The interruption would have cut off my peroration. I am not sure how good a peroration it is, but none are good when they are interrupted.
I seek a latter-day UNRRA operating in Indo-China. First, there must be relief in the form of food and medicines for the hungry and the wounded; second, rehabilitation in the form of seeds and fertilizers to replant the lands poisoned and defoliated; third, reconstruction and development in the form of a Mekong Valley authority on the model of the Tennessee Valley authority in the United States so that Indo-China can use the water for energy and irrigation.
The people of Viet Nam never were the enemies of our country, Mr. Speaker. We are embarked upon another of man's quests for peace. The Canadian armed forces have again demonstrated their readiness to take on a tough and difficult mission. May I say, too, that the government and the country have been exceptionally well served by the officials of the Department of External Affairs throughout a difficult period. They have warned us of the pitfalls and frustrations. They have sought conditions and safeguards, not to frustrate a mission but to make it viable. We have an obligation to them to make sure that the February conference is the catalyst for a useful and productive United Nations and not one of a long series of exercises in futility.
The cold war, thank God, is in the last stages of being wound down. Even today nations of east and west Europe are meeting in Vienna to discuss mutual force reductions. In 1972 a United States president went to Peking and to Moscow, trips which came later than an American visit to the moon.
February 1, 1973

I sense in the young, if it is not too presumptuous of me to interpret their aspirations, a frustration with empty rhetoric and sloganeering. The UN has within its grasp an opportunity, now that it approaches the universalism so long sought, to transform a land which is the home of an ancient civilization. The mechanisms are in place and qualified people are ready in WHO, FAO and UNDP. Let us use them and the agencies that they represent.
This is what Canada must do as she takes her place at the conference at the end of this month, a conference that has as its purpose the guarantee of the end to the war and the maintenance of peace. I submit that to do less would be unacceptable.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Would the House agree to revert to motions to allow the hon. member for Gamelin (Mr. Portelance) to table a report?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-(Mr. Portelance).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock, the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp:
This House welcomes the conclusion of the agreements on ending the war and restoring peace in Viet Nam and notes the provision for an International Commission of Control and Supervision as part of the cease-fire arrangements, in which Canada has agreed to participate for the initial period of 60 days as provided
Viet Nam
for in the note, dated January 27, 1973, from the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the four parties to the Viet Nam cease-fire.
Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, after listening to two speeches by the official opposition this afternoon, I should like to express a wish: that if and when the official opposition forms the government their Secretary of State for External Affairs be the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) rather than the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), which would be unfortunate. Seldom have I heard two such contrasting speeches. The first was as positive, as marked with humanism, open-mindedness and international solidarity as the second was marked with pessimism, inconsistencies, naivety and, I dare not venture to add, inaccuracies which, in certain cases, seemed deliberate to me.
To start off with, Mr. Speaker, I shall give just one illustration of the inconsistencies in the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe's speech. He told us this afternoon, and I quote:

The international forces that we have been part of in the Congo, in Cyprus, in the mid-East have had measures of success worthy of note.

He said that this afternoon. I would like to recall, Mr. Speaker, what he was saying barely a few days ago, namely on January 24, and I quote from page 597 of Hansard:

We do not want Canada to go once more through what it has experienced on the International Control Commission since 1954 or what it has experienced in Cyprus.

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether the same researchers prepare the remarks of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, but such a glaring contradiction in less than one week on our peacekeeping participation in Cyprus is absolute proof that not only the argument of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe is weak but that it crumbles under its own contradictions.
Let me review one by one the various remarks he made this afternoon and I think I am not distorting his thoughts when I say that basically his speech reflected the following point of view: We are not satisfied with the agreement signed by the four parties, particularly between North Viet Nam and the United States. We are not satisfied with the agreement signed between Mr. Le Due Tho and mR. Kissinger. We would like the fighting to resume and when the powers that be will have signed a new agreement satisfactory to us, then we will be able to say we are satisfied. This I think is the essence of the remarks made by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe this afternoon.


Claude Wagner: This is distorting my point of view.


Pierre De Bané: At the beginning of his speech he went as far as to say that the government had not informed the House. Let me remind him that since January 1969, the

February 1, 1973
Viet Nam
right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) have repeatedly explained the Canadian position vis-a-vis this conflict which has upset the world's conscience. And last October when Canada was approached and requested to be a member of the control commission, the Secretary of State for External Affairs repeatedly stated publicly and through diplomatic channels Canada's conditions for participating in the commission. As someone said this afternoon, Canada is the most experienced country in the field of peace operations. This is the reason our services were requested once the agreement was concluded.
Furthermore, when Parliament met on January 4, the Secretary of State for External Affairs explained once more to the House the conditions under which we were ready to proceed to Viet Nam.
As I recall, Mr. Speaker, on January 5, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs was explaining our position with regard to Viet Nam, the hon. member for Saint-Hya-cinthe said, and I quote:

I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I should have much preferred, and I know my colleagues would have much preferred, that our first business in this House should deal immediately with urgent problems.

-he then enumerated domestic problems. This afternoon, he said the government acted on the sly, yet we had this debate almost in spite of him. I say, Mr. Speaker, this is too much contradicting in a new career.
What hurts me most, Mr. Speaker, is this excerpt which I quote from the speech made this afternoon by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe:
There can be no success-

I ask him why he is negative and why he shows so much despair:

There can be no success-

Of course, Mr. Speaker, we cannot guarantee that we are going to succeed. When he stated our position, the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, and I quote:

It is no secret to anyone that we have serious doubts about what we are being asked to undertake.

He repeated it this afternoon and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) said it also. But why tell us, like an evil wisher:

There can be no success-

Mr. Speaker, for the great misfortune of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe, I am going to tell him some 
thing. And since one hon. member of the opposition does not even bother to pick up earphone to listen to the French interpretationt-

I will say it in English. It is clear from the report of our ambassador to the ICCS in Saigon that three days is perhaps too short a time to form an opinion about the prospects of this commission; however, three days of intense activity is worth a month of experience under less pressing and demanding circumstances. At the first meeting of the commission the Canadian delegation proposed that the first task or goal should be to establish contact with our opposite numbers, the joint military commission in Saigon. At that meeting the Canadian representative, Ambassador Gauvin, opened the meeting by suggesting that while the joint military commission was apparently not yet in a position to establish contact with the ICCS, we are attempting to contact the two parties, the government of the Republic of Viet Nam and the U.S., who are themselves directly involved in providing logistics support for employment of the seven regional teams.

I could of course report other details to show that if indeed we are not sure of succeeding, there are still some encouraging signs which tell us not to despair.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe was telling us, and this in my view is what is most surprising, and I quote:

Yet, despite the difficulties with the task and the indirect nature of our function, Canadians are there.

But for heaven's sake, let us realize that with all the difficulties which arise from this, Canada has no interest in sending a surveillance team to Viet Nam. We do so only because, being as the rest of the world witness to the division which has been afflicting that country for some twenty years, we thought: It is our duty to do everything possible in order to try and restore peace as soon as possible.
Now, I would like to quote a sentence that I will not qualify-I leave that to everyone of you-in order to show to what extent one can play a double game.

While that commitment was hastier than it had to be and completely out of tune with our sorry experience in Viet Nam, it is a commitment that we in this House must consider positively.
He had just said, Mr. Speaker-

There can be no success-

He had just said that there could be no success. Now he tells us, to please I know not whom, that we in this House must consider it positively. I could quote you other examples of similar statements. For instance, today he told us that the agreement between North Viet Nam and the United States is one in which the Canadian government
February 1, 1973___________________COMMONS DEBATES	881
has no role to play and that, frankly, it is not up to us to supervise what goes on with regard to the implementation of the agreement.
I would merely like to remind him that if once again he is not happy with the agreement entered into by the two parties, Canada was not a party to it; he should direct his reproaches to Messrs. Le Due Tho and Kissinger. Indeed, it is not our fault if they asked us to supervise the enforcement of the agreement.
This sentence struck me most in the speech of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner:

Our position at the international conference must be that of ensuring a viable machinery, both political and supervisory, to police and secure that four-power arrangement.
Let me say, Mr. Speaker, that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) put it very clearly. We are not in Viet Nam to police any of these four powers. We are there only to observe and to report if one of those powers is violating the agreement they signed in Paris. We are not there to secure anything or to police anybody, particularly when the United States, with half a million soldiers, did not succeed in policing that country.


J. Michael Forrestall: The United States declared peace in Viet Nam.


Pierre De Bané: May I be allowed to complete my remarks, Mr. Speaker.
I think that it is a total failure to recognize the role assigned to the four parties involved and responsible for enforcing the cease-fire and, in my opinion, it is such a glaring mistake that since more than a week the Secretary of State for External Affairs provided each Opposition party with copies of the agreements which were concluded.
As for asking us to perform a military task, I will say to the hon. member that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has fully explained that our role over there is not to keep the peace, but to observe and report if one of the parties does not live up to its commitments.
The hon. member took the liberty to add in order to downgrade the role of Canada:

We were cast, in 1954, as the representatives of the western interest on the commission.


J. Michael Forrestall: Oh, get on and tell us something positive. [Translation]


Pierre De Bané: Then I should like him to explain how it is that the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) when he was in Hanoi a few days ago could state that Canada was very highly regarded by Hanoi? Why, Mr. Speaker, try to downgrade our country, a country which succeeded in the field of its foreign policy in carrying out peacekeeping missions, about 15 of them since 1945? Why try to depreciate what is one of the finest aspects of our foreign policy?
Viet Nam
He repeated a little later in his speech, and I quote:
-we find it difficult to understand why the government has waited so long before informing the House-
Waited? I remind him that we did it 48 hours after this Parliament reconvened and at that time he taunted the government with having stated once again as late as January 5 and in detail, the terms of our participation. Why is he charging us with having "waited before informing the House", he who taunted us with doing so 48 hours after the Houses had reconvened?
Mr. Speaker, I could go on setting forth all the thoughts which come up in my mind following the speech of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe which differs greatly in its reach from that of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal.
I was surprised also by his indulging into reading and reminding us of the various questions he asked in the House a few days ago. I am surprised that he dared recall them today even though the Secretary of State for External Affairs has answered each of them. And with the indulgence of the House and its permission, I will gladly recall his answers when my time has elapsed.
Mr. Speaker, why did the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe take the liberty of saying: "There can be no success"?
As far as we are concerned, we cannot guarantee the success of our mission but, as we are jointly responsible for the fate of the whole world-and God knows how the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe reminded us of our joint responsibility-we said to ourselves, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs explained on January 24, that our duty was to go to Viet Nam not taking for granted that we would succeed but saying we would try for 60 days. Will that trial succeed or not? One point is certain, and it is that we the members of this government have decided not to be prophesiers of evil.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be able to take part in this debate on external affairs. It is certainly not the first in which I have engaged in my 15 years in this House. I would note at the beginning that the hon. member who has just resumed his seat has added perhaps more asperity to a debate on external affairs than I have been used to in this decade and a half.


Pierre De Bané: I was just quoting.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: If the hon. member wants to rebut it, he can change the rules. But it is my time to speak, now. I have always believed that while partisanship of itself is not the summum bonum of our existence here, especially in external affairs I have always tried to eschew partisanship. I should like to say, too, that I am proud of the statement made by the spokesman for our party, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) who since he came to this parliament has revealed eloquence, wisdom and consideration which makes me extremely proud and happy to be a colleague of his. I hope we shall long remain together side by side and for a long time on the other side of this chamber.
I know my time is limited to 20 minutes. I want to use a good deal less than 20 minutes. I want to hear from the
February 1, 1973

Viet Nam
distinguished and learned hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Stackhouse); I want to hear from my hon. friend from Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), from my hon. friend from Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) and from other hon. members. So I will telescope my comments, not because of lack of interest, not became of lack of comments but because I want to hear from them.
I want to say at the outset that I join with those who applaud and salute the quality of the military forces of this country. I have always felt that way. I was honoured last spring to be on the committee which toured bases in the west, in the north and in the central part of this country and I have an even higher regard for those fine men who constitute the military of this country. If I were a nasty politican I might say that I would be surprised that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) would ever settle for anything which had the expression "60 days" in it, because I remember those famous 60 days of decision and what they did to a certain party. I remember that Mr. Pearson once said, "Perhaps the '60 days' elected us; I don't know. But it damned near defeated us; that I am sure of."


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: But this is a much more serious matter. This is an issue which concerns us all and troubles us all. God knows, there is not one member of this House who does not welcome the end of the war in Viet Nam. I don't want to sound like a genonton, Mr. Speaker, and with my youthful looks that would be a presumption on the acting profession, but in my first speech on foreign affairs I mentioned Indo-China, way back in July of 1958. As the minister said the other day, this is a war that had gone on for a whole generation. It has been a dirty war and, naturally, it is going to be a dirty peace.
We are not disturbed if things do not fit dutifully into the moulds which the idealists expect; we are not disturbed about that situation at all. But I do take exception to those who believe that this country of ours, faced with the challenge, with the question, had only one answer. I am not here to cavil. I am not here to belittle. I am not here to make difficulties. But I do not think we had only one answer. I think it would have been just as honourable, just as realistic, just as sensitive to have said that perhaps, in the circumstances, this was not the time for Canada to involve itself. I would not have been ashamed of any government which said, "In the circumstances, why not look to some of the other 125 independent countries in the world?"
I do not agree with those who say we had no choice. But the choice having been made by the government, precipitously perhaps, we must make the best of it. But I am surprised that anyone in government dealing with an issue as sensitive, an issue which divides the Canadian people so painfully, would not rejoice in the opportunity to share this challenge, to discuss the issue with the Parliament of Canada rather than keeping to itself the executive prerogative of making a decision and, after the fact, notifying the people's representatives.
Here, Mr. Speaker, is where my hon. friend from Saint-Hyacinthe was not only at his most eloquent but at his most precise in terms of parliamentary values, parliamen-

tary rights, parliamentary rules and constitutional propriety. In the bitter days when Great Britain was almost overborne by the iniquitous and evil power of a terrible enemy, Winston Churchill, harrassed and burdened as no man probably ever was, told them, "It is a comfort to have the House of Commons in session so that the conscience of the nation can be expressed on the vital issues which assail us". And even Mr. Mackenzie King said during the war, and it is quite a move from Churchill to King, that it was a help, rather than an embarrassment, to have parliament involved.
So I say that the minister would have been far wiser, faced with an issue so delicate, where the dangers were so great, where the country was so uncertain, had he asked the House for its advice. He would have found every member in this chamber prepared to set aside partisan differences and deal realistically, honestly and decently with the question as to what Canada should do. There are dangers ahead and the government would have found itself strengthened had it confirmed its mandate by consulting with the people's representatives. We cannot go back on the decision which was taken, but my hon. friend from Saint-Hyacinthe has provided an opportunity for the government to assert the Canadian point of view, to strengthen the decision taken, to bring a greater degree of involvement, integration and understanding on the part of this country of what, let us face it, will be a protracted and, I am afraid, extremely difficult undertaking for many, many months ahead.
Not for one moment do I accept the idea that this country, and this country's representatives in Indo-China, can at some time hence, 60 days hence, casually say, "Well, the period has expired. We will go home." How, in the name of heaven, could we present ourselves to the international community under those circumstances? All these things should have been considered much more carefully.
I do not want to be critical of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson). He is probably one of the most thoughtful, pleasant members of the cabinet and is trying to do his best. But I was not impressed when he was asked the question, "What should our boys do if confrontation came up?" and he replied, "Duck." This is hardly a thoughtful observation in a very serious situation.
I have said that we have taken the course. Now we have to make the best of it. I am not sure that eternally it is the course of wisdom for the Canadian government to say to every country and on every occasion, in Dickens' words, "Barkis is willing'!" or, as the Old Testament used to say, "Here am I, Lord. Send me." Perhaps a little more thoughtful observation might have been entered into, and considering what happened in the ICC, someone might have pondered whether or not on this particular occasion we were exercising the finest of wisdom on our own behalf and on behalf of world peace to say immediately, "We will go. Just call us."
I would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that one of the advantages of being a veteran-although I represent the cradle of confederation, I am not a father of confederation albeit some people think I look like one-is that I was here in
February 1, 1973

1964 when we were faced with the grievous challenge and the threat of Cyprus, a fellow member of the Commonwealth, a place from which the crackle of war could be heard thousands of miles away.
At that time the government was able to ascertain the views of parliament and to rest its case upon the people's representatives. And the people's representatives moved. This afternoon I was reading the eloquent speech given on that occasion by my former leader, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), who stated clearly that our party and, as he rightly said, the people of Canada would do their part to have Canada assist.
I would commend the amendment of my colleague the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner). It clearly indicates that this is the way things should be done. I would implore the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who with all his faults is not a bad man, who wishes well for Canada and does his best for Canada, to take, adopt and accept the amendment so eloquently put forward by my colleague so that the people of Canada will know that the Canadian people's representatives have expressed themselves thoughtfully, with due consideration, on this important path which is hazardous, uncertain and divisive. And I appeal to my colleagues in a great gesture of Canadian unanimity to support what my colleague so eloquently and so thoughtfully has put before us all.


Mr.   Georges-C. Lachance@Lafontaine: Mr. Speaker, in the 1970 review of its foreign policy, the government stated the following as recorded on page 20 of the English version of the booklet on Canada's Pacific involvement and I quote:
When peace comes to Indochina, Canada, without diminishing its existing aid programme in the area, will wish to play its full part in special programmes of rehabilitation aid necessitated by the prolonged hostilities. The Government will be ready to move to meet immediate relief requirements and to make a contribution to longer-term reconstruction efforts.
As stated in this House last week by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), Canada is also anxious to participate in the immense task of assisting and rebuilding Viet Nam and although the government is still in the dark as to what it will be requested to do and as to how any extended Canadian program could be related to the efforts of other countries and of international organizations, I think we shall be willing and ready to contribute to this task through all of Indochina.
Therefore, if I am not mistaken, the government, from the remarks made by the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs is considering helping the Vietnamese people restore their economy destroyed by war, and also helping to cope with the individual and social needs of thousands of people who have been torn away from their home, who have been displaced and who are now actually refugees often in their own country.
It seems that the government's intention is to contribute to the assistance and rehabilitation operations in Viet Nam after the war is over. They have repeatedly proclaimed this intention over the last few years.
I think the words I just quoted from the review of our foreign policy are, in my opinion, an official statement. Canada should be willing to extend any assistance we are
Viet Nam
in a position to supply to the Vietnamese people and to Indochina generally. However, in view of the uncertainty surrounding the general situation in that part of the world, it is premature, I believe, to stipulate the exact amount in dollars of the assistance we shall be supplying or shall be able to supply to the countries forming Indochina during the post-war period.
I understand that Canada plans to supply some types of assistance and to continue its current programs in that region of the world. But it goes without saying that the extent of Canadian assistance must, as much as possible, be in keeping with needs which it is not yet possible at the present time to identify or determine accurately.
Following remarks made yesterday by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather), I should also like to point out that since 1955 Canadian development assistance to South Viet Nam has amounted to very little, for many reasons, namely some $14 or $15 million. This assistance was mainly of a humanitarian and social nature and was particularly geared to the areas of paramedical rehabilitation, of training and of assistance by way of food and shelter.
During the current fiscal year, Canada is supplying $3,100,000 worth of assistance to the Republic of Viet Nam, Laos and other neighbouring countries. In this regard, we must clearly consider that the implementation of the Canadian program was facilitated by our linguistic resources.

As I mentioned earlier, the level of the present requirement for outside support for the reconstruction effort in Indo-China is unknown. One dominant consideration in determining Canadian aid levels is the amount of assistance which can be expected from other donors. In addition, the government will wish to consider that because of its participation in international observer arrangements in Viet Nam, even for the initial 60 days only, it will be spending a substantial amount of money which might have a bearing on the aid funds we could provide. Therefore at this time, with so many imponderables, it would seem preferable and in fact more realistic for Canada simply to reaffirm its intention to provide assistance for relief and reconstruction, rather than to set any specific sum or target.
In any case, we must bear in mind that a number of factors which are intrinsic to the current situation in Indo-China will place limits upon the capacity of the recipients in the area to absorb dramatic infusions of aid. Recent events have demonstrated that those countries may in the short run be preoccupied with a variety of problems other than reconstruction and long-term development programs. We must also take into account the institutional capabilities and capacities of the governments concerned to identify and carry out the tasks of reconstruction and development.
From the point of view of the donors, there remain basic unanswered questions. One question which will have to be resolved is the need for co-ordination of effort. This is vital, as was recently shown in Bangladesh. But in the case of Indo-China no fully effective co-ordinating

Viet Nam
organization is yet in place. This also raises a unique consideration for Indo-China, namely, the willingness of North Viet Nam to accept the possible involvement of international development agencies operating on its territory to administer multilateral aid. The same consideration may also apply in any bilateral context.

It should be noted that in view of the financial limitations of the governments in that part of the world, that is Indo-China, the donor countries may have to set up extended programs to finance local expenditures if they want to achieve an efficient reconstruction program.
Indeed, and this is readily understood, there is no administrative mechanism at this time in that part of the world that could really launch a vast program. In addition, as I have already mentioned, the requests for assistance from Canada will have to be weighed against its present role as observer and those it may have to assume eventually in Laos and even in Cambodia.
Neither the extent, nor the duration of these needs, Mr. Speaker, have been identified yet. All these factors involve difficulties which are easy to understand, and perhaps even restraints on the Canadian program of assistance for the reconstruction of this part of the world which is commonly called Indo-China. However, the need does exist and one cannot deny it. Perhaps we shall have to wait quite a long time, unhappily, before long run projects are developed. To be realistic, we must now be satisfied with short-term projects, and I guess that the government will concentrate its efforts in areas where Canada has already proved that is has experts, resources, etc. These areas could be the following ones: supplies, including drugs and auxiliary medical services,-that is what has been done in the past in that country-shelters, emergency food for displaced people, medical equipment and aid to the organization of medical services, which will surely be necessary-as well as cheap basic building materials. After this war, it will surely be necessary to erect new buildings, as and when priority needs are identified. We will have to give our support to strengthen administrative,^social and educational institutions.
Finally, we could concentrate our efforts on reconstruction and long rung economic development projects, as soon as they are identified, and that Canada decides that circumstances make it possible to carry them out and provide us with an efficient role to play. In view of the dislocation of the economic system, problems caused by this war and the unemployment one may expect especially in South Viet Nam, as a result of all these tragic events, labour intensive programs and projects will certainly have a particular importance and should be granted first priority.

Mr. Speaker, I have tried in these few minutes to emphasize that for Canada, as for other countries, mounting an effective and distinctive contribution for reconstruction and rehabilitation in the countries of Indo-China will be neither simple nor easy. It will present serious problems from the point of view of the recipients as well as the donors. The need is there. But simply pouring in resources will clearly not suffice. A considerable amount of planning and co-ordination is necessary. For the long

term, some of the basic elements required for effective planning and implementation are still uncertain and difficult to determine. Therefore, initially I believe we should concentrate on reinforcing the present ongoing Canadian program while actively exploring the possibilities for future assistance.

Mr. Speaker, Canada recognizes that Indo-China is in dire need of assistance. After all that was said today, I would add that we have at all times accepted our international duties and responsibilities in the past. I am hopeful that the people of Canada still want the government to co-operate with the Indochinese people towards the edification of a brighter future.
Because of its experience in peace-keeping, Canada must show leadership, Mr. Speaker, and that is what the world expects from us.
I can hardly share the opinion of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) when he suggests-if I understood him correctly-that Canada has started on this venture without taking the necessary measures of carefulness, security, and without the usual necessary safeguards.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe is concerned about Canada's credibility. He should keep a count of the praise Canada has received on several occasions from the major foreign powers and international organizations, such as the United Nations, as well as from all the Secretary Generals of the United Nations and, even recently, in the report of the Secretary General on the Cyprus operations, at the General Assembly, on December 1, 1972.
I complete my remarks, Mr. Speaker, by suggesting that the government should refer to the report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence tabled in the House in June 1971 following an extensive examination of international development assistance in the white paper on foreign policy for Canadians, examined by a sub-committee that I had the honour to chair.
I hope that the government will draw its inspiration from the recommendations of the above-mentioned report which was unanimously accepted by all members of the committee in which were represented all the political parties of the House.
I hope that the government will take inspiration from these recommendations to provide all possible assistance to that area of the world, Viet Nam, Laos, Cambodia, in order that Indo-China get over that unhuman and terrible conflict and proceed with restoration and development.


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is important that the House recognize the way in which the present debate has a context larger than the involvement of a peace supervisory mission in Viet Nam for a limited period of 60 days. Indeed, that context must include Canada's potential long-term commitment in Southeast Asia. It is true that we have a small contingent there for a very limited time. But who is to say with absolute assurance that the numbers will not multiply and the days lengthen? For example, we have been in Cyprus
February 1, 1973___________________COMMONS DEBATES_________________________ ____________885
for many years. The cost of our contingent there, over and above pay allowances, has been $6.5 million. We may reckon that is a small dollar cost in relation to the achievement, but the experience is still instructive as to the magnitude an involvement may take on when we enter on an overseas mission.
In 1964, for example, when this House was debating the sending of a peacekeeping force to Cyprus, the then secretary of state for external affairs was asked if the Canadian force would be in Cyprus any longer than a matter of months. He replied that the resolution provided for a limitation of three months. He went on to say that he suspected, of course, that in the light of events this would be open to review but that a limited period of three months was provided in the resolution. That was in 1964, and in 1973 we are still there. Of course, we should be there. However, I point to that experience to indicate the way in which we may enter into an overseas commitment believing it will be small in size and short in duration, but then be surprised by the way in which circumstances lead us on. That is one of the reasons why parliament, being the elected representative body of the nation as a whole, must have a voice-indeed a deciding voice-whenever there is proposed a long-term commitment of Canadian personnel overseas.
We recognize that the government had to act swiftly in this instance and it had to be free to act largely on its own in order to send a peace supervisory mission to Viet Nam. However, before the 60-day period, which is part of the government's arrangement, expires there will be adequate time for the government to come before parliament, to report to this House on what has happened in Viet Nam and to consult with parliament on the implications of a long-term commitment, if such is deemed necessary. I recognize that the government must have some kind of primacy in external affairs, a primacy which may not be granted in all areas. However, primacy does not mean monopoly. Parliament does have a role. That role must include consultation before any government undertakes a long-term commitment of our armed forces overseas.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Indeed, the principle behind that which we are debating tonight goes back a long way in parliamentary history. The tension between the executive and the legislature over authority in foreign policy goes back at least to the Stuart kings of the seventeenth century. I suggest there might be some parallels between those kings and the present government. However, we believe, in the twentieth century, that it should be accepted as a commonly acknowledged principle that none of our armed forces will be committed for long term service overseas without the authority of parliament.
As support for that principle I could cite that eminent leader of Canadian public life of almost half a century ago, Arthur Meighen. May I, instead, repeat the words of another great prime minister, W. L. Mackenzie King who speaking in this House in 1938 said we may take the position that parliament will decide upon our course when and if an emergency arises, in the light of all the circumstances of the time. His critics may suggest that Prime Minister King used the doctrine of parliamentary
Viet Nam
supremacy in external affairs only when that suited his purposes. I think we must allow that any prime minister must adjust to circumstances. Of course, we have seen how a prime minister in the last three months can make a great many adjustments.
We recognize generally that there was something profound in the kind of policy Mr. King tried to enunciate, namely, his effort to assert the supremecy of parliament as a countervailing balance to what he feared would be the domination of the British cabinet, the League of Nations, or some other power outside Canada. That kind of hazard has largely passed. Unfortunately, we are still in danger of being dominated unnecessarily, against the interest of the people of this country, by our own cabinet.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: We must fear the danger of the cabinet thinking that it has an absolute monopoly in external affairs. In the interests of the people of this country we must assert the role of parliament in external affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: After all, not only do the people pay with money; they may pay with blood when we enter into commitments beyond our shores.
In the United States, for example, the president having assumed an absolute control over foreign policy and military policy, a control so great that the checks and balances asserted historically by the United States Senate have now all but been eclipsed, the United States government has been able to send over half a million troops to Viet Nam to wage brutal war, without needing to obtain any congressional declaration of war, without seeking any greater support than the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, and without needing to acknowledge even that there was a war in Viet Nam until peace was signed.
We would not in any way suggest that the government of Canada is anything but circumspect as it assumes this new role in Viet Nam. However, we suggest that the government of Canada would show a great deal of prudence if it were prepared to come to parliament and submit the results of the venture which it has undertaken in the name of Canada. When the 60-day period is over, or even before it is over, I hope it will seek authorization from parliament for what it would wish to undertake in the future.
We think, as challenges arise in this troubled part of the world and as they may develop in other troubled parts of the world, that parliament, as Prime Minister Mackenzie King said a generation ago, ought to decide our course. Twice in the last quarter of a century it has been Canada's role to send peace supervisory missions overseas and this has been done by order in council.


Mitchell William Sharp: But not the ICC.


Reginald Francis Stackhouse: In both instances there was debate in this House following such order. We submit, Mr. Speaker, that that kind of debate, that kind of thorough discussion is fundamental to the right conduct of Canada's role in the world at large.

February 1, 1973
Viet Nam
In 1964, in the Cyprus debate, the then leader of the opposition, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said: "This action tonight is but one more step in the constitutional development and final establishment of the principle that we in this nation will not send our troops abroad without a decision by parliament." What we are asking is that this principle enunciated and upheld by distinguished leaders of more than one party and from both sides of this House should be recognized again. We invite members of all parties, including the government, to adhere to this principle once more and to say that again in this instance it will be parliament that will decide our course.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the conclusion of the agreement on ending the war and restoring peace in Viet Nam. One really does not have to spend a long time recalling the horror, devastation, brutality and futility of the long drawn-out war to be wholeheartedly in favour of steps to restore peace in Viet Nam. No doubt the agreement contains a lot of vague undertakings and ambiguous phrases. Nevertheless, it is an instrument by which it is possible to restore peace. I therefore support any Canadian initiative or any reasonable step designed to make the agreement work. For this reason I support Canada's participation in the International Commission of Control and Supervision.
It is not difficult to be sceptical. The agreement has been described as a fragile document, and so it is. It has been frequently said, and indeed it is obvious, that the good faith of the immediate parties to it is fundamental to its success. But given that good faith, I believe we should not be without hope that the agreement can be an instrument of establishing the general peace in Southeast Asia. I think it is essential that the four conditions laid down by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) be strictly adhered to and, as has been indicated by my leader in this debate, we in the New Democratic Party believe that certain other conditions should also be included.
There are two reasons for insisting on conditions. One is that the safety of Canadian personnel committed to the international commission is our responsibility, and conditions must be established to give reasonable security for their safety. Second, it is important that the commission be able to do the task assigned to it. We cannot afford to repeat the classical history of the International Control Commission which remained in being long after the parties had torn up and totally disregarded the agreement which they were supposed to be supervising. Indeed, it is that history that is responsible, in my judgment, for so much of the reluctance and doubt of the Canadian people about taking part in the present observer team operation.
However, I propose to concentrate my remarks on what I think is a vital condition required to demonstrate the good faith of at least one of the parties to the agreement, and essential if Canada is to continue to participate in the operation. I refer to the plight of the 200,000 or so civilian political prisoners detained in pitiful conditions in South Viet Nam. The subject has already been mentioned by the

hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) and I wish to develop it.
Reliable sources, including representatives of the World Council of Churches, Amnesty International of England, and the Friends Service Committee have painted the picture in sombre colours. I take my account from the report of one David Tecwin made to Amnesty International of England on December 8, 1972, which says that underfed, overcrowded and often held in pitiful conditions, the civilians detained in South Viet Nam probably number well over 100,000. In addition, there are 40,000 prisoners of war held in Phy Quoc, an island off the south coast of Cambodia.
Many of the civilians are communists or communist sympathizers not eligible for prisoner of war status under the terms of the 1949 Geneva convention. Many are neutralists, members of that large section of the political community that does not wish to be governed by the National Liberation Front, the Viet Cong, nor by the current regime of President Nguyen Van Thieu. But a large number of those behind bars are simply the unlucky ones, men, women and children detained without trial because they were found in areas overrun by the communists and retaken by government forces. They are not interested in politics. Caught up in the mess of war, they happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Their plight is illuminated in a series of letters smuggled out of the largest and most notorious of South Viet Nam's civilian prisons, the huge camp complex on the island of Con Son off the southeast coast. Con Son prison made headlines two years ago when two American congressmen stumbled across the human "tiger cages". These are pits in the ground and are still in use. "Difficult" cases are, reportedly, still shackled inside and disciplined by having powdered lime poured down on them.
The smuggled letters describe with little evident emotion the chaos and confusion that reigned in Con Son in recent months as the fighting dragged on. In many prisons and interrogation centres spread throughout the country, torture and physical ill-treatment are common. Detailed reports have been received of the beatings, electric shock treatment and other more sophisticated methods used in the interrogation and detention centres in the country.
When I was in Hanoi I had the opportunity to talk to persons who had escaped from these detention centres and who gave their accounts of systematic torture. The agreement on ending the war contains certain references which establish, I believe, the responsibility of the government of South Viet Nam to release these civilian prisoners. It also establishes some responsibility on the part of the International Commission of Control and Supervision.
The agreement, of course, provides-and we rejoice in this-for the release of United States military personnel within 60 days, and this process is already under way. Article 8 of the agreement also provides for the return of Vietnamese civilian personnel captured and detained in South Viet Nam. It provides that this question will be resolved by the two South Vietnamese parties on the basis of the principles of article 21(b) of the agreement on the cessation of hostilities in Viet Nam of July 20,1954. It goes on to say the two South Vietnamese parties will do so; in

other words, deal with the question in a spirit of national reconciliation and concord, with a view to ending hatred and enmity, in order to ease suffering and to reunite families. The two South Vietnamese parties will do their utmost to resolve this question within 90 days after the cease-fire comes into effect.
Article 11 provides that immediately after the cease-fire, the two South Vietnamese parties will: (a) achieve national reconciliation and concord, end hatred and enmity, prohibit all acts of reprisal and discrimination against individuals or organizations that have collaborated with one side or the other; (b) ensure the democratic liberties of the people: personal freedom, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of meeting, freedom of organization, freedom of political activities, freedom of belief, freedom of movement, freedom of residence, freedom of work, right to property ownership and right to free enterprise.
It may surprise members of the House to know that such sweeping provisions were in the agreement that was signed. It must be admitted that these provisions sound somewhat utopian, but nevertheless they are part of the solemn agreement of the parties and it is obvious that the detaining of political prisoners and of those victims of the war who are not even political prisoners and have committed no offences is quite inconsistent with the spirit of the agreement.
Article 12 of the agreement provides for the setting up of a National Council of National Reconciliation and Concord of "three equal segments". The agreement does not define what the three segments are, but presumably they include the representatives of the National Liberation Front, the representatives of the Thieu regime in Saigon and the Third Force, largely consisting of buddhists and other religious elements. Obviously, if the Third Force is to be free to function as part of the National Council of National Reconciliation and Concord the detention of many of its members cannot be continued if the agreement is to be applied in good faith.
There is a protocol to the agreement concerning the return of captured military personnel and foreign civilians and captured and detained Vietnamese civilian personnel. The articles of this protocol which refer to Vietnamese civilian personnel are articles 7, 8 and 9. Article 7 reproduces from the terms of the main agreement the proviso that the question of the return of Vietnamese civilian personnel captured and detained in South Viet Nam will be resolved by the two South Vietnamese parties on the basis of the principles of article 21(b) of the agreement of July 20, 1954, which reads as follows:
The term "civilian internees" is understood to mean all persons who, having in any way contributed to the political and armed struggle between the two parties, have been arrested for that reason and have been kept in detention by either party during the period of hostilities.
Subsection (c) of article 7 of the protocol provides that within 15 days after the cease-fire comes into effect the two South Vietnamese parties shall exchange lists of the Vietnamese civilian personnel captured and detained by each party and lists of the places at which they are held.
Viet Nam
Article 8 deals with the treatment of captured persons during detention and provides:
All captured ... foreign civilians of the parties shall be treated humanely at all times, and in accordance with international practice.
They are to be protected against all violence to life and person, in particular against murder in any form, mutilation, torture and cruel treatment, and outrages upon personal dignity. They are to be given adequate food, clothing, shelter and the medical attention required for their health. They are to be allowed to exchange postcards and letters with their families and receive parcels.
The same provisions apply to all Vietnamese civilian personnel captured and detained in South Vietnam.
By article 9 it is provided as follows:
(b) To contribute to improving the living conditions of the captured and detained Vietnamese civilian personnel, the two South Vietnamese parties shall, within fifteen days after the cease-fire comes into effect, agree upon the designation of two or more national Red Cross societies to visit all places where the captured and detained Vietnamese civilian personnel are held.
Under article 18 of the agreement the International Commission of Control and Supervision is also given certain responsibilities in this regard. Under article 18(c) it is provided that until the international conference makes definitive arrangements the International Commission of Control and Supervision will report to the two South Vietnamese parties on matters concerning the control and supervision of the implementation of the following provisions of this agreement. Included in these provisions is article 8(c) regarding the question of the return of Vietnamese civilian personnel captured and detained in South Viet Nam. It seems to me that these provisions impose a responsibility on the international community as well as on the parties to ensure that the provision in the agreement respecting civilian prisoners is carried out.
Article 19 of the agreement calls for the convening of an international conference within 30 days after the signing of the agreement to guarantee the ending of the war, the maintenance of peace in Viet Nam and respect for the Vietnamese people's fundamental national rights. Canada is one of the parties to participate in this conference. I would urge upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) that the question of the plight of civilian refugees be brought before the conference and included in the agenda. The present intolerable conditions to which I referred earlier in my speech continue, notwithstanding the agreement. The moral authority of the whole peacemaking effort will be undermined if this situation is allowed to continue.
These provisions in the agreement, accepted by all parties, must be lived up to and Canada's participation in the supervision and control commission gives Canada a special responsibility on behalf of the suffering and innocent persons who have been detained. No doubt there will be difficult questions. It may be that it will be claimed that some of the people detained are detained for civilian offences and are not covered by the agreement at all. But this must not be allowed to rest on mere assertion. Adequate machinery should be set up to look at the actual facts and to obtain the release of those who are in fact not criminals but political prisoners or victims of the war. It

February 1, 1973
Viet Nam
would be nice if problems like this just disappeared and we could close our eyes to them, but these humanitarian problems will not disappear unless action is taken to solve them. We are committed to our part in seeing that this is done.
As the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) mentioned, a section of the Canadian people have already shown their concern. An international committee to free South Vietnamese prisoners has been formed which includes officers from the Canadian Friends Service Committee, the Canadian Council of Churches, the Anglican Church of Canada, the United Church of Canada, the Voice of Women and, I have no doubt, many others. They will be making their representations to the government and no doubt they will be heard as speaking for the conscience of the Canadian people.
I want to add one other observation. May I say a word about the amendment of the hon. member for Saint-Hya-cinthe (Mr. Wagner). I wholeheartedly support that amendment. It seems to me that an important decision on Canada's intervention in international affairs should be made by parliament, not by the executive alone. I think there is a basic question of principle involved here, and for this reason I would support the amendment.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister oi National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, first of all I think it would be very appropriate if I extended my congratulations to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) for the high level of the speech he made in this House prior to the dinner hour. Obviously he has a great deal of background information and knowledge of this subject.
I should like to commence my remarks with a quotation that I think is very apropos. It is entitled "Peace":
The quest for peace is as old as mankind. For countless centuries man struggled to secure first his home, then his village, then his city. It is the unique heritage of our century that men must strive for a secure world.
Like many other hon. members of this House, it is with a great deal of satisfaction, a great deal of thankfulness and a very deep interest that I rise to participate in this debate on the ending of the war in Viet Nam and Canada's role in observation of that area in particular; it is also with a very deep sense of pride and tremendous respect for the individuals who have represented Canada abroad over the years of Canadian history when we have participated so actively in international affairs both at the diplomatic and the military level-and in most instances both have been intertwined. Those are only a few reasons why all of us should have an intensive appreciation for the role and the capabilities that Canadians have displayed in the past and which are still being displayed today.
As I started out to draft my speech for this debate I could not help but realize what a proud and satisfying moment this would have been for that great Canadian diplomat, soldier and statesman whom we lost just a short time ago in the person of the late Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson. We can look back over the years of our history at his many great accomplishments in bringing warring peo-

pies together, bringing them to the conference table to discuss the issues face to face, always in the best interests of humanity. We can recall many instances of somewhat the same nature as the present situation and the past situation in Viet Nam where his hand played a leading role in bringing disturbances in particular areas of the world to the same stage, hoping for the continued peace that we have in Viet Nam today.
It behooves all of us on both sides of this House, and it is the responsibility and should be the dedication of every Canadian, not only to retain the great image this nation of ours has had in world affairs in the past as a middle power and as a leading nation in the field of diplomacy, but to approach even greater respect, decor and success in the bringing about of peace. The major role of peacekeeping and truce supervision by our armed forces deserves much worthy and sometimes unsung respect. As parliamentarians, this is our challenge and our duty. Let us not take our eyes away from the subject of the world for a single moment.
All of us have heard comments from time to time, when issues of peacekeeping duties and international negotiation become the topic of the day, that these are too costly for us to undertake, that at times we spread ourselves too thinly and that we should not be participating to such a great extent in the problems of other peoples of the world at a time when we have problems of a more domestic nature. Domestic problems will be with us for decade after decade no matter what government or which men sit in the seats of power in this House. The scriptures tell us there will be wars and rumours of wars. This has in fact been so over the past years of world history and there is no particular reason for any of us to be so naive as to think it will suddenly stop.
Therefore, we as a responsible government and as a responsible parliament must consider each troubled spot in the world on its merits and decide what we can do to ease the situation and to prevent more suffering. To those who complain about the cost of our peacekeeping duties and other major responsibilities at the international levels of the world, I can only ask whether they prefer to pay for an attempted peace, whether they are prepared to pay for the retention of peace, whether they are prepared to pay for the future peacefulness of other nations of the world, or whether we on the other hand are going to go to our various churches each week, call ourselves dedicated Christians, dedicated members of the Hebrew faith, or dedicated members of any faith, and talk piously about peace and about being our brother's keeper and then go out during the week and take a "couldn't care less" attitude toward the major responsibilities of other peoples throughout the world.
Many of us in this House can remember the days when missionary societies used to come around from door to door to collect money to buy clothing and food for poor children in what were then the distant continents of Africa, Asia, South America, etc. Surely today, as we participate as an observer group and as people who are attempting to promote peace in an area of the world that has known nothing but war and devastation for years, we are to a great degree displaying an attitude of man's human feeling and sympathy for his fellow man and for a
February 1, 1973

policy that we, as a peace loving nation, must continue to promote at all times and be prepared to contribute toward to the greatest possible degree in order to prevent minor struggles or greater than minor struggles from romping home into a theatre of full-scale world war and devastation.
The human suffering that the expertise of our Canadian military observers and peacekeeping corps have prevented on many occasions throughout the world can never be, and will never be measured in accurate terms, or in terms of measurable success. But our services in Kashmir, Korea, Palestine, Viet Nam and Laos, Egypt, Lebanon, the Congo, Cyprus, New Guinea, Yemen and Gaza can certainly be fully and favourably assessed by any sympathetic, understanding individual.
This is why I say that such achievements cannot and must not be measured in terms of dollars and cents. Surely the dedication of our diplomats and, indeed, the people in this House over the years, and in particular the members of our Canadian armed forces, is of extreme importance to the Canadian nation in international affairs at this time and we will continue to uphold the major roles we have played in those areas of the world which I have mentioned.
Perhaps I should state at this time that I had discussion with some of the members of the armed forces I knew personally before they went over to Viet Nam. They said this has brought about a feeling of importance to them as they feel they are doing something useful and are glad to be called upon to act on Canada's behalf and to keep up our image abroad.
I do not intend to deal with the dollars and cents aspect of the Canadian contribution to the ICCS. This matter has already been covered in the House and during this debate. It must be realized that the members of the armed forces, the aircraft and the ships are for the purpose of maintaining peace. They are being used for this precise purpose now. The Boeing 707s the Hercules of air transport command and the ships of the maritime command are today performing the basic function for which they were acquired some time ago.
We are always glad to call upon our forces in times of crisis, but there are some who have a tendency to forget their importance in between these crisis roles. The fact that our forces have performed many peacekeeping duties and observational duties means they are not only serving their country well and representing the people of Canada abroad, but they are in fact playing a role that undoubtedly saves thousands of lives in maintaining peace and preventing destruction.
Dollars spent on keeping up our Canadian armed forces could never begin to match the cost of destruction which might have occurred if it were not for the expertise of our armed forces and their ability to do jobs abroad on the international scene. At all times we must be mindful of the extensive training our armed forces go through to prepare themselves for the duties they are performing in Viet Nam today.
The armed forces train in many different climatic areas of the world to adapt themselves, adapt their equipment,
Viet Nam
and gain first-hand information on how to handle themselves if at any time during the course of a year they are called upon to go to similar climatic areas to perform observation or peacekeeping duties. Many people know that our forces have trained in Norway, in the Arctic, in Jamaica and in Australia. We have had observers and advisers in a military capacity throughout the world feeding information to the Department of National Defence. This information has been invaluable to the forces wherever they go.
This is what we talk about when we talk about expertise. Expertise to the armed forces does not mean just slinging a gun over your shoulder, wearing a pistol or being able to handle a particular piece of equipment. It also means that the forces are being called upon to be diplomats, to analyse exactly what is going on in an area of disturbance and to report accurately. They are there to observe and report on the implementation of the ceasefire agreement. They are not there for the purpose of becoming involved in a war.
Earlier in my speech I mentioned some of the areas in the world in which we have participated in efforts on behalf of peace. These missions have varied from membership of United Nations teams to tours as military observers, to peacekeeping in general. They include, of course, our participation in the international commission for supervision and control. Many of our men on the scene are experts in their own right and are quite capable of training those who are with them. In Viet Nam at the present time, out of the first group of 130 men, 20 officers and 22 men have had previous peacekeeping supervisory experience. Thus, 32 per cent of the first group already have peacekeeping experience. The others have been carefully selected.
In the second group of approximately 140, 21 officers and 4 men have all had previous United Nations peacekeeping experience. Experience counts, Mr. Speaker. As I say, 25 per cent of our military component in Viet Nam have had previous experience in the very duties they are being called upon to perform. Our Canadian forces received congratulatory messages from U Thant of the United Nations on the occasion of their leaving Egypt after ten and a half years service in that area.
At this point I should like to quote John W. Dafoe, who came from Winnipeg where he wrote for many years. In a speech to the Canadian Club there on April 8, 1919, he said:
The making of peace is in fact more difficult than has been the winning of the war.
The making of peace in Viet Nam will be a real challenge to us as Canadians and to the other nations which are trying to bring it about. The following is a quotation from "The Eagle's Nest" by Ruskin:
People are always expecting to get peace in Heaven but, you know, whatever peace they get there will be ready-made. Whatever making of peace they can be blessed for must be on the earth, here.
Let us hope that our armed forces are among those who are blessed on this occasion. We do not measure achievement by the size of the problem we are handling. In this particular case we shall measure achievement by the amount of progress we have made 60 days hence. In

February 1. 1973
Viet Nam
closing, I should like to quote another great statesman, Sir Winston Churchill.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Who was the first?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: He had this to say in the British House of Commons on July 13, 1934:
I have been trying to seek out for myself what would be the best way of preventing war, and it has seemed to me that the League of Nations should be the great instrument upon which all those resolves to maintain peace should centre, and that we should all make our contribution to the League of Nations.
We know that over the years since then we have time and time again attempted to maintain peace in the world. Our debate on Viet Nam today is just another example of this. What really should be emphasized in this debate should be emphasized in every debate on peacekeeping duty and on settling conflicts in the world. First of all, the prevention of the destruction of life and the destruction of property. Second, the fact that even though men far greater than we are have failed in the past, as the minister stated this afternoon, is no reason why we should ever stop trying.
I am sure we all extend our very best wishes for success to our Canadian contingent in Viet Nam. We hope they will be successful in bringing all parties together in an amicable manner. As a member who has a large military establishment in his constituency, I should like to extend my personal thanks to the Governor General, to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) and to the Chief of the Defence Staff for visiting Montreal on the weekend and giving our troops a good boost in morale before they left for Viet Nam.
I might add that the rumours we hear that this move by us has caused bad morale in the armed forces are rumours I cannot buy, because I have talked to members of the forces first-hand. If anything, it has increased morale in the armed forces; they feel proud to be called upon for duty and they feel they are performing a very useful role not only for Canada but for the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I must remind the parliamentary secretary before he finishes collecting his notes that if the members of the Canadian armed forces who have gone to Viet Nam do have a reason to feel good, it is because of the contribution they are making. No other group of Canadians has been so neglected in the history of this country than these people by this government. They have been deprived of the resources for adequate training, operating under a frozen budget for the last four or five years. It is no wonder they feel good about having something to do. What is regrettable, as my distinguished colleague for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) pointed out, is the haste with which and the confusion under which they have gone into what is in fact, a theatre of war.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: There is no confusion with them. They are well organized.


Mitchell William Sharp: It is you who are confused.


J. Michael Forrestall: It is regrettable. I would like to remind the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) that the government has made a deliberate decision not to let this matter come to a vote tonight.I would remind him that never before have Canadians been sent into a theatre of war without an opportunity given for an expression of opinion by the representatives of the people in this chamber.


Mitchell William Sharp: You are having your chance. Go ahead and express yourself.


Gerald William Baldwin: We want a vote.


J. Michael Forrestall: They are there to supervise a cease-fire, and I repeat that it is regrettable that the members of this House are not able to express an opinion. I do not mean express an opinion about the decision that has been taken. It is not in dispute. The government acted. It had to act. A basic decision was taken. What we are seeking is an opportunity for an expression of opinion by the people of the country on what happens in 60 days' time. I intend to sit down five minutes before ten o'clock to see whether anyone on the other side of the House rises to talk out this motion. If that happens it will be a matter of regret and shame, not only for the government benches but for the entire House. I would remind the cackling hens over there that this House is the voice of our country, not the 28 or 30 men who happen to sit on the executive benches. They took their decision. As I say, I do not dispute the necessity and urgency of their decision, nor do I question the confusion and uncertainty in which that decision was taken. I do not think anybody in the world does. As other hon. members have said, we welcome at least a semblance of determination to try and bring about a cease-fire in Viet Nam.
No one in this House or in the country has a greater love or deeper respect for the members of the Canadian armed forces than I do. But that is not what we are talking about now. We are talking about something else. I reiterate that it is now very apparent that members of the government do not want this matter to come to a vote, and I wonder why. We could go back to the war debates in 1914 and read the speeches of Sir Wilfrid Laurier, one of the great and distinguished Liberals. As a matter of fact, we should all re-read the speeches made in that extraordinary session of parliament. We should also read the speeches of our late and loved Prime Minister Pearson, speeches made so few years ago.
All of these men, throughout all the opportunities and challenges that Canada had to go out into the world and assist in the maintenance of peace, brought the matter to this chamber and sought its direction, its counsel, its support and guidance. It is a matter of regret that this parliament has not had that opportunity.
I wanted to rise tonight and say a few words about several aspects of Canada's participation in Viet Nam. I wanted to regret, as forcefully as I could, the government's decision that it was necessary to send a provocative instrument of war, fully armed and carrying, if you will, missiles into waters contiguous to Vietnamese waters. I just wonder what else it carries. I regret that that had to be done.

But I do not deplore the fact that contingency plans have been made to remove our troops in the event that hostilities are not to come to an end. There is no doubt that if hostilities do erupt beyond the point of control, beyond the point where the safety of Canadians and of other members of the supervisory commission can no longer be guaranteed by those who have undertaken to assure their safety, they should be removed.
Nobody would argue against the commitment of planes, ships and any other means necessary to get our troops out of Viet Nam in the event that that is required. What is regretted is the displacement to that side of the Pacific of an armed warship for the purpose, to use the words of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson), of an extended training cruise. Why could we not have sent a couple of 707s over there, or a couple of Hercules, to be located at strategic points? I will never know the reasons for sending that ship.
Like most Canadians, I remain deeply concerned about peace. There is not a member of this party that is not concerned about peace. But our concern runs a little bit deeper than apparently the concern of the government. This afternoon we heard words that were sincerely uttered, that were considered words. I quote from the remarks of our lead-off speaker in this debate, the distinguished member for Saint-Hyacinthe, that it is sad but true that our present situation in Viet Nam is precarious, and that in contradiction of his own statements laying out the ground rules for Canadian involvement, the Secretary of State for External Affairs made the one decision he obviously did not want to make.
There are two different points at issue here. The lessons we learned in our history of peacekeeping operations around the world have not been made any clearer than they were during our involvement in the ICC. There it was made abundantly clear that you cannot operate without clear direction as to what you are doing, the purpose for which you are there and the body to whom you should report. Even now we have not arrived at a satisfactory authority to which we can report. I hope that in 30 days' time we will be able to sort out this final problem.
Again I trust that the government will give the House an opportunity to speak tonight, to enlarge upon the things that we would like to see Canada's representatives discuss at meetings of the commission, things such as the plight of the refugees, the plight of the children, the restoration of North Viet Nam. All of these things we must participate in, and forcefully. We are in Viet Nam to oversee the truce.
It is clear now to the world, I suppose, that North Viet Nam and South Viet Nam are indeed one country and that the demarcation line was a temporary instrument. If this is true, we are not in Viet Nam only to observe cease-fire arrangements but to help reunite a nation, to help reestablish its people, to show that we are concerned, are willing and indeed want to help, and that if we do not help it will be on our conscience.
The interjections this evening from the Secretary of State for External Affairs were highly partisan and not called for in the context of this debate. There is not one
Viet Nam
man or woman in this House or in this country who does not share the ideals of those who would help to restore, and want to restore, a lasting peace to Viet Nam, who does not want to participate in the restoration of that country and the rehabilitation of its children, its institutions and its systems of democratic government or whatever type of government they choose.
We are not there as observers of the cease-fire alone: this must be kept in mind no matter what we do. Every act and every thought that is voiced by Canadians in that country will be watched and listened to. As has been said, they bear a great burden not only to observe the truce, the cease-fire, but as well in the role of men of good will working toward a lasting peace in that country. That is why the government, in the next four or five minutes, should permit this matter to come to a vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: Let the people of this nation lend their strength and support to the government in this matter; let them express their will. We are asking only that the matter come back to the House prior to the expiration of the 60-day notice so that it may be debated. The government's failure to do that can only be construed as contempt for the voice of the people of this country who in their hearts all welcome the attempts at peace in Viet Nam and the role of the Canadian forces in helping to bring that about. Given the guidance and strength of this House, I think the troops that we have in Viet Nam will be the stronger.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I find it extremely unfortunate, as I wanted to exercise my privilege, which is equal to that of any other member, that I cannot say at great length how happy I am to see the end of that terrible conflict in Viet Nam. I would have liked to give some background of Canada's participation in the International Control Commission. I would have also liked to inform the House about the various steps that some Liberal members, with the support of colleagues from other parties, have taken.
As for myself, I have brought my indirect contribution by helping young draft dodgers who believed that this war was immoral take advantage of this haven that Canada could appear to be at this time. I am referring to American draft dodgers whom we have welcomed to this country.
Mr. Speaker, I would have liked to elaborate on this and explain that I, a pro-American, have contacted the United States ambassador, for instance, last week to ask him to inform the White House of the happiness that I felt at seeing President Nixon take a historic step by ending the war in Viet Nam, and ask him also to consider the possibility, from now till the end of his term of office, of showing generosity and allowing these young Americans to return home.

Viet Nam

Is it the attitude of this member of the official opposition that it will be unfair for us to talk tonight? He said, in effect, "I will speak until five minutes to ten, and then you all shut up and we will vote". This coming from a member who sits in a party that always accuses us of arrogance, Mr. Speaker! I wonder what kind of arrogance these people display.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Prud'homme: It is my feeling that your party feels that they know best. Hon. members from the NDP, our friends, introduced a subamendment. Because there is an amendment, obviously they must introduce a subamendment. Their amendment says "or withdraw". Can you imagine, Mr. Speaker, our troops being under fire in Viet Nam and saying, "We must not withdraw". The cabinet, the government, the minister cannot withdraw because there is a resolution of the House that says, "If you want to withdraw you must have a debate in the House".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, I think it is unfortunate that the public might perhaps get the impression that we wanted to kill the debate. Members of the opposition would like to lay down the rules of debate in this House and decide until what time they can speak and whether we can speak or not. Mr. Speaker, I strongly object to that, because I believe that we have a right to speak as often as we want to if we think we must participate in this debate on such a horrible war, and we should also be grateful that our troops are the best ambassadors of charity, good faith and love. Mr. Speaker, I would wish-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Gerald William Baldwin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would simply like to ask the minister if he is prepared to bring this debate back tomorrow, so that it can be concluded. Is this unfortunate motion doomed to wither on the vine as a result of spineless government action, or is he prepared to bring it back so that we can vote on it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think we have had a very useful debate today by all hon. members who have participated. It will of course, be for the House leaders to agree when it might be brought back again.


Marcel Prud'homme: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is after ten o'clock. The hon. member is rising on a question of privilege, but the Chair has no authority to entertain questions of privilege or points of order after ten o'clock. My duty at this time would be to leave the chair and go home, and invite hon. members to take up their points of order and questions of

privilege at eleven o'clock tomorrow morning. If the hon. member has a question of privilege it will be entertained tomorrow at eleven o'clock, as will all points of order. At the moment we have very important business to attend to, the adjournment proceedings.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to see the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) in the chamber tonight. I appreciate his presence. We have a problem in the area I represent. It is not his fault; he just having assumed the portfolio of Minister of Transport. The people of British Columbia believe that we need more and larger airports, and they are necessary. What the government must remember is that the people elect the government of this country. We are here to represent the people, and the views they express must be listened to.
I should like to review for the minister some of the problems that the people of Sea Island have encountered. They date back to October 11, 1967, when the member representing Burnaby-Richmond-Delta, Bob Prittie, received a letter from the then minister of transport which said, among other things:
I can also assure you that at the proper time we will advise all property owners concerned of our intention, our land acquisition program and approximately how long they can remain in possession. The program will be arranged to ensure all property owners will have ample time in which to relocate and we will do everything possible to ensure disturbance is kept to a minimum.
That was in 1967. I now move on to August, 1972. The minister of transport of that time wrote the following in a letter to the people:
Treasury Board has approved the expenditure of funds for the acquisition of the land and I am sure you will agree that in view of the timing for runway construction, expropriation is the most expedient and beneficial way of proceeding for all concerned.
I now come to a letter from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the people of Sea Island, dated September 23, 1972. He also used the word "expedient" and said:
I am confident that the difficulties your Association has encountered will now be overcome and that expropriation can go forward in a fair and expedient manner.
It took only five years for the government to decide that it would become expedient. I now go back to May, 1972, and will read the report of what the hon. member representing the riding at that time said to the meeting of the residents of Sea Island:
February 1, 1973___________________COMMONS DEBATES_____________________ 893
.. the Cora Brown area will be taken in the next month," he said.
.. residents will be allowed to remain by renting their houses as long as they wish or until the DOT needs the land, which is not likely for another five years."
At that time he gave the citizens 12 hours to make up their minds. I leave that area and go to the bridge which is also involved in the expropriations in that area. I have mentioned the problems that we had with tolls. It took letters from the Chamber of Commerce in Richmond and over 40,000 letters from the city of Vancouver to convince the government we did not want tolls on that bridge. There are still piles of sand sitting there, as anybody who goes to Vancouver international airport will see. They were there for the purpose of the tolls and they must be removed. The government has let contracts for removing those piles of sand. The pillars are still sitting in the water; they have been sitting there for some time. A headline in a newspaper of the area reads, "How not to go about building a bridge".
The people were not listened to. The government has made all kinds of promises but there has been very little action. It let contracts for the bridge but we only have the superstructure at the south end. It is true that the hearings have not been completed yet on the south end, but as any engineer knows you cannot build a superstructure without knowing what you will end up with. People sold their homes in the Lancaster area and they were supposed to be removed. The men who bought them rented the homes to the people in the area and only after pressure were those people made to leave.
The greater Vancouver regional board today asked the minister, Bob Strachan, in Vancouver to approach the government and ask that construction of the bridge be stopped so that they could look at it. In conclusion, I want to talk about the environmental impact of what is happening. On January 16 the minister's parliamentary secretary said, as reported at page 388 of Hansard:
We do not plan to make any report to the expropriation hearing, but if questions are raised on these matters, answers will be given.
The questions were raised but the answers were not given. How can we decide whether we ought to build an airport there if we do not know what its environmental impact will be? Why take the houses of people before you really know? The hearings were mysteriously stopped today and adjourned until Monday. I plead with the minister to take some time out of his busy schedule and be in Vancouver on Monday morning at ten o'clock, at the opening of the hearing, to listen to the people. I will be there on Monday morning and I will not return until the minister does. He will not be missed in the House if there is a vote. I plead with him to do this. The people of the area deserve it. They have been having a hard time since 1967. It is time the government listened and found out what the people in that part of the country really want.


Mr. Joseph-Phillippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, in answering the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) I wish to again make reference to my answer which the hon. member quoted a short while ago. It is found at page 388 of Hansard for January 16. The answer I will now
Adjournment Debate
make will give in detail what the minister meant as to what is being done.
The expropriation hearings involving properties required in the Burkeville area for road construction related to the Hudson Street bridge have been completed and the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube) will be announcing the government's decision tomorrow.
The expropriation hearings with respect to the land required for the new runway at Vancouver international airport were started on January 29. It is expected that the hearings officer will commence proceedings with respect to the lands involved in the Cora Brown and McDonald subdivisions in the near future. As the hon. member knows, by law, the government, after reviewing the hearing officer's report, is required to announce its intentions by March 4.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) is arranging, and in fact has arranged, at the beginning of next week to provide all interested individuals and groups with information concerning the expansion plans for Vancouver international airport, including the new runway which will be required by 1977. Today, a short while ago, the Minister of Transport confirmed to me that officials from his department have now left for Vancouver. They will be in Vancouver to answer all questions and to give information to all interested groups.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Particular attention will be devoted to environmental and noise considerations which affect those closest to the airport. We are also aware that a broader spectrum of people in the greater Vancouver district and British Columbia generally will be interested in the plans envisaged to allow Vancouver to play its key role as an aerial gateway for western Canada, including domestic, transborder and international traffic. Let me assure you, Mr. Speaker, of the minister's concern in this regard. He has related this to me many times today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MANPOWER-LOCAL INITIATIVES PROGRAM-REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL FUNDS
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, last week I raised the question of more funds for local initiatives projects which had been rejected by the ministry due to lack of funds. On January 22 the minister's parliamentary secretary stated that the total number of LIP projects was 15,053, for a value of $480.5 million. He also stated that
5,000	projects, for a value of $148 million, have been approved and that the monetary allotment for LIP was expended.
From the popularity of the response for LIP grants, it is fairly obvious that this partial solution to winter unemployment is what municipalities and groups of unemployed feel is suited to their particular needs. Last October, just before the election, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) saw the jump in unemployment he said he was puzzled and he further stated that maybe the solution was to attack the problem at the local level. Yes, the solution is at the local level and I give as an illustration the village of

February 1, 1973
Adjournment Debate
Killarney in Nickel Belt, which has an unemployment rate in the winter of 40 per cent to 60 per cent. This community has put in six applications for LIP grants which would employ most of their unemployed. Only two have been approved.
Killarney is not an isolated case. The municipal leaders in my riding have been on the phone constantly to me asking why their particular projects have not been approved. I think other hon. members in this House have had similar experiences.
I quote from a letter sent to me by Mr. Paul Engstrom, reeve of the township of Ratter and Dunnet:
Thank you for sending me a copy of the letter you wrote to the Honourable R. K. Andras, Minister of Manpower and Immigration regarding our LIP project No. K1421.
January 8, 1973 Kona Construction commenced erection of the shell for the arena and community hall-completion date of eith weeks. At present 10 men are employed.
Had we in any way anticipated there would be no grant, we would not have proceeded with this construction during the winter months. The higher costs entailed will devour the $5,000 our fund raising committee raised last year, holding raffles, dances, beer fest and canvasses.
The men presently employed on our arena building would most probably be drawing unemployment insurance and a vast number of men have visited the site seeking employment.
All money allotted by the government towards this project would be at least visible, that something had been accomplished. I wonder if that can be said of all projects that have been approved by government.
I do hope the minister will reconsider, and allot us the same as other municipalities are receiving, in all fairness.
Yours truly,
Paul Engstrom (Reeve)
It seems to these people and myself that the government is more interrested in paying them unemployment insurance benefits than stimulating employment in their community. In Nickel Belt riding there were 35 LIP applications and only six have been approved. There are about
7,000	persons registered with the Sudbury manpower office, indicative of the high unemployment in our area. Yet only one-sixth of our LIP applications have been accepted. The unemployed of Nickel Belt, not unlike the unemployed in the rest of Canada want jobs, not "pogey" and certainly not welfare.
I therefore suggest to the minister that, if he is really interested in reducing the number of persons on the UIC rolls, he should appropriate additional funds, probably from other less popular make-work programs, for financing more of the LIP applications.


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, this matter is not within my jurisdiction and I apologize to the hon. member that neither the minister nor the parliamentary secretary is here this evening. However, I have taken note of what he has said.


John R. Rodriguez: Just approve my LIP applications.


Len Marchand: Let me assure the hon. member that I will take this matter up immediately

with the minister and the parliamentary secretary and give him the answers he requires as quickly as possible.


John R. Rodriguez: You mean the approvals.


Len Marchand: The hon. member says "approvals." We would all like approvals for certain projects which we have, priorities that we as individual members have. As I say, I will provide the hon. member with the answers as quickly as possible.


SOCIAL SECURITY-OLD AGE PENSION-POSSIBILITY OF LOWERING AGE OF ELIGIBILITY TO 60
René Matte: Mr. Speaker, old age security is indeed a question of the highest concern for the people of this country.
Recently I put a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to find out from him whether the officials of his department were looking into the possibility of lowering the age of eligibility to 60.
The minister did not bother to answer my question and so I thought it was my duty to bring up the issue during the late show. Mr. Speaker, we are not here to play politics; nevertheless the silence the minister is keeping on this matter could be interpreted as a refusal to commit himself on account of political repercussions.
In fact, if the minister does answer in the affirmative, he will be agreeing with the Social Credit Party of Canada which advocated during the last election campaign, the necessity of lowering the eligibility age from 65 to 60. Conversely, if he replies in the negative, he will be revealing how little attention he pays to the claims of the people.
Mr. Speaker, if there is a political dilemma, it is out of place. I wish the minister would answer for the very simple reason that there is at the present time an absolute necessity for lowering the eligibility age. And I should like to mention three major reasons which, I think, support my plea of urgency.
Having studied hundreds of cases that were referred to us, we know very well that it is absolutely impossible nowadays to find a job at 60.
Mr. Speaker, when finding a job has become difficult even for young people aged 20 or 25, one must recognize that after reaching 60 it becomes impossible.
Those people are therefore unable to earn money. If people after 60 cannot find work, what else can they do? At the present time, they must apply to the Department of Social Affairs as far as Quebec is concerned. They are then given low hand-outs, since their needs are assessed- for example in the case of a couple of 60 to 65 years of age, $78 monthly, an amount which they must use for clothes and food as well as for small personal effects. In my opinion, the human being is being ridiculed.
If the old age security pension was granted at 60 years of age, we would settle the problem for all families where the head is 60 or over.
Mr. Speaker, there is another important argument: by allowing those people to draw an old age security pension,
February 1, 1973

those who are still working at that age, in spite of some difficulties, would leave their job to younger workers.
It would be a way of clearing the labour market and making more jobs available to the younger people.
For all those reasons, I think that it is urgent for the minister to tell the House at least whether his officials are considering the problem. The people are waiting. Every day, hundreds of letters dealing with this matter are received from Creditiste ridings. Personally I receive at least some twenty letters a week from people asking: When shall we have pensions at 60? So, I have to reply to them: "When the Minister of National Health and Welfare makes up his mind". This is why I would like the Minister to tell the people of Canada at least whether he has started considering the possibility of lowering the age of entitlement from 65 to 60.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with great interest to the comment made by the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) on this matter which certainly concerns all hon. members as well as a great number of Canadian citizens.
He is wondering whether officials of my department are examing the matter or have done so. I believe there is nothing secret in this respect and if he did not get a reply in the House recently it was because of a technical or procedural problems and not because of a refusal or a failure on my part, since the reply I would have given at the time is that my department is indeed examing that matter, as it examines a great many others in the area of social security. In that field there have been many suggestions, hypotheses brought forward by all kinds of agencies, by politicians of all parties during the past few years and there is practically no subject raised in this country in the field of income security which has not been the object of careful and thorough study by officials of my department.
So, in this case, it is not merely a question of study; an important problem crops up with regard to the prohibitive cost of such a proposal. There is another important aspect to be considered and it has to do with that part of the Speech from the Throne dealing with federal-provincial relations. The fact that the provinces in some cases do not provide enough social welfare shows that at the present time they are having a hard time finding the money required. That is why we have called for the end of April a meeting where all aspects of social security will be reviewed. I think that before making any proposals in that field, I will surely have to consult with my provincial counterparts.
Adjournment Debate
Furthermore, as early as to-morrow I shall attend a meeting with them and I am sure that the subject raised by the hon. member will be discussed.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I see the hon. parliamentary secretary is now in the House. May I have an answer to the points I raised earlier?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I gather it is the wish of hon. members that the hon. parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Comtois) be recognized, and accordingly I now recognize him.


Mr. I.-Roland Comtois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister oi Finance):: Mr. Speaker, my apologies to my hon. colleague for being a few minutes late, but I was held up at the committee that is now sitting.
I merely want to say that it is not particularly useful to bring up the government programs one by one as the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) just did a while ago.
He said that the government should assign more money to LIP. It may be true, but I too could name you dozens of programs to which the government could allot more money.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt said that we should reduce the old age pensions, health benefits or the pensions to the blind to devote more money to LIP.
One of the problems the government has to face when it listens to suggestions from members of the opposition or even from its own members is that it hears on the one hand those who say that the government should do more and on the other hand those who say that the governemnt should reduce taxes.
I think it is more useful and more realistic to consider government programs as a whole.
The local initiative program is part of the economic and fiscal policy of the government. The government lays down its priorities from suggestions coming from all sides.
I should remind the hon. member that the budget which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Turner) has promised to bring down very shortly will give him a good idea of the government's priorities for the years to come.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Friday, February 2, 1973