1973-11-14

PRIVILEGE


Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise a question of privilege which relates to my verbal disability. If Your Honour and the House will bear with me for a moment I should like to ask the House to consider an amendment to Hansard. On May 18 of the present year a statement was attributed to me in the debate on the redistribution of seats in Canada. I was referring to a judge of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland who was in charge of the Newfoundland boundaries commission, and I used the term, "notorious" judge. Then I was reminded by an hon. member that the word should be "noteworthy", and I made the correction as found in Hansard.
I was somewhat surprised when on July 16 I received a two-page reprimand from His Honour, with supporting documentation from other distinguished gentlemen of the court of Newfoundland, asking that I be a little more careful with my language and that I recognize the meaning of a particular word. I replied to the distinguished gentleman on August 8, and I should like to quote one brief paragraph from that letter:
I know my choice of words, although laterly corrected, would prick the sensitivity of one of Newfoundland's elder statesmen and gentlemen. I can assure you that my language choice was purely a form of verbal "subrogation" which is frequently associated with outport Newfoundlanders, especially those of us who speak off the cuff rather than the premeditation of the brain.
I thought, Mr. Speaker, that that would have resolved the problem and would set the record straight. Thus I was a bit surprised today to receive in the mail a letter from His Honour, who has now retired, which says, in essence, that he could not rest if the record were not permanently corrected. Therefore I wonder whether the House would consent to have the permanent record corrected to read "noble" or "noteworthy" judge, or some such word as that, which would convey the respect and honour that should be associated with a man who has now retired from such an eminent position. Perhaps I could also apologize for my language in that respect.
While I am at it, though it was not on the official record may I say I used exactly the same word in 1967 during my first speaking engagement to an eminent body of educators in introducing Sister Nolasco, who is now dean of graduate studies at Carleton University.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I am not sure what conclusion should be drawn from the hon. member's intervention. Perhaps it would be possible to accede to the request made by the hon. member, and I certainly appreciate the point he has made. Since he gave me notice of his question of privilege I have made inquiries as to the possibility of having the record corrected. I am told that the official edition of Hansard is under print, but I think certain arrangements might be made, even at this late date, to give effect to the hon. member's suggestion and to ensure that a more appropriate description of the honourable judge's contribution to his province and to Canada's national life is inscribed in the permanent record. I will do this, of course, with the consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ English]

[Stage Direction]
Eighth and ninth reports of Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs-Mr. Jerome.

[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts-Mr. Stewart (Cochrane).
[Editor's note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, there has been a three-month freeze on subsidies for new fishing vessels on the Atlantic coast. It was introduced in August in order to slow down a boom in fishing vessel construction which was unprecedented. With the continuing depletion of a number of our more important fish stocks, we are in danger of over-capitalizing a fleet which is already large and which should be tailored to future needs rather than expanded on all fronts.

November 14, 1973
Fisheries
During our recent three-month moratorium we have discussed the twin questions of federal subsidies and additional licensing with representatives of the fishermen, the fishing companies and the provincial authorities. While new vessels are needed, especially in the offshore trawler fleet, it is generally agreed that the number of new entrants into the industry should be controlled. More attention should be given to catching species of fish which have not previously been taken in large numbers by Canadians and a determined effort made to take up our international quota for cod in northern areas. Less effort should be directed toward the harvesting of traditional species some of which are over-exploited at the present time.
As a result of these consultations, we have decided to lift the freeze on subsidies. The accent from now on will be on modernization. Replacements and conversions of existing vessels will be encouraged. Grants will also be given for new vessels to be used in areas where the resource is plentiful. The customary 35 per cent subsidy will not be paid, however, in fisheries where it is agreed that we have too much catching capacity. This is true of lobsters, scallops, herring, salmon and snow crab.
A word with respect to licensing, Mr. Speaker. All fishermen presently in the industry will be protected. New entrants will be encouraged as long as they do not add, unnecessarily, to the over-all pressure on fish. To do this, we need to know who are bona fide fishermen and who are not. We need this licensing data in order to upgrade the fishery. We need it in order to develop a sound system of catch insurance as well.
Accordingly and effective immediately: (a) All commercial fishing vessels, traps and other catching units will be registered by the Fisheries and Marine Service; (b) all vessels, skippers and operators will be licensed; (c) only Canadian citizens and landed immigrants will be eligible; (d) all craft, skippers, crews and other operators which have a history in the industry will continue, automatically, to have the right to fish; (e) new entrants will be limited, in the case of lobsters, scallops, salmon, herring and snow crab fisheries to replacements. As hon. members know most of these fleets are already limited in size; (f) new vessel registrations in the groundfish fishery will be encouraged for underexploited species and areas. As for those that are fully exploited the moratorium on new vessel registrations will be continued for a nine-month period. This time is required for further consultations with fishermen, companies and the provinces as to the future of the industry; (g) special committees will be set up in our principal fishing areas in order to advise the government as to the manner in which this program should be administered; and local fishermen and local company representatives will have a voice in the management of the fishery in this way.
Registration of vessels and the issuance of operators' licences will begin early in the new year, and will start with large vessels and the fleets which are already limited in size.
I hope this statement comes across as being optimistic in tone, Mr. Speaker. We have negotiated new and larger quotas in the North Atlantic fishery. Canadians can also

take many species of fish which they have not harvested in the past. So, while we have too many boats chasing too few fish in some areas, we can redirect our efforts and expand our activity in others.
We must increase our over-all capacity and if we do this wisely we will increase the income of our east coast fishermen substantially in the years ahead. The industry agrees with this approach because it is sound from a conservation point of view. It will also increase the average income of our fishermen in eastern Quebec, the Mari-times and Newfoundland.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of the Official Opposition may I say that we listened with considerable interest to the lengthy statement made today by the Minister of the Environment and Fisheries (Mr. Davis) concerning the government's Atlantic fishing vessel licensing program and subsidies policy.
I wish to thank him for the courtesy he has shown to this side of the House by giving us a copy of his remarks at least an hour before delivering them, a policy which I would commend to other ministers of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: When the minister announced the start of a thorough review and assessment of the Atlantic fishing fleet development program on August 13 he indicated that the review would lead to the introduction of new licensing and vessel construction subsidy policies, and at that time he stated that an immediate three-month freeze would be placed on construction subsidies available under the fishing vessel assistance regulations. That type of unilateral action as contained in the minister's statement, along with his statement today, has of course been the hallmark of the present minister. He will go down in history for his acts of confrontation rather than his acts of consultation on the fisheries.
The present government's policies have been dictatorial, coercive, abrasive and contradictory. On the one hand, this minister has asked the fishermen to go out and catch more fish. On the other hand, he has made it extremely difficult for the industry to expand, thereby creating problems for our fishermen, our processors and shore workers who would otherwise gain from increased catches. When I sit in on fishermen's meetings and discuss their problems with them it immediately becomes evident that they are concerned and worried about the regulations emanating from Ottawa and the degree of control presently exercised over their operations and industry by the present Minister of Fisheries and his staff.
The vessel inspection report put out by the minister at the beginning of the 90-day freeze is a classic example of what can happen when he and his staff confront rather than consult the fishermen. The fisheries officers along the coast have valiantly tried to carry out bureaucratic Ottawa's dictates but they have found it extremely difficult, if not impossible, to secure the signature of the captains or owners after inspecting the inshore or offshore fleet. Under this situation I wonder on what grounds the minister has today based his statement concerning the licensing of ships, operators and crews. The captains and
November 14, 1973

owners refuse to sign the forms because they have no confidence in this minister or in this government. This is understandable since, long after the minister announced his freeze on ship construction subsidies due to a lack of funds, the government made vast amounts available on some dubious and questionable make-work projects while at the same time they preferred to spend more than $2 billion on unemployment benefits, some of which would have stimulated the shipbuilding industry in Atlantic Canada.
When the industry is allotted catch quotas through the efforts of government certainly there has to be a partnership between industry and government to plan for the most efficient fishing effort and, undesirable though it may be, licensing may be the only answer. But the average fisherman today, especially the inshore fisherman, seriously questions the quota allotted to him and he asks, for example, why he is prevented from catching herring on Georges Bank next year beyond 25,000 tons while Russia is allocated 342,500 tons. This summer, while the minister was talking about a 200-mile controlled limit on our continental shelf, our fishermen were denied the right to fish for herring in the Bay of Fundy.
In his freeze on construction subsidies we on this side cannot help but wonder why the minister penalized the growth of the Atlantic lobster and the Pacific salmon fleets which are already licensed. Now he wants to further control and manage these fisheries by demanding that the fishermen obtain entry permits before they can go fishing. He has added scallop, herring and snow crab to the list of controlled fisheries and these existing fishermen will still not receive construction subsidies.
We welcome the minister's statement that subsidies at the current level will be provided for replacement vessels, conversion of existing vessels to increase productivity, and for new vessels designed to fish unexploited stocks. However, as the minister is well aware, the quantity of unexploited stocks in the North Atlantic is definitely limited and his moratorium or freeze on new vessel registrations for an additional mine months will definitely be harmful to the over-all expansion of our fishing industry. This action makes a mockery of the minister's statement that our stand at the upcoming Law of the Sea Conference is to give Canadians a larger share of the harvest from fisheries resources off our coast.
Finally-and it was a long statement by the minister- we on this side share the fishermen's concern over the minister's statement of August 13 that vessels already fishing, or for which firm commitments have been made, will be granted licences providing they meet existing regulations. All the special committees representing all the fishing interests, including provincial representation, will not upgrade more than half of the existing fleet to meet the new regulations. In our view, too strict an application of this particular clause could well work a hardship on our existing inshore and offshore fleets. If it is the government's intention to enforce the new regulations strictly before licences are issued, then the government should be prepared to pay an improvement construction grant, in the same manner that assistance is provided shore-based industries, in order to enable the fishermen to
Fisheries
upgrade their boats and equipment in compliance with the new regulations.
Obviously the intent of this new policy is to encourage diversification through multipurpose vessels, but we are concerned about the overlapping authority granted to inshore and offshore licensing committees which is bound to be confusing when applied to multipurpose vessels. We also believe that the new fee structure will restrict young progressive fishermen from entering into new areas of opportunity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In conclusion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think I have to interrupt the hon. member at this point. The hon. member did refer to the fact that the statement made by the minister was long. However, the Standing Order does not refer to the length of statements made by ministers but requires that statements made by spokesmen for parties in opposition commenting on ministerial statements should be brief. Perhaps the Standing Order should be changed, but the position now is that the requirement of brevity applies. I appreciate the fact that the hon. member just said "in conclusion", but I thought this was a good opportunity for the Chair to remind all hon. members of the requirement of the Standing Order.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have one more brief comment to make.
The minister's statement indicates that he still remains totally unaware of the heritage which is ours and that he is not prepared to create the national and international climate which is necessary for the profitable operation of our fleet and our packing and processing industry which means so much to the economy of Atlantic Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I join the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse) in thanking the minister for having made available a copy of his statement far enough in advance of delivery for us at least to examine it in a preliminary way. The twin subjects of the vessel construction subsidy and the plans for the licensing of fishermen and fishing vessels constitute the nuts and bolts of the whole fabric of the involvement of the individual fisherman in making a living. Therefore I am sure all hon. members will appreciate the importance of the statement the minister has made today which, as I read it, introduces some rather drastic innovations in past practices on the Atlantic coast of Canada. As I read the statement I find that it introduces in many ways a system parallel to that which fishermen on the Pacific coast have enjoyed, or perhaps I should say endured, for a good many years. In that respect perhaps it does not represent any drastic departure from the over-all policy of the Department of Fisheries.
Only time and a much more extensive analysis than one can make at this point will determine whether or not the minister's proposals are adequate and feasible in the circumstances of the Atlantic coast fishing stocks and our arrangements under ICNAF. They may be the subject of
7778

November 14, 1973
Spain
extended consideration by the fisheries committee in due course.
The principal point on which I would like to comment is the reference in the minister's statement to the fact that consultations were held during the three months freeze with the industry, with fishermen and with provincial governments, and the later reference to the fact that local consultative committees are to be established. In the view of those with some awareness of the outlook of the fishermen this is the key point that should be commented upon in connection with the statement rather than engaging in an attempt to analyse all the details of the specific proposals.
I suggest to the House-and this is in agreement in part with the remarks made by the hon. member for South Shore-that as long as parliament continues to allow a Fisheries Act to stand on the statute books which gives absolute discretion to the minister in the matter of leases and licences to fish, then for just so long will we be engaged in debate on whether consultation has been meaningful or meaningless. The fact is that under the law the minister does not have to consult with his cabinet colleagues, does not have to consult with members of the House, does not have to consult with the fishermen. All too often the fishermen themselves, and some of us in this House, feel that the minister, while going through certain motions, does in fact act in a very dictatorial and at times inscrutable manner when making decisions.
This is the principal question that should be raised at this point. It is certainly the point of view from which Atlantic coast fishermen should examine the new proposals with respect to the licensing of fishermen and boats. I am sure they will do so in relation to the real question of the proper conservation and utilization of the fishing resources of Canada.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. In view of the recent arrest and detention by the government of Spain of 113 leading professionals, academics and workers who represent the democratic forces in all sections of the community, and in view of the open intervention of the Archbishop of Barcelona on their behalf, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Neale):
That this House deplore the actions of the Spanish government in denying its citizens their democratic rights to freedom of association as embodied in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's motion is proposed under Standing Order 43 and 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.



DISCUSSION OF DECLARATION ISSUED BY EUROPEAN AND CANADIAN PARLIAMENTARIANS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION

Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 and in the interest of this country, I request the unanimous consent of the House in order to move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), the following motion:
That the content of the joint statement issued at the end of the meeting between delegations of the European and Canadian parliaments in Ottawa, November 1, 1973, be discussed in this House at a time set with the common agreement of all parties.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member for Labelle. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such unanimous consent?


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Labelle. Under the terms of Standing Order 43 the motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Mr. MacEachen:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order that may facilitate matters, instead of passing this motion we might agree to have this debate on Friday during private members' hour. If that were generally acceptable I would certainly concur in the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand there have been consultations and discussions with respect to this proposal. Is this agreed and so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion of urgent and pressing necessity. I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That in the opinion of this House the Minister of Fisheries should immediately clarify and define the "special consideration" to be given to Indian applications for licenses in the 1974 British Columbia herring roe fishery; and in the event of the failure of the minister to do this within the next week, the subject matter of Indian license applications be referred to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development for urgent consideration and report.
November 14, 1973


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent and the motion cannot be put.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Marshall: Under the $2,100,000 capital program budget designated by the Department of the Environment to raise production and improve the quality of saltfish, where will the new facilities be located in the Province of Newfoundland?


John (Jack) Davis: Under the Canadian Saltfish Corporation's $2.1 million capital program budget which is being funded by loans, equipment and facilities will be placed according to needs and circumstances, after consultation with agents and/or fishermen. Investments this year have been mostly for moveable equipment and this will be used where it appears to be most effective as the season develops.


OFY-PROVINCIAL FINANCIAL ALLOCATIONS
Mr. Marshall: 1.	Under the 1973 OFY Program, what amounts of money were allocated to each province and how many jobs were created in each province?
2.	What specific criteria were used to determine the allocation of OFY moneys to each province?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: 1.
Under the OFY Program in 1973, funds were not allocated by province but according to regions and subregions. From those statistics, we are able to provide an approximate breakdown of amounts paid and the number of jobs created, by province.
	Project	No. of project
Province	Grants	participantsNewfoundland	... $1,457,765	1,921Prince Edward Island	... 385,496	372Nova Scotia	... 1,638,540	2,123New Brunswick	... 1,388,525	1,628Quebec	... 12,745,865	11,523Ontario	... 9,020,339	9,445Manitoba	... 1,534,148	1,834Saskatchewan	... 1,348,615	1,622Alberta	... 1,764,781	2,055Northwest Territories	... 294,970	435British Columbia and Yukon	... 3,512,919	3,709National	... 403,055	282
Order Paper Questions
2.	The allocation of moneys to each region and subregion was based on the following factors: student population of the age group 14-25, student unemployment rates (secondary and post-secondary levels), regional disparities. Certain revisions of regional and subregional allocations were subsequently made, according to the number and quality of applications submitted to OFY.


AIR CANADA FINANCE BRANCH STRIKE, WINNIPEG
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Since May 24, how many (a) supervisory personnel (b) unorganized personnel have been transported to Winnipeg from Montreal to carry out the duties of employees of the Air Canada Finance Branch in Winnipeg?
2.	What is the cost to the airline in lieu of lost revenue passenger seats for this exercise?
3.	What living accommodation and expense allowance is being provided for by Air Canada?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1, 2 and 3. The labour matter referred to has now been resolved and a collective agreement signed. The information requested by the questions is considered to be of a proprietary nature.


RETURN OF T-4 SLIPS FOR THE TAXATION YEAR 1972
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	How many T-4 slips were returned to the government for the taxation year 1972 because the persons for whom such forms were intended could not be located or did not exist?
2.	(a) What was done with these slips (b) under what specific authority was any action taken?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister of National Revenue):: In so far as the Department of National Revenue is concerned: 1. There is no record available of the number of 1972 T-4 slips returned because the persons for whom such forms were intended could not be located.
2.	(a) The T-4 and T-4 A returns are prepared by individual employers and the employees' copies mailed directly to the employee by the employer. In circumstances where such forms are returned to the employer by the Post Office as undeliverable, there is no requirement for the employer to take further action to locate and deliver the T-4. Some employers will hold the forms until specific requests are received from employees, while in other cases the forms may be directed to the department. In those cases, forms are related to the taxpayer's file if one exists and held in the event that a request is received from the employee, (b) There is no specific authority. The requirements for the preparation and delivery of forms T-4 are given in Part 2 of the Income Tax Regulations. Section 200(1) states who shall complete a T-4 return, Section 205 sets out the date by which the return is to be filed, and Sections 209(1) and 209(2) contain the requirement to provide copies to employees and the method by which the copies are to be delivered. Having complied with the above requirements, the employer has fulfilled his responsibility to the employee. It is the employee's responsibility to ensure that the employer has his last
26635-61J

November 14, 1973
Order Paper Questions
known address or to present himself at the employer's place of business to personally pick up his copies of the T-4.


CANADIAN GOVERNMENT TRAVEL BUREAU-TOURISM PROMOTION
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	How many letters have been sent, by month, to residents of countries other than Canada by the Canadian Government Travel Bureau since its inception?
2.	For each of the above months, what percentage of those letters were sent promoting (a) Nova Scotia (b) Prince Edward Island (c) New Brunswick (d) Newfoundland (e) Quebec (f) Ontario (g) Alberta (h) Manitoba (i) Saskatchewan (j) British Columbia?
3.	What is the policy of the Canadian Government Travel Bureau with respect to the promotion of the various provinces with some degree of equality in its letters sent to persons resident outside of Canada?


Mr. Herb Breau (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 1. Records are not available, by month, of the approximate total of 73,000,000 letters sent to countries other than Canada by the Canadian Government Travel Bureau since it was established in 1934.
2.	It is not possible to give the percentage of letters that promoted a particular province. The objective of the Bureau is to promote all parts of Canada. Most of the letters cover more than one province, and some letters are aimed at special groups, such as those interested, for example, in golf, skiing or fishing.
3.	Apart from letters replying to specific questions from inquirers, the policy of the Canadian Government Travel Bureau is to use its direct mail program to promote all parts of Canada. Samples of letters sent out in quantity are sent, at regular intervals, to each province and territory, and observations are welcomed from provincial and territorial government travel authorities about the content and balance of coverage. Currently, letters are weighted approximately as follows: Atlantic Canada, 15 per cent; Quebec, 25 per cent; Ontario, 25 per cent; Midwest, 15 per cent; West, 20 per cent. Inquiries about specific regions are either answered from Ottawa using literature from the provinces and territories or referred to them for information to supplement CGTB literature already sent. In addition to CGTB direct mail programs to promote all of Canada, on occasion direct mail promoting travel to the Atlantic provinces is given additional emphasis as part of the special Atlantic Provinces Travel Advertising Campaign established as an economic incentive measure in 1957 and still continued (at $350,000 a year).


LIP PROGRAM
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Of the 264 Members of the House of Commons, how many replied and how many did not reply by September 7, 1973, as requested by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, to his letter of August 23, 1973 on the subject of this year's LIP Program?

2.	Of those who replied, how many (a) agreed (b) did not agree to a Constituency Advisory Group as outlined by the Minister in his letter?
3.	For what reason did the Minister permit the announcement of the creation of Constituency Advisory Groups by means of a press advertisement before he was aware as to whether or not his suggestion was acceptable to Members of Parliament?


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: As of September 7, 1973: 1. (a) 107; (b) 157.
2.	(a) 82; (b) 25.
3.	The purpose of the press statement published in various newspapers was to acquaint the public with the new LIP program and its principal characteristics including the fact that a member of parliament might decide to recommend the appointment of a Constituency Advisory Group. It was not intended in any way to suggest, by this wording, that an M.P. would or would not decide to recommend the appointment of such a group in his or her own constituency. At the time the advertisement was published, the minister had already received replies from many M.P.s indicating their acceptance to approval of the CAG. concept.


PROVINCIAL CITIZENS' RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS CONFERENCE GRANT
Mr. Hellyer: 1.	Was the grant of $500 to the Provincial Citizens' Rights and Freedoms Conference, St. John's, Newfoundland, made after the Conference had been held?
2.	On what date was the cheque for $500 forwarded?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1. A
grant of $4,500 was made to the Provincial Citizens' Rights and Freedoms Conference of Newfoundland-Labrador in January 1973, for a two day conference that was held on March 2 and 3. The conference sponsors incurred an unexpected additional cost in holding an Inuit workshop at which Inuit people from northern Labrador were involved. The committee asked for and received an additional $500 from the Department of the Secretary of State to cover this deficit.
2. The cheque for $500 was forwarded on May 18, 1973.


AIR ACCIDENT INVESTIGATION
Mr. Forrestall: In what proportion of the accidents involving significant property damage and/or serious or more grievous injury to occupants to aircraft has the investigation been partially or otherwise concerned with procedures of the other agencies of government that are charged with a regulatory function, in the past two years?


Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Departments of National Defence and Transport as follows: None.
November 14, 1973


OBJECTIVE TESTS FOR REHABILITATION TRAINING PROGRAMS
Mr. Hellyer: 1.	What objective tests are given before the Department of Manpower and Immigration authorizes rehabilitation training programs?
2.	Are objective tests given in all cases?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. Tests authorized for use within Canada Manpower Centres include: (a) General Aptitude Test Battery: This test battery measures nine aptitudes found to be important for successful performance in a wide variety of occupations, (b) Non-verbal Test of G: This is a non-verbal test designed for use with persons who have low level reading skills. It measures one's ability to understand instructions and underlying principles, the ability to reason and make judgments. It is closely related to doing well in school, (c) Kuder Preference Record Test: This measures one's interests as they relate to the world of work, (d) Achievement tests for clerical, stenographic and typing ability.
2. No.


SHIPBUILDING-CANADIAN DESIGN AND ENGINEERING AS A CONDITION OF FEDERAL SUBSIDY
Mr. Forrestall: Will government give consideration to providing Canadian design and Canadian engineering as a condition of federal subsidy in the construction of ships and marine vessels and (a) if so, at what point in time could such provision be expected (b) if not (i) what are the reasons for not encouraging Canadian design and engineering firms (ii) was the increase in Canadian shipbuilding and construction that can be expected with the implementation of the Darling report taken into account?


Herb Breau: The government is considering strengthening requirements for Canadian content including Canadian design and Canadian engineering with respect to shipbuilding subsidies, (a) These additional requirements will be implemented as soon as they are approved; (b)(i) not applicable; (b) (ii) The Darling report has been taken into account.


CONSTRUCTION OF MARINE VESSELS IN EXCESS OF 25,000 TONS
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	In each of the past five years, for how many new marine vessels in excess of 25,000 tons that were eligible for federal subsidies in construction, was construction actually started in Canada?
2.	What percentage of such vessels were (a) products of Canadian engineering and naval design firms (b) products of foreign non-Canadian engineering and naval design firms?
3.	What is the policy with regard to granting federal shipbuilding subsidies to construct ships that are not the product of Canadian engineering and naval design firms?
4.	What steps has the government taken to encourage the development and growth of Canadian engineering and naval design firms?
Order Paper Questions


Herb Breau: 1. Three new vessels in excess of 25,000 gross registered tons (G.R.T.) were started in the last five years. These were all of the same design for the same owner. Two were started in 1971; one was started in 1972.
2.	These vessels were designed by non-Canadian naval architects.
3.	Subsidies are granted to construct ships designed by non-Canadian naval architects provided it can be demonstrated that there is sufficient reason for this decision.
4.	Canadian shipowners and shipbuilders are encouraged to use Canadian engineering and design firms and the government uses Canadian firms as a matter of policy.


TARIFF ITEM 18030-1
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What are the requirements of Tariff Item number 18030-1?
2.	What dollar amounts have been collected for the past fifteen years under this heading for items related specifically to the shipbuilding industry, by year?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: In so far as National Revenue is concerned: 1. Tariff Item 18030-1: Plans and drawings, related specifications, any substitute therefor, reproductions of the foregoing, n.o.p.; maps and charts, n.o.p. British preferential tariff, 12Vi per cent. Most-favoured-nation tariff, 17 Vi per cent. General tariff, 27 Vi per cent.
2. Plans and drawings of ships and items relating to the shipbuilding industry are not classified under tariff item 18030-1. Rather, they are accorded duty free entry under tariff item 18025-1. Accordingly no duty was collected on these items during the past fifteen years.


EMPLOYMENT OF MISS LUCIE DION
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is Miss Lucie Dion employed by the government and, if so (a) in what capacity (b) what are her specific duties (c) what is her annual salary?
2.	(a) What previous positions has she held in the Public Service
(b)	what were the periods of time involved (c) what were the annual salaries in every case?
3.	Did Miss Lucie Dion attend the National Meeting of the Liberal Party of Canada held in Ottawa in September 1973 and, if so, was she a representative from the electoral district of Brome-Missisquoi?


Jean Marchand: 1. (a)
Personal staff, Minister of Transport. (Section 37(1) Public Service Employment Act); (b) Special Assistant;
(c)	$15,000-$17,500.
2.	(a) (i) Assistant Secretary Canadian Radio-Television Commission; (ii) Correspondence secretary office of the Secretary of State, (b) (i) 1 Aug. 1971-14 May 1973; (ii) 1 June 1969-1 May 1970. (c) (i) scale $15,737-$17,883; (ii) scale $6,294-$7,402.
3.	Miss Dion attended the National Liberal Convention in September 1973 as an observer.

November 14, 1973
Order Paper Questions


DIFFICULTIES EXPERIENCED BY CARVERS AT BAKER LAKE, NORTHWEST TERRITORIES, IN OBTAINING SOAPSTONE
Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Is the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development aware of the difficulties experienced for several years by carvers at Baker Lake, Northwest Territories, in obtaining soapstone for carving and, if so, can the Minister indicate if the difficulties have now been cleared up?
2.	Is it true that the soapstone located near Baker Lake is available to all the local carvers without charge and without any obligation on their part to sell their carvings to any particular dealer?


Mr. Len Marchand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to part 1 is yes, the minister is aware of difficulties encountered in the past due to a shortage of soapstone in the area, but with assistance from the Northwest Territories government these difficulties have been cleared up. The answer to part 2 is that the commissioner of the Northwest Territories is making soapstone available to all local carvers without charge. Not only is it available at the quarry but it is also stockpiled in the community. The carvers are under no obligation to deal with any particular dealer.


UNDERCLOTHING SUPPLIERS TO BRITISH COLUMBIA PENITENTIARY
Mr. Howard: 1.	What is the name of each manufacturer of underclothing that is purchased for inmates in the British Columbia Penitentiary?
2.	Upon what date did each such manufacturer commence supplying said underclothing?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: 1 and 2:
Manufacturer	Date	ItemReliable Wholesale Vancouver Nova Scotia Textiles Stanfield Ltd. Stanfield Ltd. Stanfield Ltd.	Summer Underclothing 10 April 1972 12 March 1973 9 April 1973 19	April 1973 20	June 1973	Shorts Shorts Shorts and T-Shirts Shorts and T-Shirts T-ShirtsWinter Underclothing	Regent Knitting Ltd. Regent Knitting Ltd. Regent Knitting Ltd. Nova Scotia Textiles	3 October 1972 20 November 1972 1 December 1972 10 September 1973	Shirts and Drawers Shirts and Drawers Drawers Shirts and Drawers


NATIONAL DEFENCE-EXPENDITURES IN CONSTITUENCY OF GREY-SIMCOE
Mr. Mitges: What was the breakdown for dollar expenditure by the Department of National Defence in each fiscal year 1965 to the present, inclusive, in the electoral district of Grey-Simcoe?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: The Department of National Defence records and accounting system are not maintained in such a way that expenditures by electoral district can be determined.


CONSTRUCTION OF RIDEAU CANAL SYSTEM HEADQUARTERS, SMITHS FALLS, ONTARIO
Mr. Cossitt: 1.	On what date does the government intent to proceed with construction of a new Rideau Canal System headquarters at Smiths Falls, Ontario, as originally announced in April, 1965 and which it stated it still proposes to construct in answer to Question No. 2,606?
2.	What is the anticipated date that tenders will be called and for what reason has no action been taken since April, 1965?
3.	Have architectural plans been completed for such headquarters and, if so (a) on what date (b) by whom (c) does the government have any estimated cost of this project?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. In the 1975-76 fiscal year.
2.	Tender call for the project is scheduled for 1975-76 fiscal year. No action has been taken since April 1965 because funds were required for projects of higher priority.
3.	Final architectural plans for the project have not been completed. It is not possible to give an estimate of cost at this time.


FEDERAL ASSISTANCE TO VENTURE CARPET OF CANADA LTD., MONTREAL, QUEBEC
Mr. Boisvert: 1.	What was the grant made to Venture Carpet of Canada Ltd., Montreal, Quebec by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and/or by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?
2.	What are its (a) gross (b) net profits?
3.	What are the assets of that company?
4.	What investments were made during the past twelve months?
5.	In comparison with the net profits, what salaries are being paid?
6.	What is the government's evaluation of the company's prospects?


John Mercer Reid: In so far as Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: 1 to 6, not applicable. In so far as Regional Economic Expansion is concerned: 1. An incentive grant offer made by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion under the provisions of the Regional Development Incentives Act was accepted by Venture Carpet of Canada Ltd. The estimated amount of the incentive grant was $658,600.
2 to 5. In accordance with existing departmental policy, information about individual applications and case file
November 14, 1973

documentation containing commercial information that has been provided to the department on a confidential basis cannot be made public.
6. The Department of Regional Economic Expansion considers the company's prospects to be favourable.


COURSES TAKEN UNDER PROVISIONS OF THE ADULT OCCUPATIONAL TRAINING ACT-CONSTITUENCY OF GREY-SIMCOE
Mr. Mitges: 1.	How many adults took courses under the provisions of the Adult Occupational Training Act in the constituency of Grey-Simcoe in the years 1971 and 1972?
2.	How many adults took courses under the provision of the Adult Occupational Training Act in each province in the year 1972?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1.	1970-71
fiscal year: 297; 1971-72 fiscal year: 304.
2.	1971-72 fiscal year: Newfoundland, 10,642; Prince
Edward Island, 5,121; Nova Scotia, 12,495; New Brunswick, 13,996; Atlantic, 42,254; Quebec, 126,124; Ontario, 70,617; Manitoba, 10,306; Saskatchewan, 7,743; Alberta, 17,593; Northwest Territories, 480; Prairie, 36,122; British Columbia, 32,230; Yukon Territory, 805; Pacific, 33,035; Canada, 308,152.


NUMBER OF PERSONS ADMITTED TO PENITENTIARIES, 1972, WHO HAD PREVIOUS INCARCERATIONS
Mr. Mitges: What was the number of (a) males (b) females admitted to each Canadian penitentiary for the year 1972 who had previously been committed to a penitentiary or other adult correctional institution?


William Warren Allmand: (a) Her
Majesty's Prison, Newfoundland, 2; Carleton Community Correctional Centre, Halifax, 2; Springhill Medium Security Institution, 35; Springhill Minimum Security Institution, 1; Dorchester Penitentiary, 77; Dorchester Penitentiary Farm Annex, 19; Blue Mountain Correctional Camp, Kings Co. New Brunswick, 1; Parr Town Community Correctional Centre, Saint John, New Brunswick, 2; St-Hub-ert Community Correctional Centre, Montreal, 4; St-Vin-cent de Paul Penitentiary, Ville de Laval, Quebec, 10; Laval Maximum Security Institution, Ville de Laval, Quebec, 16; Laval Minimum Security Institution, Ville de Laval, Quebec, 13; Regional Medical Centre (Quebec), Ville de Laval, Quebec, 14; Federal Training Centre, Ville de Laval, Quebec, 31; Leclerc Institution, Ville de Laval, Quebec, 46; Archambault Maximum Security Institution, Ste-Anne des Plaines, Quebec, 43; Archambault Minimum Security Institution, Ste-Anne des Plaines, Quebec, 16; Regional Reception Centre (Quebec), Ste-Anne des Plaines, Quebec, 7; Cowansville Institution, 41; Montgomery Community Correctional Centre, Toronto, 4; Kingston Penitentiary, 4; Regional Medical Centre, (Ontario), Kingston, 12; Regional Reception Centre (Ontario), Kingston, 17; Millhaven Maximum Security Institution, 45; Millhav-en Minimum Security Institution, 9; Collins Bay Institution, 53; Collins Bay Institution, Farm Annex, 7; Landry
Order Paper Questions
Crossing Correctional Camp, Petawawa, Ontario, 18; Beaver Creek Correctional Camp, Gravenhurst, Ontario, 15; Joyceville Institution, 77; Joyceville Institution, Farm Annex, 16; Warkworth Institution, Campbellford, Ontario, 11; Osborne Community Correctional Centre, Winnipeg, 9; Stony Mountain Institution, 75; Stony Mountain Institution, Farm Annex, 26; Saskatchewan Penitentiary, Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, 67; Saskatchewan Penitentiary Farm Annex, 11; Oskana Community Correctional Centre, Regina, 2; Drumheller Institution, 32; Scarboro Community Correctional Centre, Calgary, 4; Grierson Community Correctional Centre, Edmonton, 10; West Georgia Community Correctional Centre, Vancouver, 2; British Columbia Penitentiary, 73; William Head Institution, 14; Matsqui Institution, 36; Regional Medical Centre (Western) Abbotsford, British Columbia, 13; Mountain Prison, Agassiz, 22; Agassiz Correctional Camp, 14; Total, 1078; (b) Regional Medical Centre (Ontario), Kingston, 1; Prison for Women, Kingston, 4; Total, 5.


GREEN GABLES GOLF COURSE, P.E.I.
Mr. MacLean: 1.	Is the Green Gables Golf Course in the Prince Edward Island National Park being redesigned and partially relocated?
2.	Was more land purchased to accommodate this change and, if so (a) what was the amount purchased (b) what was the total cost?
3.	Was any opinion or advice sought from any Prince Edward Island residents, organizations or government as to the desirability of this change and, if so, from whom?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1. Yes. This is part of an over-all scheme to protect the erosion of dunes at Cavendish Beach and to improve visitor services in the area.
2.	Yes (a) 204.71 acres; (b) $159,000.
3.	Yes. Parks Canada officials reviewed the plans for the area with representatives of the provincial government.


STATISTICS CANADA-COST OF SENDING COMPUTER SYSTEMS EXPERTS TO VIENNA
Mr. Knight: What was the cost involved by Statistics Canada in sending ten of its computer systems experts to Vienna, Austria, recently to deal with other governments on the merits of establishing an agency such as Statistics Canada?


Herb Breau: Nil. Statistics Canada has never sent a group of computer systems experts to Vienna, Austria, for the purpose of dealing with other governments on the merits of establishing an agency such as Statistics Canada.


PROGRAM FOR UPGRADING OF DEPARTMENTAL OFFICERS
Mr. Knight: 1. What is the Department of Manpower and Immigration program for the upgrading of a number of departmental officers into higher income brackets and new positions for the period January 1, 1973 to October 1, 1973?

November 14, 1973
Order Paper Questions
2.	How many new jobs of Deputy Director have been created and how many of these jobs have been filled?
3.	What is the role of Mr. Allan Duckett in implementing this promotion scheme in the Information Services Division?
4.	What is the exact number of Information Services Division employees and what are their salary ranges?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. There is no special program for the upgrading of departmental officers. However, during the period in question, 214 positions were reclassified upward on the basis of increased duties and responsibilities.
2.	None.
3.	As Director, Information Services Branch, Mr. Duckett's involvement has been with the implementation of a new IS Standard developed by the Treasury Board.
4.	Sixty-four employees: 16 at $14,762 to $16,778; 15 at $12,009 to $13,648; 6 at $6,707 to $7,372; 5 at $5,486 to $6,028; 3 at $19,900 to $22,900; 3 at $6,676 to $7,338; 2 at $17,920 to $20,364; 2 at $10,646 to $11,894; 2 at $9,348 to $11,133; 2 at $7,496 to $8,238; 1 at $23,500 to $30,000; 1 at $16,567 to $18,511; 1 at $11,236 to $12,767; 1 at $8,569 to $9,415; 1 at $8,108 to $11,932; 1 at $7,460 to $8,200; 1 at $6,420 to $9,720; 1 at $6,233 to $6,849.


CANADA PENSION FUND
Mr. Olaussen: 1.	How much money is there in the Canada Pension Fund at present?
2.	How much would the annual contributions from all contributors be?


Hon. Marc Iialonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. As of September 31, 1973, $6.4 billion.
2. In 1972 (calendar year), $869.3 million. In 1973, as of September 1973, $826.6 million (after nine months). Estimate for full calendar year, 1973, $942.6 million.


BILINGUALISM PROMOTION GRANT TO BRITISH COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Mr. Olaussen: What is the total amount of the grant that the government is giving to the British Columbia Department of Education to promote bilingualism in schools?


James Hugh Faulkner: Under the federal-provincial Program on bilingualism in education, the federal government has contributed the following amounts to British Columbia: January 1, 1970 to March 31, 1971: $883,558. Fiscal year 1971-1972: $1,018,744. Fiscal year 1972-1973: $819,857. Total, $2,722,159.


SALE OF CANADIAN WHEAT TO U.S.S.R.
Mr. Stackhouse: 1.	How much of the selling price of Canada's sale of wheat to the U.S.S.R. is to be paid (a) in currency (b) in Russian goods?
2.	How much of the selling price of Canada's sale of wheat to the People's Republic of China is to be paid (a) in currency (b) in Chinese products?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister Responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board):: 
TAX EXEMPTIONS TO CPR
Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain): 1.	Does the CPR subsidiary Marathon Realty or any other agency of CPR benefit presently from any exemptions from (a) local (b) provincial (c) federal taxation, other levies or regulations in consequence of original grants of land to the original CPR by the government?
2.	If there are present exemptions, what is the nature of each such exemption from (a) local (b) provincial (c) federal tax, levy or regulations?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: In so far as the Department of National Revenue, Taxation, is concerned: The secrecy provisions contained in the Income Tax Act do not allow the department to comment on the tax affairs of either personal or corporate taxpayers.


FEDERAL ELECTION-VOTING BY CANADIANS SERVING WITH INTERNATIONAL PEACEKEEPING ORGANIZATIONS
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What steps has the government prepared to ensure that all Canadians serving with international peacekeeping organizations will have ballots and the right to exercise their votes in the next federal election, including members of the Canadian Armed Forces, Department of External Affairs and those seconded to other agencies?
2.	How many Canadians serving with such international organizations were eligible to vote in the last federal election and how many of these did in fact exercise their franchises?


John Mercer Reid: 1. The Special Voting Rules (Schedule II to the Canada Elections Act) already contain provisions for the establishing of voting places outside Canada at a federal general election to take the votes of employees of the Public Service of Canada (Public Service electors) residing outside Canada by reason of their departmental duties and the votes of members of the Canadian Forces (Canadian Forces electors) on full-time service. The rules also provide for the taking of the votes of eligible dependants (dependant electors) of the aforementioned electors when residing outside Canada with the elector. The rules require voting places to be established by a head of post or Commanding Officer, as appropriate. No additional or special provisions are required in the Canada Elections Act or the rules to take the votes of Public Service or Canadian Forces electors, and their eligible dependants, serving outside Canada with international peacekeeping organizations.
2. Statistics are not maintained respecting the exact location or precise duties of Canadian Forces or Public Service electors employed outside Canada nor in respect of dependant electors. However, there were approximately 1826 Public Service electors, 8970 Canadian Forces electors and 14,556 dependant electors outside Canada at the last federal election who were eligible to vote under the Special Voting Rules. Since in many cases voting places
November 14, 1973

Orders for Returns
outside Canada were administered through the Edmonton and Ottawa voting territory headquarters and the balloting outside Canada was merged with the balloting in voting places established in Canadian Forces units in Canada, statistics are not available as to the number of electors outside Canada who actually cast their ballots.


SPECIAL FUNCTIONS HELD FOR HER MAJESTY, THE QUEEN, AND HRH, THE DUKE OF EDINBURGH DURING SUMMER VISIT
Mr. Fleming: 1.	What social functions were held for Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh on the occasion of their two visits to Canada this summer (a) who was the host at these functions (b) how many guests were in attendance?
2.	Were all political parties in the House of Commons represented at the dinner given by the Prime Minister on August 1 at 24 Sussex Drive for Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh?


James Hugh Faulkner: 1.
The following social functions were held for Her Majesty the Queen and His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh on the occasion of their two visits to Canada this summer: (a) By the Houses of Parliament:
Date	Function	Host	Attend- anceAugust 1	Reception	Speaker of the Senate and Speaker	300(b) By the Government	of the House of Commons of Canada	Date	Function	Host	Attend- anceJuly 4	Luncheon	Commissioner of the RCMP	200July 5	State Dinner	Prime Minister	270August 1	Reception	Prime Minister	1300August 1	Dinner	Prime Minister	22
(c) By provincial and municipal governments and others
As these functions as well as the guest lists were the responsibility of the provinces and municipalities concerned, the number of guests in attendance can only be estimated.
Attend-
Date	Function	Host	anceJune 26	Civic Luncheon	Mayor and Council of the Corporation of the City of Toronto	1850June 26	Provincial Dinner	Lieutenant-Governor of Ontario	1400June 27	Civic Dinner	Mayor and Aldermen of the City of Kingston	600June 28	Civic Luncheon	Mayor and Council of the Corporation of the City of London	600June 28	Civic Dinner	Mayor and Council of the Town of Niagara-on-the-Lake	200June 30	Dinner	Lieutenant-Governor of Prince Edward Island	20July 1	Civic Luncheon	Mayor of the Town of Montague	150July 1	Garden Party	Lientenant Governor of Prince Edward Island	2000July 1	Provincial Dinner	Premier of Prince Edward Island	200July 2	Luncheon	President of Acadian Village	150July 2	Dinner	Chairman of Prince Edward Island 1973 Centennial Commission	200
Attend-
Date	Function	Host	anceJuly 3	Dinner	Lieutenant-Governor of Saskatchewan	150July 4	Dinner	Premier of Saskatchewan and Mayor of the City of Regina	400July 5	Civic Luncheon	Mayor and Council of the City of Calgary	170August 1	Civic Luncheon	Mayor and Council of the Corporation of the City of Ottawa	150August 2	Reception for His Royal Highness the Duke of Edinburgh	Royal Canadian Regiment	500
2. Representatives from all political parties in the House of Commons were invited. Mr. and Mrs. Real Caouette were unable to attend. Other political representatives were the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker and Mrs. Diefen-baker, the Hon. Robert Stanfield and Mrs. Stanfield, and Mr. David Lewis and Mrs. Lewis.


QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS
Mr. Coates: 1.	What is the total work force of all government information offices, by department, at the present time and what is the cost of each departmental information operation?
2.	What is the total work force of Information Canada and what is the amount in dollars, of salaries and wages for the work force of Information Canada?
3.	What was the budget of Information Canada in each of the years of its operation and what is its estimated budget for 1973-74?
4.	Have special surveys been carried out by Information Canada with the public of Canada and, if so (a) how many studies of this type were carried out (b) what was the purpose of each (c) who headed each study (d) how many persons from Information Canada were involved and how many persons outside Information Canada were involved and what were the names of the persons outside Information Canada (e) what special responsibilities did they assume (f) what did they receive in payment for their contributions as well as expenses in each instance?
5.	Have any of the studies carried out by Information Canada been made available to the public and (a) if so, which studies (b) if not, for what reason?
Return tabled.


DAY CARE CENTRES
Mr. McGrath: 1.	During the past fiscal year, how much money did each province receive for day-care and other women's services?
2.	What are the criteria for the allocation of such funds?
3.	Does the government encourage the use of this program by the provinces to provide day-care centres?
Return tabled.
7786

November 14, 1973

*

Orders for Returns PUBLIC SERVICE-CANADIAN CITIZENSHIP 
Question No. 2,411-Mr. Stackhouse:
How many employees of the government lack Canadian citizenship and, of these, how many (a) are landed immigrants (b) hold American citizenship (c) are employed by the Treasury Board?
Return tabled.


POLLUTION
Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	For each year 1971 to 1973 inclusive, how many projects under the Opportunities for Youth Program were involved in (a) studying pollution and its effects and what happened to the results of such studies (b) cleaning up the environment?
2.	By provinces and territories, how many (a) lakes (b) rivers (c) streams (d) water in camp sites have been declared polluted by the government for the periods 1951 to 1960 and 1961 to 1972 inclusive?
3.	For the same periods, how many of these, by provinces and territories, has the government succeeded in cleaning up?
4.	To date, how many municipalities, by provinces, received financial assistance from the government for the purposes of (a) improving (b) installing sewage treatment systems?
5.	For each of the past five years, how often has the government, at the ministerial level, met with (a) provincial ministers responsible for Municipal Affairs (b) representatives of municipalities in their efforts to (i) dispose of their solid wastes (ii) improve their present methods of sewage treatment systems?
6.	Is the government giving consideration to (a) controlling (b) monitoring (c) funding of municipal sewage projects within a national urban policy and (i) if not, for what reasons (ii) if so, which provinces and municipalities have been consulted to date?
7.	Has the government any data available which would show (a) the amount of paper and paper products it disposed of in the Ottawa-Hull area (b) how much it cost the Ottawa-Carleton municipality to pick up and dispose of these wastes for the years 1968, 1969, 1970, 1971 and 1972 inclusive?
8.	If these data are not available, does the government intend providing them before 1975 and, if not, for what reasons?
Return tabled.


PURCHASE OF SPECIAL LICENCE PLATES
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Which departments, agencies or branches of government have purchased special licence plates from the Ontario government, after paying the additional $25 fee to have special, customized letter and number designation?
2.	For each instance, what is the special number?
3.	Under what statutory authority was this money expended?
4.	Did the Prime Minister authorize his choice of CAN 001?
Return tabled.


PROXY VOTING
Mr. Forrestall: 1.	What specific plans does the government have to provide mariners in the employ of the government with the appropriate forms for proxy voting in the next federal election?
2.	What plans does the government have to ensure that these forms are returned to those who are to exercise such proxy votes in time for their validation?
3.	How many verbal or written complaints were received on this matter from September 1 to October 30, 1972?
Return tabled.


ANTI-SMOKING ADVERTISING-MONEYS SPENT
Mrs. Maclnnis (Vancouver Kings-way): How much money, in each of the past ten fiscal years, has the government spent on (a) anti-smoking efforts such as the production of public service spot announcements for the media, urging people not to smoke, etc. (b) research into tobacco cultivation, specifically involving the development of higher yielding strains per acre, lower nicotine content, etc. (c) trade missions and any other activities designed to cultivate export markets for Canada's tobacco growers?
Return tabled.


RESEARCH PROJECTS IN PROVINCE OF NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Marshall: Is the Department of the Environment either in the process of carrying out, or planning to carry out any research projects in the Province of Newfoundland and (a) if so, what are the projects (b) if not, for what reasons?
Return tabled.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I should like to draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary to question No. 2179 which has been on the order paper since June 1. Notwithstanding the membership of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the Royal Society and his recent visits to the Queen, the subtle erosion of Royal symbols is still continuing, including the removal of the Royal portrait from federal public buildings.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member was recognized for the purpose of raising a point of order, not to make allegations or a speech. I suggest he should indicate what the point of order is and the Chair will make a ruling.


Mr. Cossitt:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw to the attention of the parliamentary secretary certain questions that I have on the order paper which have stood unanswered for some length of time. I should like to refer first of all to question No. 2596 which asks for certain details of the round the world trip made by the Minister of National Defence a few months ago. Surely there is no legitimate excuse for slowness in revealing cost figures, names and accompanying passengers, etc.
Since July 4, question No. 2453 asking for details of government grants to Canada-Monde World headed by Mr. Jacques Hebert, a fact which I trust has no connection with the delay in reply, has stood unanswered.
I should also like to draw attention to the following unanswered questions for which I think answers are overdue: No. 2597, two and a half months unanswered, requesting details of a person reported on the government payroll who allegedly faced a dozen charges of FLQ terrorist activity; Nos. 2598 to 2601 inclusive, requesting information on the amount of public moneys expended by the government at Harrington Lake and also at the Prime Minister's official Ottawa residence over a certain period of time; finally, No. 2797 concerning a LIP project given some half million dollars and then reported to have undergone investigation and possible closing by the RCMP.
November 14, 1973

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that I feel these are legitimate questions which I have asked as a member of parliament and to which I am entitled to have answers. By delaying answers to questions, perhaps in the hope that they will die on the order paper, this government is showing contempt of parliament, for which this government is certainly most famous.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can let that last statement go unchallenged. I should like to point out to Your Honour that more questions have been placed on the order paper in this parliament than ever before and more questions have been answered already in this parliament than ever before, 83.9 per cent as of today. I want to inform hon. members that I am attempting to find out the cost of answering these questions and on some of the more absurd ones I intend to make the cost figures available.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East. Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member but the hon. member for Rocky Mountain rises on a point of order.


Mr. Clark (Rocky Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the parliamentary secretary, I wonder if at the same time he is preparing those costs he would present to the House the total government expenditure on public relations and other propaganda materials designed to put across misleading information.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East.


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S.O. 26   CONSUMER AFFAIRS INCREASE IN COST OF HOME HEATING OIL, CLOTHING AND HOUSING
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 26 I ask leave to make a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration.
This matter is specific because it concerns the federal sales tax; it is important because it affects the well-being of every man, woman and child in Canada; and it requires urgent consideration because the cost of gasoline and home heating oil, the cost of clothing and the cost of housing are and have been-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows what the rule is in relation to Standing Order 26. I have been in communication with the hon. member before he
Motions for Papers moved this motion. I have reminded him, through the table, of what the requirements are and have indicated to him that the notice he gave to the Chair, in the terms it was suggested to the Chair, could not be received as it was out of order. If the hon. member insists on using that form, certainly the Chair cannot hear him.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I thought that I had emasculated my motion to the point where it would be acceptable to the Chair but if Your Honour will permit me I will rephrase my motion in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 26 and move to discuss a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, the consumer price index released today showing an increase in the cost of home heating, the cost of shelter and cost of clothing, and the fact that the federal government collects sales tax on all of these items. Therefore, if my motion is acceptable I would move that this matter should be discussed immediately in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has given the notice required under Standing Order 26. I certainly do not want to go into further details about the form of the motion, but I appeal to hon. members to respect the terms of the Standing Order and also the long established practice that under Standing Order 26 members only indicate briefly what the subject matter is, without argument, debate or discussion. I thank the hon. member who says he has changed his motion. In any event, since he has given me this notice I have had an opportunity to give the matter serious thought.
The hon. member and the House will realize that the decision which has to be made by the Chair is strictly procedural, whether the motion proposed meets the requirements of Standing Order 26. Although there is an element of urgency in the fact it refers to statistics that have just been released, it seems to me that the general matter proposed for discussion by the hon. member has been taken up and referred to over a long period of weeks, indeed, months, in the House. I am sure I am right when I suggest that there will be opportunities within a reasonable time for the hon. member and other interested hon. members to discuss this very important matter. I would think that, in the circumstances, the Chair would not be justified in suggesting that the debate which has been proposed for today should be set aside for the purpose of discussing the matter suggested by the hon. member for St. John's East.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 241 and 242 are acceptable to the government.
26635-62!

November 14, 1973
Motions for Papers


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that motions Nos. 241 and 242 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


COPY OF GUEST LIST FOR THE PRIME MINISTER'S RECEPTION IN HONOUR OF HER MAJESTY AND THE DUKE OF EDINBURGH IN OTTAWA
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 241-Mr. Diefenbaker:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the guest list for the Prime Minister's Reception on August 7, 1973, at the National Arts Centre in honour of Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 242-Mr. Diefenbaker:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the list of names of all invitees to the Dinner given in Calgary on July 5, 1973, by the Prime Minister and Government of Canada, in honour of Her Majesty the Queen and the Duke of Edinburgh.
Motion agreed to.
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have permission to table the returns to the foregoing motions?


Mr. Speaker:: Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen those returns, but the other day there was a suggestion by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that there were other returns concerning those who were invited by the provinces and the like and that they would be tabled. I immediately point out that if these returns include any of that stuff, they cannot have any place on the record. All that can be provided, under the rules and the decisions of parliament, are answers to the questions asked.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Trudeau:: Mr. Speaker, I want to reassure the right hon. gentleman. The reply will be in the form of a tabling in response to his motions and there will be nothing added to the requests in his motions. However, knowing his interest in all things concerning the monarchy, I ensured that a question would be asked on the order paper about those other events where the Queen was so graciously entertained in Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am deeply grateful for the suggestion concerning the monarchy. I would have thought that the Prime Minister would ask parliament today to send a message of congratulations to Captain Phillips and his lady.
[Mr. Reid.)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to inform the right hon. gentleman of the message and the gift that have been sent to the couple.


John George Diefenbaker: But not by parliament.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the right hon. member wants to catch up with the times, he can do so on this occasion.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether we are serving much purpose by pursuing this battle royal between the two right hon. gentlemen. However, if the right hon. member for Prince Albert wishes to rise on a further point of order I will hear him.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I referred to parliament. The Prime Minister apparently thinks that the cabinet today is parliament. It is not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that the party to which the right hon. gentleman belongs introduced a series of spurious motions today. If they had put their heart where their mouth is they would have introduced a motion to the effect he suggests.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Oral questions.


Mr. Stanfield:: Mr. Speaker, unless my memory is very wrong, I think a member of the opposition did introduce such a motion a few days ago and the usual no came from the other side.


Mr. Bell:: Were you up at five o'clock this morning?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I assume that was not a question.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, although it would be appropriate for the Minister of Finance if he were present. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has indicated that the government is prepared to grant increases in the prices of
November 14, 1973

petroleum products produced from imported crude and that further applications for increases have been received. I would ask the minister whether the government would be prepared to absorb these requested increases, or increases the government might authorize, with respect to home heating oil at least as long as the government maintains the voluntary freeze on Canadian crude oil?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the government's preference has been to apply the very considerable sums involved from the public treasury in order to make certain, by offshore purchases, that there will be home heating oil available for Canadians this winter. The financial resources have been applied to the priority of making sure of supply rather than reducing the price.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the very substantial increase in the revenue the government receives from the 12 per cent sales tax on gasoline and the very substantial increase in revenue the government has already derived from the very significant increases in gasoline prices this year and will derive from anticipated increases, is the government not in a position, as a result of these increased revenues from the sales tax on gasoline, to do what the minister says was done with regard to assuring supplies and also provide the relief I am suggesting with respect to the increased price of home heating oil, which will hit so heavily many Canadians on low incomes?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that to roll heating oil prices back to their October level would cost $65 million, to roll them back to the November level would cost $42 million, and that the increased revenue from the excise tax on gasoline will yield only $12 million up to the end of March.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, with respect, I was not asking about a roll-back. I was asking the minister whether the government was prepared to absorb the anticipated increases. That is the question I am asking the minister. Is the government prepared to absorb the further increases for which application has been made rather than allow ordinary Canadians, many of them on very low incomes, to face this disastrous situation?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: My understanding was that the hon. gentleman was proposing that there should be a subsidy with regard to prices on November 1. If he is not saying that, it will, of course, depend on the amount of the increase, but the increase, which took place on November 1 would have meant an increased expenditure of about $42 million had the hon. gentleman's suggestion been accepted. The same principle would undoubtedly apply to any future increases.
[ Transla tion]


OIL-MEETING WITH NEW QUEBEC MINISTER
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Lotbiniere wishes to ask a supplementary question.
Oral Question Period


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has stated that he would meet for a round of discussions with the new Quebec Minister of Natural Resources as soon as he is appointed.
The new appointee now being known, can the minister advise the House whether he has contacted him and, if so, when such meeting took place and, finally, whether he discussed with his provincial counterpart the oil problem as a whole and the immediate supply for the coming winter?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, as I stated yesterday to a colleague of the hon. member, officials of all provinces, Quebec included, will meet tomorrow with my deputy minister and other federal officials to discuss the situation in connection with a possible energy crisis next winter. I am looking forward to meeting my Quebec counterparts on the 23rd during the sittings of the federal-provincial conference, and discuss with him a number of problems related to the energy crisis and, especially, the shortage situation for the coming winter.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that the consumer price index released today shows the highest month to month increase since 1962 and in view of the fact that housing and clothing account for the most substantial increases, may I ask the Prime Minister whether, in order to bring some relief to Canadians, he is prepared to consider removing the 12 per cent sales tax from these two items?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not today, Mr. Speaker.


James Aloysius McGrath: I can assure the Prime Minister that my question was not more spurious than my motion. This is a very serious matter affecting many Canadians across the country. I should like to redirect my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs who has great statutory responsibility here. In light of the latest advice given to the Canadian people by Mrs. Plumptre that food costs will continue to rise as a result of the energy crisis, may I ask the minister what recommendations he is now prepared to make to his colleagues in the cabinet to bring some relief to consumers in this country.


Hon.   Herb. Gray@Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: It is important to note that the rate of increase in the cost of living index shows a moderation compared with the preceding month and that the food index fell by .3 per cent from September to October, demonstrating that the policies of the government, in the elaboration of which I have been collaborating, are exercising a positive effect.

November 14, 1973
Oral Question Period


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF VOLUNTARY PRICE FREEZE ON CANADIAN CRUDE OIL BEYOND NEXT JANUARY
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources arising from earlier answers. Bearing in mind that if the price freeze is not extended past January the price of gasoline will increase by between 10 and 12 cents a gallon, and bearing in mind the fact that the oil companies have increased their prices by 37 per cent this year alone, will the minister reconsider his decision and extend the freeze past January?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No such decision has been taken by the government at this time.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In light of the increase in the consumer price index and in view of the fact that several provinces, including Ontario, British Columbia, Alberta, Quebec and Saskatchewan will shortly either be catching up with the federal minimum wage limit or passing it, can the minister tell us what specific recommendations he has, if any, with respect to revising the federal minimum wage, since action in this direction would certainly assist those on the lower end of the economic ladder?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: As I
indicated, we are watching this situation very closely. I have indicated to the House on earlier occasions that the question of the minimum wage is under consideration, and as soon as I am in a position to make an announcement I shall do so in the House. I hope it will not be too long delayed.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Now that the provinces have seen fit to take action in this important area, can the minister advise the House what is holding up a decision by the federal government? What is the hold-up?


John Carr Munro: As the hon. member may be aware, the social policy statement by my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, was made only recently and we are endeavouring to relate all our social policies in an integrated way. A number of initiatives of tangible benefit to Canadians have been taken in terms of family allowances and so on, and the relationship to the minimum wage is spelled out there. We are studying these implica-

tions so that they can be taken into account in terms of the over-all integrated social policy.



HOUSING


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the principal reason for the increase in the consumer price index according to the figures released today is the increase in the cost of housing, can the Prime Minister tell us whether the government intends to begin to move in some direction so as to bring down mortgage interest rates?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In this area of housing, Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Urban Affairs has brought a full program before parliament. We hope hon. members can get on with enacting it.


John Edward Broadbent: Having received that glorious nonanswer I will turn to the Minister of State responsible for housing. Bearing in mind the forecast made by an independent consultant, Frank Clayton, who formerly worked in the government department responsible for housing, that partly because of high interest rates family housing starts next year will drop by 15 per cent, and in view of the fact that CMHC itself forecasts a continued rise in family formation, may I ask what steps the minister's department is taking now to increase the supply of housing next year?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the year 1973 has been a record year in terms of new home construction. We predict there will be as much lending activity in 1974 as this year and our estimate is that we shall exceed 250,000 units in 1974, which is our medium-term housing objective.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



POSITION OF GOVERNMENT RESPECTING SOCIAL HOUSING EMPHASIS

John Edward Broadbent: I will try a third time, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the House whether the reported abolition of CMHC's policy planning division following the firing of Mr. Walter Rudnicki and the destruction of the intent of the co-operative housing legislation as a result of CMHC's decision-making in the last couple of months means that the government is abandoning the social housing emphasis which was contained in the legislation passed by the House last spring?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker, it categorically does not. I have spent the last two days at a conference on Canadian housing rehabilitation arranged by the Canadian Council of Social Development. Those two days were spent working out precisely how we could get Bill C-135 operating. There was a strong desire at the conference that provinces
November 14, 1973

and municipalities should fully support my efforts to implement Bill C-135.
In reply to the specific part of the question asked by the hon. member, may I say he obviously missed an announcement I made a week ago Saturday that we were in the course of reorganizing within Central Mortgage and Housing to establish regional co-operative program officers to assist the co-operative movement in the various regions to implement the new provisions parliament has made available so as to ensure that co-operative housing will play an important part in the social program of this country.
[ Translation]



NEGOTIATIONS WITH QUEBEC ON AGREEMENT RESPECTING RENOVATION

Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
Following the adoption of Bill C-133 on housing and urban renewal, municipalities are anxious to take advantage of the new legislation. Can the minister inform the House of the status of negotiations for an agreement on this with Quebec?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking agreements with all of the provinces. I have one with the province of Alberta as to the implementation of the neighbourhood improvement, repair and rehabilitation sections of the act. We are having discussions with the province of Quebec and others to get agreements of that kind so that the program can be used by the municipalities within the province of Quebec and others. Within the course of the next two of three weeks I will meet with every provincial minister of housing to try to make sure that those agreements are obtained at least by the end of this year at the very latest.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister and is related to the special effects of the discomfort index, that is, the combination of high inflation and high unemployment, in slow growth regions, particularly the Atlantic provinces. Can the Prime Minister indicate whether he has issued any special instructions to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion to meet directly with the premiers of the Atlantic provinces in terms of mapping out some special programs, particularly in light of rising energy costs which will certainly set back any regional development programs in that area?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the minister meets with the premiers on a regu-
Oral Question Period
lar basis. I know he saw some of them quite recently, and I myself had some such meetings two weeks ago.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the Prime Minister did not hear my question. I asked him whether or not any special instructions or special mandate had been given to the minister in view of the deteriorating situation, not only with regard to the rising cost of energy but also regarding other federal government programs either in the local initiatives field or in the co-ordination of monetary policy, about which very serious questions can be raised at the present time.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry that the hon. member did not hear my answer. I indicated that meetings had taken place.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I can well understand that the Prime Minister may not be able to answer the question, but this afternoon not only the Prime Minister but the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Minister of State for Urban Affairs have continued a practice that I would very much appreciate your Honour dealing with. I refer to the practice, when questions are raised, of ministers refusing to reply. It is a well known fact of procedure in the House during the question period that ministers are not required to answer questions that are put, but it is also a well known fact that they are not required to give answers to questions that are not put.



OIL-ALLEGED REFUSAL OF TRANSIT IN BOND TO STATES OF NEW YORK AND MICHIGAN-AUTHORITY FOR ACTION

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Has the minister instituted an inquiry into statements made today by representatives of the states of New York and Michigan that the transit of oil in bond across Canada to these states has been refused, this order having been issued by the National Energy Board?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I had not seen that allegation but I appreciate the hon. member bringing it to my attention and I will investigate it.


Alfred Dryden Hales: When the minister answers the question will he also advise the House under what authority this action was taken?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: In general, Mr. Speaker, the board acts under the National Energy Board Act and the regulations that give it export control over not only crude but also certain refined products.

November 14, 1973
Oral Question Period



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.
In view of the very recent increase-
An hen. Member: Turn around and ask him.


Albert Béchard: In view of the recent increase in lodging costs of homes for elderly people in the province of Quebec, does the minister intend to protest vigorously to his Quebec counterpart against this bad habit of depriving elderly persons from the benefits of higher old age pensions each time the federal government tries to help this element of society?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I will bring the observations of the hon. member for Bonaventure-Iles de la Madeleine to the attention of my Quebec colleague, and of my other provincial colleagues, who are I think in the same situation.



HOUSING


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Could the hon. minister at the same time protest also against the fact that the construction of each new home is always financed with provincial funds, never federal ones?


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


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I realize that I involuntarily created a false impression earlier through a question directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare, and I should like to ask this question again, in order to clear up any doubt.
Could the minister send a protest note to the government of Quebec which would have people believe that projects for the building of homes for the aged are being financed almost exclusively by the provincial government, when everybody knows that these projects are, for a large part, financed by the federal government?


Marc Lalonde: I want to say, Mr. Speaker, that I welcome this question with much sympathy and I shall certainly put it before my Quebec counterparts at the next opportunity.



STATISTICS CANADA


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce perhaps I could put my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the release of figures today by Statistics Canada showing that the cost of living index is up 8.7 per cent in Canada in the past 12 months, a total of 30 per cent now under the Trudeau government, and since it is very important to workers in this country to see whether their earnings are at least keeping up with inflation, would the Prime Minister inform the House whether he is aware that Statistics Canada has delayed publication of the August average weekly earnings figures which were scheduled for release on October 26 and, if so, why is such delay being tolerated?


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I will attempt to get an answer to the hon. member's question.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may I again put a question to the Prime Minister which is supplementary to my earlier question. Since wages in Canada are down by approximately $3 per week in terms of inflation, would the Prime Minister require Statistics Canada to produce their average weekly earnings figures forthwith so that the Canadian public can judge for themselves what impact inflation is having on wages, especially inflation accelerated by government action?


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I will bring that question to the attention of the minister.



HOUSING


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of a recent article in the Financial Post by Professor James Poapst, who was one of the authors of the government's residential mortgage financing bill, in which he stated that the said bill would have no effect on reducing interest rates, is the minister now prepared to introduce legislation which will compel federally chartered institutions to allocate a proportion of their annual investments to housing at a fixed interest rate of 6 per cent and, if not, why not?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the answer is no, but we are proceeding with the passage through the committee and the House of the residential mortgage financing bill. We are also proceeding, as hon. members will have noticed, with the implementation of the assisted home ownership program, which is a program of assistance to people of low
November 14, 1973

income to enable them to purchase homes. This program is meeting with a great deal of success across Canada and, under it, money is lent at an interest rate of 6 per cent to 8 per cent.


John Gilbert: In view of the fact that mortgage interest rates constitute a high component in the recent cost of living increase, what steps does the minister intend taking to prevent further increases in mortgage rates which are reflected in the increased cost of housing and increased rents?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, in terms of housing policy rather than financial policy, for which I do not answer, we are persisting as vigorously as we can with the implementation of Bill C-135.



LABOUR RELATIONS


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Labour. Has the minister taken any action with respect to the request for a mediator in the dispute that is tying up the Halifax waterfront?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the Leader of the Opposition that I have today appointed Art Gibbons, director of mediation and conciliation in my department, who I think the Leader of the Opposition will agree is one of the most experienced mediators in Canada, to mediate this dispute. He will be on the scene very shortly. In the meantime he is contacting the parties to get them together to see whether the dispute cannot be resolved.



PENITENTIARIES


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. I say to him at once that I do not place any blame on him for this but rather on his predecessor. What is the present situation concerning the apparent revolt which took place in Prince Albert penitentiary, and why were the terms of the prisoners accepted? At the same time, would he say what can be done to meet an incipiently dangerous situation there where, in consequence of overcrowding, there is not only the possibility of further outbreaks but a perilous position for those who are wardens?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, on the morning of November 11 three inmates overpowered three guards in the yard at the Prince Albert Penitentiary and held those guards as hostages. They made four
Oral Question Period
demands, one of which was that two of the men be transferred to the British Columbia penitentiary. The other demands were that no reprisal or action be taken against them and that they be given certain medication. The director of the penitentiary responded to the demand for the transfer of the men to the British Columbia penitentiary but did not accept the request that no action be taken against them. As a matter of fact, criminal action will be taken against them for the offence. Further the doctor at the penitentiary did no see fit to provide them with the medication they requested; he simply said they did not need it. I am advised that the two men in question are still awaiting transfer to the British Columbia penitentiary, and that the delay has been caused by a lack of a proper flight to take them there. Other than that, the penitentiary is in fact back to normal.
To alleviate the overcrowding problem we are presently negotiating with the province of Alberta to take over the Bowden Institute in the constituency of Red Deer. We are also constructing a new medium security institution at Mission, British Columbia, which we hope will further relieve the overcrowding problem.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, will the minister say whether, in view of the situation that has existed for some time at the Saskatchewan penitentiary, extra guards will be placed there, as I am told they are very much understaffed?


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, we have requested extra guards not only for the Prince Albert Penitentiary but for several other penitentiaries, and permission has been granted by the government to seek people for these positions. We are now looking for people to fill them. I might say that the shortage of staff, not only of guards, has been caused by the somewhat abnormal increase in population in the west.


Mr. Peters:: You mean the penitentiary population.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, and at this time the absence of his parliamentary secretary, I suppose I will have to direct my question to the Prime Minister. Is he aware that a number of Ontario industries have indicated they intend to refuse to pay the 40 per cent increase in unemployment insurance premiums announced last week, and what steps will the government take in this regard?


An hon. Member:: They must obey the law.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I will be happy to take notice of that question and supply an answer to the hon. member on

November 14, 1973
Oral Question Period
behalf of the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who is out of the House on government business.



MINISTER'S POSITION ON PROPOSED REFINERY IN QUEBEC TO PROCESS SAUDI ARABIAN OIL

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
In view of the fact that he has been aware for some time of the negotiations between Quebec and Saudi Arabia concerning a joint project for the building of refineries in Quebec, could he tell the House whether his department favours the implementation of such a project?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have indeed been told about these talks, but they have failed to bring about any agreement. In our opinion, it is quite all right for public or private interests in Quebec to make arrangements with foreign commercial interests, I should, however, point out that in view of the present possibility of a stoppage as concerns oil shipments from Saudi Arabia, such measures would not offer the same security as arrangements with interests in Canada or in other countries.



OIL-USE OF CHERRY POINT BY UNITED STATES TANKERS-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He started his anti-pollution fight in respect of the Strait of Juan de Fuca last summer and since then we seem to have lost both the sound and the picture. Would he tell us whether he is having any more success with the United States than he is with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in fighting tanker use of Cherry Point?


Some hon. Members:: Answer!


Mr. Speaker:: While someone is considering the question the Chair will recognize the hon. member for New Westminster.



HOUSING


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the concern he has just expressed about the AHOP program and social housing, in view of the fact many people believe this program is not being promoted properly among low-income families in order that the free enterprise market will not be disturbed, and in view of the

fact that many low-income families are buying houses from the free enterprise sector which they cannot afford, will the minister advise the House what steps he intends to take to make the benefits of this program known to low-income families? In particular, will he recommend that regional housing authorities advertise the benefits of this program in the real estate classified section of newspapers in competition with the private sector?


Stanley Ronald Basford: The answer to the question is yes, Mr. Speaker, within the limits of my budget. I think the hon. member may have not followed correctly one of my answers about the concern I have expressed with regard to implementing the neighbourhood improvement program and the repair and rehabilitation program, in respect of which we require provincial agreement. To use the hon. member's words, in promoting the program we have been running advertisements in weekly and daily newspapers across Canada directed toward the application of this program. I know that in my own city and in his area these advertisements have resulted in a thousand phone calls a day from those interested in the program. We will be holding seminars across Canada with CMHC to do precisely-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. minister would like to return to motions. The hon. member will be recognized for a supplementary and then the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Cumberland-Colchester North.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the purpose of directing the minister back to the specific question. Will he recommend to the regional housing authorities that they advertise in the real estate classified sections of the newspapers the benefits of this program in competition with the private sector?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I believe that advertising in other places than the want ads is a more effective way to advertise, but I will be happy to take advice on that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



FUNDY TIDAL POWER-STATUS OF RE-EXAMINATION OF REPORT

Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Is he in a position today to inform the House as to the exact status of the re-examination of the 1969 Fundy tidal power program board report, which has been under way now for some two years or more by his officials and officials of the governments of Nova Scotia and New Brunswick?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for notice of his question. I am advised that I will have a report on this tomorrow morning and I regret
November 14, 1973

to have to ask the hon. member to pose the question again tomorrow when I will try to answer in more detail.



RECREATION CANADA-JUSTIFICATION FOR ADVERTISING PROGRAM

Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Could he explain to the House why Recreation Canada in its massive "Participation" television advertising program, at great cost to the Canadian taxpayer, I might add, has failed to follow up the need for physical fitness with any kind of positive programs for the Canadian people, or does the minister feel that merely letting us know we are physically unfit is sufficient justification for this costly program?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. A question asked in such terms should obviously not be allowed.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS USE OF REPORT TABLED LAST YEAR IN FUTURE NEGOTIATIONS WITH QUEBEC ON CONSTITUTION

Mr. Gilles Marceau (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, as a member of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on the constitution, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Does the government, during its constitutional negotiations with the provinces and especially Quebec, intend to use the report tabled last session, after over a year of work, and which contains many important recommendations?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I entirely agree with the hon. member that the report contains indeed very useful recommendations as a result of the extremely important work performed, but the hon. member's question remains hypothetical. There is no constitutional discussion with Quebec. As for us, we do not expect any, but if Quebec would like to reopen the file, the report mentioned by the hon. member would surely be quite helpful.



POSSIBLE OPENING OF NEW COAL MINES IN CAPE BRETON-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, may I pose my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In light of the energy crisis
Oral Question Period
and the unfortunate possibility of it worsening, may I ask the hon. gentleman if he would consider meeting with Mr. Tom Kent, president of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, to explore with Mr. Kent and the board of that corporation the possibility of new coal mine openings in Cape Breton since, as the minister knows, the jurisdiction comes under the central government?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to consider that suggestion.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the resolution passed unanimously by the House on November 2 required that the text of the resolution which dealt with Skagit Valley flooding in British Columbia be delivered forthwith to certain governments of the United States, and in view of the fact word has been received by me today that this resolution has not been delivered to those governments, can the Prime Minister tell the House when the government plans to deliver the text of this resolution as required by unanimous vote of the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire into the question of who looks after such matters.



HOUSING

[Stage Direction]
SUGGESTED ABOLITION OF 11 PER CENT TAX ON [DOT]	BUILDING MATERIALS TO REDUCE COST
Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to previous questions concerning housing and is directed to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact the cost of shelter continues to increase to a point where now, for large numbers of Canadians, it has become an impossible dream to own a house, is the Prime Minister prepared to abolish or perhaps reduce the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials to help alleviate this situation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for the representation which is indeed an original one.


Walter C. Carter: Mr. Speaker, my question was quite clear. I am asking the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to take the necessary action to eliminate or reduce the 11 per cent sales tax on building materials to help Canadians obtain housing.

November 14, 1973
Oral Question Period


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer was clear. The hon. member should know that I do not announce tax changes during the question period.


John Howard Lundrigan: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is impossible. We have had today at least a dozen occasions when the Prime Minister has answered in this way.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: Nobody worries if an hon. member does not answer a question or perhaps does not have the information, but when the Prime Minister stands up and shows contempt for questions such as have been raised by my colleague I think the Parliament of Canada has some responsibility to put those boys in their place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, with great deference to you, could the House request or suggest that you rule on this point of order and, if it is not a point of order, indicate that it is completely out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour.


John Howard Lundrigan: Perhaps you would like to rule on his statement as well.


An hon. Member:: God help Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour.



INQUIRY AS TO LEGISLATION TO IMPLEMENT SEWAGE TREATMENT PROGRAM

Mr. Ed Nelson (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order please. There are just a few minutes left before the end of the question period and perhaps we should try to have two or three more questions. The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour has the floor.


Nels Edwin Nelson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I will try again. My question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the critical shortage of serviced lots, when does the minister expect to introduce legislation to implement the policy announced at the Edmonton tri-level conference dealing with a sewage treatment program, and can the minister assure the House that he will attempt to convince his colleague, the Minister of Finance, of the seriousness of his concern regarding this program?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I would anticipate introducing it after the new year following consultation with the provinces which, in Edmonton, I undertook to have with them. I hope to have this consultation with them during the next

month or five weeks. In the meantime, the changes in the land assembly provisions which were made in the National Housing Act are there, and we are anxious to use them as quickly as possible. The administrative changes I announced at Edmonton are being implemented.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Calgary South and then call orders of the day.



ESTABLISHMENT OF NATIONAL PETROLEUM CORPORATION-EFFECT ON SHORT-TERM SUPPLY SITUATION-DATE OF LIFTING CRUDE OIL PRICE FREEZE

Mr. Peter C. Bawden (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. This weekend the minister made a big point of the fact that the principal reason for a national petroleum company was to provide security of petroleum supply to Canada. Will the minister say whether such a company could have any near term effect on supply and what else the government is doing to ensure future supplies which is not being done already?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I set out at some length the arrangements we have made in the near term to secure supply. Of course, if a national petroleum corporation as such were to become government policy it would be directed to the longer term to secure over a period of time a greater assurance of supply than has been available under the private system.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Calgary South and then the hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour who also has a supplementary before calling orders of the day.


Peter Colwell Bawden: Mr. Speaker, would the minister say if the government is irrevocably committed to lifting the crude oil price freeze on January 30?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that is the policy as announced.



HOUSING


Nels Edwin Nelson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Will the minister be in a position to inform the House of the number of serviced lots in the next five years that will be available resulting from the changes in the sewage treatment program?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question ought to be placed on the order paper. Instead of that supplementary
November 14, 1973

the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Simcoe North.



NEED FOR INCREASED PERSONNEL TRAINED IN GERIATRICS-GOVERNMENT POSITION

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare a question. In view of the problem of the growing number of older people in Canada, a national health problem, with their increasing infirmities and sickness requiring increased medical skills in this field, I should like to ask the minister what steps are being taken through the health resources fund or other means to increase training in this field?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, about 25 per cent of the voluntary hospitalized cases in Canada are people in the aged group. The number of people specializing in geriatrics in Ontario, for instance, can be counted almost on one hand. The problem of the proper training of professional people is a matter under provincial responsibility, but I am discussing the matter with my colleagues.


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


Otto John Jelinek: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I say with all due respect that earlier in the question period I rose to ask a question of the Minister of National Health and Welfare that was of importance to all Canadians as physical fitness affects us all. This is obviously noticeable in viewing the massive television advertising program in which the government has been engaged. I should like to ask the minister, who was ready to rise to answer my question earlier, if he would rise now and confirm that the budget for "Par-ticipaction"-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that, even if the minister wanted to reply to the question, it was asked in such terms that it was not acceptable procedurally. Hon. members have a responsibility to ask questions in such a way as to conform to the well established norms. I think I have been lenient enough in allowing questions, and it is only when a question is clearly out of order that I suggest to hon. members that it cannot be accepted. Perhaps tomorrow the hon. member might rephrase his question.


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the point of order. The hon. member has the facts all wrong. "Participaction" is a private organization which receives a subsidy from the federal government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to both the minister and the hon. member that they are engaging in a debate, and that perhaps the question might be accepted without preamble tomorrow.
Middle East Peacekeeping Force


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising out of the difficulties we have encountered in the House during the question period. I wonder if the government does not owe the House an explanation as to why, with unemployment, problems of inflation and the ever-increasing cost of living-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member resume his seat. The hon. member attempts by way of a point of order to ask a question. That is an abuse of the rules.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved:: That it be resolved by the . . . House of Commons:
That it is expedient that the Houses of Parliament do approve the Government's decision that Canadian Forces participate in the United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East, and that this House do approve the same.
And that a Message be sent to the Senate informing Their Honours that this House has adopted a resolution approving of the participation of Canadian Forces in the United Nations Emergency Force in the Middle East, and requesting Their Honours to unite with this House in the approval of the same by filling up the blanks in the resolution with the words "Senate and" . . .

He said: Mr. Speaker, an uneasy ceasefire now prevails in the Middle Eastern battlefield which for 15 days, from October 6 to October 22, and again until October 26, witnessed the most furious and bloody fighting in that beleaguered area in modern times. The most sophisticated and destructive equipment was unleashed in the Sinai desert and the Golan plateau. The biggest tank battles since world war II raged on the ground, while dozens of aircraft were struck down from the skies every day, and in the surrounding waters several naval encounters took place near the harbours of the eastern Mediterranean. Peaceful navigation and trade were interrupted to the point where even some of the government's of that oil rich region were forced to ration gasoline. Casualties mounted rapidly, and even now we are uncertain as to their extent, although the total must be unbearably high, especially in relation to the results achieved.
The mounting fury of the fight was possibly the only reason why it so abruptly ceased. The great powers who were supplying arms in increasing quantity to each side fortunately realized that they were being drawn into a dangerous confrontation, with the Soviet Union talking of unilateral intervention on the scene, while the United States placed its own forces on an increased state of alert. It was at this crucial stage that the United Nations Security Council agreed to the establishment and dispatch of an

November 14, 1973
Middle East Peacekeeping Force emergency force to supervise a ceasefire and separate efforts to prevent a recurrence of the fighting.
Given the circumstances as I have just recalled them, there could be no doubt in anyone's mind that never had an emergency measure of this nature been so evidently and urgently necessary. While Canada did not seek participation in the emergency force, we were determined that once we were invited it would be a success, and I am sure this is a point of view that would be supported by all parties in the House. We were asked at an early stage by the Secretary General of the United Nations to contribute in a vitally important role. Just two and a half hours ago the Secretary General of the United Nations was on the telephone to me urging the importance of Canada's participation and urging our participation in certain of these vital functions upon which the whole of UNEF depends.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: After due consideration, the government decided to accept the request and communicated this decision to parliament. In accordance with the practice followed in the past when a Canadian contingent has been contributed to a peacekeeping force, as opposed to the sending of peace observers, we are asking parliament to approve the government's decision. Leaders of all parties represented here indicated, in response to my announcement of October 30, that they supported a Canadian contribution to peacekeeping under the United Nations in the Middle East if it appeared there was a useful role for us to play. Spokesmen for all parties took the same view as I did, that no one could say no to such a request.
The concept of peacekeeping or peace observation forces under the United Nations, which owes so much of its development to a great Canadian, our former prime minister and a member of this House, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: -is firmly supported by this government, as it has been by previous Canadian governments of all political stripes. We did not, however, accept the call to join a new UNEF without careful consideration. Experience over the years, some of it rather disappointing, has led us to look for certain criteria that, in our judgment, should be met if a peacekeeping operation is to be effective and if Canadian participation in it is to be worthwhile. We have no illusions that in this imperfect world the criteria for an ideal peacekeeping operation will ever be met in full. These criteria must, however, be constantly reiterated and promoted if peacekeeping is to be made a more effective instrument rather than a source of disillusionment to a world community hungry for peace.
The criteria Canada seeks to apply when considering participation in a peacekeeping operation include certain points of a political nature, as well as others of a more technical kind. A fundamental point is the existence of a threat to international peace and security. There is no doubt of that in this case. Ideally, peacekeeping should be directly linked to agreement on a political settlement among the parties to the conflict. At least there should be reasonable expectations that the parties will negotiate a settlement. The peacekeeping force must be responsible to

a political authority and preferably that authority should be the United Nations. The sponsoring authority should receive reports and have adequate power to supervise the mandate of the force. The parties to the conflict must accept the peacekeeping force and Canadian participation in it must be acceptable to all concerned. Further considerations are that the peacekeeping force must have a clear mandate, including such things as freedom of movement, and that there must be an agreed and equitable method of financing the operation.
Some of these criteria were not met when we participated in the International Commission in Viet Nam, or in Cyprus in 1964, or in the UNEF of 1956. After our departure from Viet Nam, I made it clear that certain features of the operation made it impossible for the commission to operate effectively. One major impediment was the absence of a political authority to which it could report.
The United Nations may not be the only possible sponsoring body, but we have not yet found better auspices under which to work at peacekeeping. It is therefore a matter of satisfaction that in the Middle Eastern situation the emergency force should be put under the authority of the UN. To be precise, it is under the command of the United Nations, vested in the Secretary General, and under the authority of the Security Council.
In 1964, the House debated the dispatch of a Canadian contingent to Cyprus under great pressure of time and in circumstances which did not allow for the application of rigorous conditions. The island was on the brink of civil war with intervention threatened from neighbouring countries, and peacekeeping troops had to be sent as quickly as possible. For nine years, the United Nations force in Cyprus has kept conflict from breaking out and it must therefore be counted, to that extent, as a success. It has not, however, led to a settlement of the underlying problems. The absence of a direct link between a peacekeeping force and a negotiated settlement is a weakness, perhaps an unavoidable one, in the Cyprus situation.
Another weakness of the Cyprus peacekeeping operation is the absence of equitable financial arrangements. This time we are determined that the treatment accorded Canada should be equitable to that accorded to other contributing countries. The Secretary General has stated that his preliminary estimates of the United Nations own direct costs for UNEF, based upon past experience and practice, are $30 million for the six month period authorized by the Security Council. These costs are to be considered expenses of the United Nations organization and are to be borne by the members of the United Nations as apportioned by the General Assembly, presumably in about the same proportions as each country's share in the United Nations annual budget. Canada's share of that budget is currently 3.08 per cent. I might point out to the House that even if we did not participate in this peacekeeping operation we would of course still pay our share of the peacekeeping costs.
It is worth recalling that Canadians have been participating for many years in the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization in the Middle East, and that UNTSO continues to exist and to perform a useful role on
November 14, 1973

the ceasefire lines. Our previous experience in the Middle East in 1956, which was the first major United Nations venture in peacekeeping, is naturally very much in our minds at this time. Sadly, we seem to be back where we were 17 years ago. In fact the request to Canada to participate in the 1973 UNEF is due in great part to the fact that we have special skills and experience, not only in peacekeeping generally but in peacekeeping in the Middle East, and in the role that is now assigned to our contingent. I would remind the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) that this was the role that was assigned to us at that particular time.
The original request from the Secretary General for Canadian participation on October 27 was in terms of Canada supplying the logistic component of the force. That role has been assigned to us precisely because of the effective way in which Canada discharged it from 1956 to 1967, and the skills that our troops demonstrated in doing their jobs. Two aspects of our previous experience are relevant to the new task assigned to Canada in the same area. First, the way in which UNEF had to terminate its peacekeeping function in 1967 and evacuate the Middle East gave rise to a great deal of discussion, both at the United Nations and in Canada. From that unhappy episode certain lessons have been drawn.
There is no point in participating in a peacekeeping operation unless our participation is acceptable to all, and especially to the sovereign state upon whose soil the force is to be deployed. I can assure the House that we did not accept this task until the Secretary General had given us formal assurance that the presence of a Canadian contingent would be acceptable to all parties, and especially to Egypt, since UNEF will be deployed on Egyptian territory. In addition, I confirmed the Egyptian agreement personally with the Foreign Minister of Egypt when I met him a few days ago in Washington.
Part of the difficulty encountered with the original UNEF in 1956 was that it did not come under the authority of the Security Council and did not have the unqualified backing of the great powers. Nor was the mandate of the force so clearly set out and accepted by the parties concerned. The first UNEF in the Middle East was a brilliant improvisation that brought the international community back from the edge of disaster but could not ensure peace. This time the superpowers jointly proposed a peacekeeping force, and all members of the Security Council, except China, approved.
The Secretary General in his report to the Security Council on October 26, 1973, set out as essential conditions that the force must have at all times the full confidence and backing of the Security Council, and that it must operate with the full co-operation of the parties concerned. This report was approved by the Security Council and we felt more assured that the 1973 UNEF was to be on a sounder basis than that of 1956. It is on that basis that we acceded to the Secretary General's request of October 27 and accepted our assignment on the force.
Subsequently, an argument developed in the Security Council about having representation in UNEF of various geographical and political groupings. We can understand the desirability of having representation of various geographical areas in a UN force. However, Canada does not
Middle East Peacekeeping Force view its participation in UNEF in terms of political representation but in terms of performing an essential function. When I have been asked from time to time shouldn't there be a representative of the Warsaw Pact as well as a representative of NATO, of which Canada is a member, I have said that we do not consider ourselves as acting in the capacity of representing anyone but the international community as a whole.
In any event, the Security Council decided that the logistic role should be shared between Canada and Poland. I have made it clear that there is no objection on our part to working with Poland, provided a clear and practical division of responsibilities can be worked out. Our concern is with the efficient operation of the logistics component. It is unfortunate that the debate in the Security Council delayed the dispatch of logistical support units by a full week and threw some confusion on the Canadian role in UNEF. Following the Security Council's agreement of November authorizing the Secretary General to consult with potential contributors, including Canada and Poland, our ambassador to the United Nations continued discussions with officials from the UN secretariat and Poland on the organization and composition of the logistics element.
At the same time, at the request of the Secretary General evaluation teams were dispatched to Cairo to assess the requirements on the ground. As a result of these discussions the Secretary General requested, and we agreed, that as the first phase in the deployment of a Canadian contingent Canada would provide a signals unit to provide communications for the force. Poland will be dispatching an engineer unit as the first element in its contribution.
The Secretary General is continuing his discussions with both Canada and Poland to determine the next phase of the logistics deployment, and in particular the allocation of functions between the two countries. In these discussions we have sought to consider in a constructive manner proposals put forward by the Secretary General, while having in mind the need to ensure that Canada will be able to provide a useful and effective contribution to the operation of the force. At the moment the government is giving active consideration to a proposal from the Secretary General that Canada provide an air unit. A request has been made to Poland to provide a field hospital unit. In addition, the Secretary General has made suggestions regarding the division of responsibilities between Canada and Poland with respect to the remaining logistic functions. The discussions have been complex and time-consuming, but I am hopeful that we may be in a position to announce shortly the details of the composition of the remainder of the Canadian contingent.
While these negotiations continue, the advance party of the Canadian signals unit arrived in Cairo on November 10. The deployment of this unit should be completed shortly and will number over 400 persons. This unit is being dispatched according to the schedule determined by the Secretary General. He wanted the advance party of the unit on the ground as soon as possible because of the urgent requirement for an effective communications system within UNEF.

November 14, 1973
Middle East Peacekeeping Force
Another point demonstrated by the history of UNEF from 1956 to 1967 is that a peacekeeping force of this kind should be recognized by all parties as a temporary necessity, to help avoid a renewal of fighting while the parties to the conflict take up the fundamental problem which has led them to fight each other in the first place. It is precisely because the parties involved never made any progress toward a peaceful settlement in the ten years following 1956 that ultimately UNEF had to depart without any other prospect than renewed warfare. With this in mind, I stressed on October 22, that while we warmly welcomed the call for a ceasefire, it was vitally important in our view that the ceasefire should lead quickly to negotiations on the basic problems of the Middle East.
There is now a renewed opportunity for the parties involved to employ the respite that UNEF provides to tackle their basic differences. The principles of a just and lasting settlement have been set out since 1967 in Security Council Resolution 242 but until now no progress has been made in implementing that resolution and no negotiations based on its principles have taken place. Resolution 338 of October 22, 1973 which is the basis for the present ceasefire, also deals with the problem of a peaceful settlement. It calls for an immediate beginning to the implementation of Resolution 242 in all its parts and for the beginning of negotiation between the parties under appropriate auspices.
Mr. Speaker, UNEF is not charged with the basic problems involved in a Middle East settlement. Its tasks are limited to supervising the implementation of the ceasefire, the return of the parties to their October 22 positions and the use of its best efforts to prevent a recurrence of fighting. These will be the tests of UNEF and they will be acid tests. Should the parties to the recent conflict fail to comply with the Security Council resolutions and not allow UNEF to operate effectively, the gleam of hope that the ceasefire and Resolution 338 offer will be threatened with quick extinction. Let us pray that the parties involved will therefore quickly agree to comply with these first steps on the road toward peace.
There is no question that Canadians are desirous of a lasting peace and a lasting settlement in the Middle East and, while it may not be the task of UNEF to promote this settlement, it is still the responsibility of every member of the United Nations to do what it can to help bring about this peace and this settlement. In my statement of October 16 I emphasized that
parties to the conflict would first have to agree on the basis of a settlement and terms of reference for such a force for Canada to accept participation in peacekeeping.
Both the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) stressed that our participation could only be undertaken with the consent of the immediate parties involved, and I have dwelt on our efforts to ensure this. I v'ould add that the consent of the parties must be not only to accept the members of the peacekeeping force but also to facilitate its work by complying with the resolution which gave it birth. By their compliance with the Security Council resolutions, the parties will make our task worth while.

There is encouragement in the fact that for the first time in some 20 years Israeli and Egyptian generals have met and signed an agreement on some urgent problems of the ceasefire situation. The governments of Egypt and of Israel displayed wisdom in accepting these arrangements, and I am sure that I speak for all the House when I say that the United States Secretary of State, Mr. Kissinger, deserves high commendation for the effectiveness of his good offices.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: We can only hope that these immediate arrangements will lead to further discussions and further agreement.
As I have said, the framework for peace exists in the resolutions adopted by the Security Council. The problem in our view has never been so much one of interpretation as of implementation of these resolutions. I further indicated in the House last week, in reply to a question, that in our view such provisions of Resolution 242-which we can read in either English or French since we are a bilingual country-as those calling for the withdrawal of Israeli forces from occupied territories and the establishment of secure and recognized boundaries for all states in the region, had to be taken together. Naturally, such matters as the drawing of boundaries may prove to be a long task, but is it beyond imagination to devise means of starting the implementation of the various provisions simultaneously?
The so-called Rogers Plan in 1970 provided for partial implementation of Resolution 242, by a simultaneous reopening of the Suez Canal to navigation and a withdrawal by Israeli forces from the east bank of the canal. While that plan failed, the idea of balance is still a valid one. In fact, the whole basis of Resolution 242 is a balance of obligations and commitments. The problem of Palestinian refugees is one of the items in that balance. The resolution affirms the necessity "for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem" and this problem should be at least broached simultaneously with the other matters I have mentioned. Canada has not forgotten these refugees. We are the third largest contributor to the United Nations agency which looks after their needs and we have just increased by $550,000 our contribution for the current year.
The main thing now is quickly to get around to negotiating "under appropriate auspices" as Security Council Resolution 338 has it. To us, it would seem that the United Nations offers appropriate auspices. Others have mentioned the great powers, or some of them. We would hope that they would exert their influence to stimulate the parties to begin negotiations. To the Canadian government, any auspices would seem appropriate that provide a means whereby talks can begin on the essential aspects of the problem.
For more than 25 years, the United Nations has played the role of mediator, peacekeeper and truce supervisor in the Middle East. We cannot yet be sure that peace is any closer now than in 1948, 1956 or 1967. Once more, the parties in conflict are calling upon the United Nations to step in and give them time, time that can be used to negotiate for peace or to prepare for war. The Canadian
November 14, 1973

government, in accepting to contribute its part to the UN peace effort, is not taking on this commitment in a spirit of blind optimism. We have had too long an experience in this field, the United Nations has had too long an experience in trying to find a peaceful settlement in the Middle East for anyone to be afflicted with that particular defect. We consider that we have a responsibility to the world community and to all the people of the Middle East to do what we can to give them another chance to achieve a peaceful settlement when the fighting has stopped. That is the purpose of UNEF, and the reason for our participating in it. In putting forward this resolution, therefore, I am asking the House to agree that Canada should do its international duty.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[Transla tion]


Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, a serious debate like this one has little use for the exclamations of some back-benchers who wish to turn it into a farce. We think-and I mention in particular the member for Levis (Mr. Guay) -


Mr. Guay (Levis):: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
If these remarks are considered frivolous, then I do not consider them to be more serious on TV because I have quoted the exact words said last week by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), who called us the firemen of the world. I do not think that this expression is better chosen for him than it is for me.


Claude Wagner: When I see that my friends on the opposite side start to protest and to shout, I surely hit the mark, and I can assure the House that it is only a beginning.
Mr. Speaker, to speak in a calmer tone than that of the hon. member for Levis, who will surely find a way to intervene in the debate if his colleagues allow him, I wish to mention that we were particularly moved, from the very first words of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), to hear the message he had just received, at the beginning of the debate, from the United Nations Secretary General. However, Mr. Speaker, I wish our legitimate interest in Canada were demonstrated not only at the opening of a debate aimed at getting the consensus of all parties on a resolution representing an unilateral decision of the government but also that this interest were demonstrated in many other ways and particularly during the debates before Canada was invited to contribute to the peace force.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that Parliament is once more-and it is becoming a habit-presented with a fait accompli. This House is invited not to give advice or contribute to a decision, but to approve a decision of the government. The present government has been unable to learn its lesson during the Viet Nam crisis. And if on October 30-as I recognize the quotation from my previous speech used by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp)-we have, based on the available data, accepted that Canada contribute to the peace effort in the Middle East.
Middle East Peacekeeping Force
Since November 1, the day when the Secretary of State for External Affairs made this House aware of new and apparently sudden problems concerning the Canadian contribution to the United Nations intervention in the Middle East, since that day we have been waiting for a debate that would have allowed Parliament to go beyond what we were asking of the Secretary of State for External Affairs on October 30 and like on March 13, 1964 during the Cyprus conflict under the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, and to participate in the decision before troops are sent on the scene of the cease-fire. But once again, we are sorry to see that the government did not wish it to be so and if we rejoiced last Sunday upon hearing about the agreement concluded between Israel and the UAR, we deplored-and still do-the government's attitude regarding the rights and prerogatives of a minority Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, let it be clear that we are in favour of a just, strong and permanent settlement in the Middle East. Neither do we refuse any more than any other Canadian the sacrifices which must be made in pursuing this ideal of peace and whatever form our contribution takes, we want it to be accomplished with generosity and we know that it will be so. However, in expressing our support for the peace-seeking efforts of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, we must none the less play the role we have as the Official Opposition in Parliament.
I am sure that not a single field of government activity should escape Parliament's criticism, not even that majestic and noble field which is the Department of External Affairs. And that is why, Mr. Speaker, it is our intention today to say clearly to the government what we think of its behaviour during these last weeks and it is our intention to go beyond the narrow setting of an incident to question the government and heckle it, if need be, so that it will give us a definition of an overall policy as concerns Canada's participation in those peace missions.
We have absolutely no doubt as to the experience, efficiency, motivation or fair-mindedness of our Canadian troops among the international peace contingents, but we seriously question-and we make no bones about it-the methods used by this government, its approach in its participation to emergency forces here and there in the world.
After the 1967 eviction in the Middle East and the rather sad experience in 1973 in Viet Nam, it is only legitimate and wise, considering the eagerness and unilateralism of this government, to urge it, as we wish to do, to define its course in that field.

The resolution, Mr. Speaker, which the House is called upon today to approve has both obvious and implicit elements which evoke, I am sure, varying reactions from all members of this House. The suggestion that Canada should respond to a call from the United Nations, and do so in both an energetic and efficient manner, when what is at stake may be the shaky calm which is necessary as a prerequisite to serious negotiations between the Arabs and Israelis, is surely something that few Canadians would care to oppose. The suggestion that the government has the legal right, or the legalistic right, to make a

November 14, 1973
Middle East Peacekeeping Force commitment and then seek parliamentary approval, while objectionable in the context of this minority House, lacks neither precedent nor historical model.
However, Mr. Speaker, there is more to this resolution than meets the eye. For, whether parliamentarians like it or not, blanket approval of this resolution, without raising some clear and concise questions, will also imply approval of the way in which the minister proceeded, the role of the Soviet Union and Egypt in determining our role, and the entire thrust of the government's mad scurrying about to ensure that Canada would participate. Mr. Speaker, my colleagues and I are not prepared to give this government that sort of blank cheque.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: If, as most Canadians justifiably believe, we have a certain expertise in the area of peacekeeping, if, as history shows, our troops have been able on repeated occasions to remain cool, efficient and consistently competent in the most delicate and tense of situations, this quality and ability is something of immense value to the world. Its value stands on its own merit and record. Those in the community of nations who chose not to recognize it, for ideological or other reasons, pay tribute only to their own narrowmindedness and parochialism. But I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, and I doubt whether the minister truly believes, that the hard international currency of good will which our peacekeeping ability provides is served by artificially inflating that currency or tossing it about.
Frankly, Mr. Speaker, Canada should be prepared to serve when asked. Canada has no business begging to serve.


Mitchell William Sharp: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: We have the responsibility of considering exactly what has happened to the tone and colour of our participation in the UN force over in the Middle East. Are we now there as the surrogate of western interests, necessitating the involvement, objectionable to many, of Polish troops in that effort? Are we truly an internationalized participant or are our forces and their expertise now being used purely as an element of balance? While no one doubts the importance of such a role, would the issue of balance have arisen if Canada had not insisted? Did the minister serve Canada, its international standing and the reputation of our peacekeeping operation, by dragging us through a process of inspection and approval on the part of the Soviets and the Egyptians?
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, I believe we have right to know exactly what the minister did when he was in New York. Was he responding to an invitation-or was he generating one? None can deny that the involvement of Canadians in the communications and logistics role will be a great boon to the efficiency and success of the UN operation in the Middle East. None can doubt that our men will perform with the same concern for excellence and professionalism as characterizes their general comportment and sense of duty. Those qualities are not in doubt here. The actions and motivations of the government are.

Mr. Speaker, one would have thought that the relative success of our military operations within the UN, as compared with those on the ICCS, would have indicated the perils of a situation wherein Canada becomes a counterweight as opposed to an internationalized participant. While we do, of course, appreciate that once a balance and counterbalance situation has been established we have a duty to see our commitments through, one would have thought that even this government would have been able to glean from the Viet Nam situation that such situations are to be avoided where possible. Present evidence indicates that they chose not only not to avoid it, but to seek it out.


Mitchell William Sharp: Not true!


Claude Wagner: I could not but help get the impression when I saw the minister rushing down to New York that notwithstanding his protestations his vigour and panic were in the interest of saving a foreign policy in need of review and tightening up, rather than of more altruistic purposes. I could not help but feel that while the Canadian people could very easily have stood a refusal, or even the lack of an invitation just this once, the minister and the cabinet could not. I don't mind saying that the role of international fireman becomes just a little hackneyed when the fireman lets it be known he really wouldn't mind an invitation to the next or present fire, thank you very much.
While the direct implications of the motion limit the parliamentary options, my party takes the view that there is a responsibility on the government's part to initiate a fundamental review of the direction of our foreign policy and the nature of our international posture in years to come. If we are unacceptable to some, because of our alliances, then we have to decide with whom we choose to seek favour. If our record of international peacekeeping and UN participation is not acceptable to some, this should not imply that we allow our international role to be dictated by those who raise the objections. Surely, the many men and women who have given many hours, days and months in international peacekeeping service to this nation deserve more support and faith from the minister than that!
We are faced with a delicate calm in the Middle East, a calm that may, indeed, be the promise of more solid and long-lasting peace arrangements in years to come. It is clear that Canada, now involved in the operation over there, can or should do nothing to upset or even disturb that calm. The bind which men of good will find in opposing this resolution does not extend to our general lack of faith in the minister's general activities. A larger concern for peace in the Middle East only displaces our concern on that score for the time being.
My colleagues will support the resolution-


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Ha!


Claude Wagner: -simply because ... I hear a laugh from the member on the other side. He did not wait for the end of my sentence.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: I am still laughing.
November 14, 1973


Claude Wagner: Members opposite jump to conclusions as usual, which is a very sad state of affairs. We will support this resolution simply because to do otherwise would contribute to disturbing the shaky Mid-East calm already established. However, on the principle of the future and appropriate role for our peacekeeping capacity, we are resolute in our refusal to accept any of the weird and extended flirtations of the minister in this situation as either noteworthy or notable precedent. For while this may be the way the minister chooses to operate, this is not the most appropriate fashion to best use and deploy our peacekeeping role within the realm of international politics.
Canada has progressed beyond the surrogate role, and has done so despite existing alliances and commitments to the west. Previous governments have been able to maintain that balance without threatening our international posture and reputation. This government has not. I know views are often expressed to the effect that, whatever a government's weaknesses and inefficiencies-and this government has plenty of those-the managing of external affairs and international relations can usually be kept outside partisan considerations. I regret to say, Mr. Speaker, that the minister's bungling indicates that, no matter how you look at it, the cancerous decay infecting this government's domestic incompetence is indeed spreading.
[ Transla tion]
Happily, Mr. Speaker, we shall soon be able to give back to the country and to this government an image and prestige, on an international level,-


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Petty politics.


Claude Wagner: -an image and prestige that it is now unfortunately losing because of what the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) calls the "petty politics" of the members of this government.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it will come as no surprise if I announce at the beginning of my remarks that we in the New Democratic Party intend to support this motion. However, there are a few additional remarks I feel obliged to make before I take my seat.
I suppose I am fortunate in that on many occasions my sense of frustration at the procedures pursued in this august chamber is balanced by my sense of the ridiculous. Otherwise, the utter futility of many of the pseudo-events here would tip me into a suicidal depression. Here we are engaged in a debate to decide whether or not we should send troops to participate in a Mid-East peacekeeping force after the commitment to do so has been made and when a substantial portion of the troops involved is already on its way.
I realize that the minister had the right to assume, on the basis of statements made in this House by party spokesmen, that there was agreement in principle to undertaking the enterprise. I also realize that, once the difficulties at the United Nations had been sorted out, the government was in good faith obliged to react with all possible speed. I suppose I could take comfort in the fact that today's debate maintains the form if not the substance of the obligation, established by custom but obliga-
Middle East Peacekeeping Force tion none the less, for the government to consult parliament before sending troops abroad on active service, but I do not.
Why could not this House have organized itself to respond more quickly to the situation? We could have discussed the matter Friday afternoon, Friday evening, Saturday, Monday or even yesterday. It would have put us out a bit, but then so are the men going over there and their families being put out a bit, to put it mildly. It is not my intention to sound holier than thou in saying this. I am part of this House and as responsible for its actions as anybody else. But all too often we react more like the denizens of some musty retired gentlemen's club than like people charged with looking after the interests of this nation.
I want to give vent to a bit more spleen on a more peripheral issue before I get down to cases. I think it is unfortunate in the extreme that circumstances conspired to oblige the minister, or to make him feel obliged, to dash off to New York and Washington and back again at a time when Canada's acceptability as a participant in the peacekeeping force was in question. I accept the minister's word that he was requested to do so by the Secretary General of the United Nations. I also accept his word that he was not preaching for a call. Further, I believe that the minister would have preferred to have expressed our willingness to participate and then allow the Security Council to accept or reject us. Instead, he did end up looking as though he was overly anxious to participate.
What forced our country into an undignified posture, I believe, was the childish attitude of the two superpowers who insisted upon injecting further elements of east-west confrontation into the Middle East situation, striking more sparks around what is generally acknowledged to be a powder keg. It is my understanding that the United States objected to the inclusion of a Warsaw pact nation in the force, while the Soviet Union insisted upon a "geographical", for which read "ideological", balance. I think it is about time that the two super-powers stopped playing their silly little games, allowing themselves the luxury of ego trips, and began soberly discharging their responsibilities to the world which their power has imposed upon them.
Their latest little game has succeeded in confirming the opinion of all who were inclined to think that Canada is the American's cat's paw that we are just that. I can support such a minor blow to my pride, but it does not endear either the Soviet Union or the United States to me. But that is a minor consideration and one which can be forgiven. Nevertheless, I think it is important to note that the squabbling and nattering that accompanied the creation of the force should provide solid evidence to those nations that believe in the settlement of disputes through negotiation and through the application of such law as applies, rather than through the use of force majeure, that new efforts should be made immediately to create a standing United Nations force which is provided for in the charter.
To return to the role of the superpowers, I was saying that I could forgive them the fact that they, through their little games, had caused my country some not inconsiderable embarrassment. But what cannot be forgiven is the

November 14, 1973
Middle East Peacekeeping Force two superpowers' total lack of responsibility in their approach to the Middle East following the six day war of 1967. Rather than urging their client states to begin the negotiations which were called for in resolution 242, rather than attempting to clear away some of the considerations which prevented negotiations, they encouraged their respective friends in their intransigence. One could not fault either of the two had they tried and failed. The problem is so complex as to seem to defy solution. But they did not try. On the contrary, they supplied arms to the two sides at an ever-increasing rate, and in so doing made the current outbreak of fighting almost inevitable.
Not only that, during the fighting they engaged in posturing and provocation which ended with the United States going to a Stage 3 alert, an alert which places the nuclear forces of its Strategic Air Command at an advanced state of readiness. Now, that is madness. They should be told so in no uncertain terms and reminded of their responsibility to attempt to secure a lasting peace from this truce, shaky as it is. I do not know how much good such representations would do because neither of the two nations shows much disposition to listen to all we lesser mortals when they have the bit in their teeth, but it is our world too and most of us would like to go on living in it. It is that face which makes my party believe Canada has no choice but to accept the invitation to participate in the peacekeeping force, however uncertain its prospects for success may appear to be, and I am pleased to note that the recent exchanges between Egypt and Israel provide a small ray of hope in an otherwise gloomy picture.
The Middle East situation has within it the potential to be to a third world conflict what the Balkans were to the first. That is not a prediction, Mr. Speaker. I am not that pessimistic, but it is, I think, an acknowledgement of the facts. If our presence, and, that of the other nations involved in UNEF, provides even the slightest prospect for an improvement in the situation then it is in the interest of the world and in our own self-interest that we go. It is also our responsibility because we are part of the world community which gave birth to the current situation, and as such we have an obligation to do what we can to assist in the resolution of the problem.
I would hope that the respite from major fighting which the presence of the peacekeeping force may provide will be utilized by all participants in the dispute, and their not so silent partners, to seek ways and means of effectively pursuing the instructions of the Security Council resolution of October 22. I think the world community must seize the same opportunity to acquaint the belligerents and their allies that the situation cannot be allowed to go on festering, that the dangers to world peace are too great to allow it to do so and that any party to the dispute which seems to be devoting less than 100 per cent effort to achieving a solution will be extremely unpopular, indeed. Too much is at stake.
I am not unaware of the difficulties involved in unravelling the Gordion knot that is Middle East politics. I am not unaware of the emotions, the fears, the hatreds and the sense of resolve of all those engaged. It is very easy for me here in Canada to stand in my place and yell: "Do something", but it still needs to be said. It is our world

too, as I said before. It is our world, but at this moment it is their blood, and I know I speak for everyone here when I express, with all the sincerity I can muster, my sympathy for those who have lost loved ones and to those who have been wounded, and when I express also the hope that this time all will find peace and justice and security: The two million Palestinian refugees who have been denied their homeland, the Israelis who have, after 2,000 years of hope, rebuilt their national state and now must constantly guard against its loss, the Egyptians, the Jordanians and the Syrians who suffer the indignity of seeing foreign troops on their soil.
Like other parties in this House, my party has no pat formula to offer for the resolution of the conflict. I can only say on behalf of my colleagues that we stand ready to support the government on any reasonable steps it takes to discharge Canada's responsibilities as a member of the world community in respect of the Middle East.
In relation to the actual contribution we are making to the peacekeeping force, I would like to suggest to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson), who I understand will be speaking later, that it would be of interest to all of us to learn precisely what numbers are being attached to UNEF, what units they represent, what precise roles they will be fulfilling and what major equipment they will employ. We would also be interested to know if any significant numbers of troops have been withdrawn from our NATO brigade or from our own contingent in Cyprus in order to fulfill our commitments. I have some fear that the effectiveness of our forces remaining in Canada and elsewhere in the world might be compromised because our armed forces are now spread so thin, and so many of those sent to UNEF will of necessity be technical support troops of which we do not have a surplus. That remark was not made by way of suggesting we should not have accepted a role in UNEF but by way of suggesting that the Minister of Defence had better soon undertake an examination of the composition of our forces, and the number of roles assigned to them, in order to decide whether or not the two are compatible.
I think at this point it would be appropriate to say a special word of thanks to our troops in Cyprus, who are currently stretched extremely thin and working exceptionally long hours in order to fill in for the troops of other nations which have been transferred from Cyprus to Egypt. They are doing Canada proud. I hope the minister is concerning himself about arranging for the force to be brought back up to strength.
To our troops now in the Middle East, those now on their way and those soon to be sent, we in the New Democratic Party have every confidence that they will acquit themselves with their customary excellence, in a manner which will bring honour to their country.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that it is the view of my party that the government has acted entirely correctly in accepting the invitation of the Secretary General of the United Nations to contribute a contingent to UNEF. This responsibility which Canada has undertaken is not, as some would have us believe, a romantic gesture of nobility. It is a sober contribution to a desperate attempt to put an end to the fighting in the Middle East and toward world peace. It is an important

contribution in an attempt to build up an accepted mechanism for dealing with armed conflict. It is an acceptance of our responsibilities as a member of the world community and a concrete expression of our commitment to the concept of collective security under the UN. Our selfinterest, if nothing else, dictates that we take every opportunity proffered which has some prospect of strengthening the UN.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, last Sunday all Canada celebrated Armistice Day, the anniversary of the signature of the treaty which put an end to the Second World War.
Everyone celebrates Armistice Day. It is a civic holiday, but as soon as it is over, we come back to the House of Commons to talk about another conflict which could even turn into another world war since the United Nations are concerned with it, as are the United States and the USSR in one way or another.
Being a pacific country in North America, Canada must also concern itself with this conflict, either by siding with one of the parties concerned or by remaining neutral as a peacemaking agent.
In fact, a contingent of Canadian soldiers is already in the field; they act as observers and members of the UN forces. We have reached a point where all countries of the world, in addition to administering their own internal affairs, have to complicate their parliamentary and governmental proceedings with the Middle East crisis which seems to us to be the focal point of the attention of every country in the world, in that small countries with only three or four million people put in action the economic and military super powers of the whole world.
In 1948, the United Nations provided a measure of stability to this area by providing Israel with fixed borders, thereby giving rise to the Palestinian refugee problem. These refugees, who then numbered about 1,500,000 sought asylum in the small neighbouring Arab countries. Some of them have dug roots there and started a new life, but a great many are still looking for employment and a suitable occupation. Abandoned, without any sort of known organization or leadership, they are faced with continuing discontent among all these displaced persons, the innocent victims of decisions aimed at giving a land to a people who have been wandering for over 2,000 years and trying to settle in all countries of the world, unable on its own to organize itself.
If Israel now has a population of about three million, mainly thanks to the "importation" of money and citizens from many countries of the world, and following the donation or occupation of territories with the support of Great Britain and of the United Nations, we should not forget that the former residents of those territories, mostly Arabs, have had to leave their dwellings either on their own free will or because they were driven out by new occupants. They were expatriated and dissiminated near the borders either in Jordan, in Lebanon, in Syria or in the UAR. Those who have been able to adapt are living fairly
Middle East Peacekeeping Force well but almost 500,000 are still in refuge camps at the mercy of the charity of the United Nations, of the Arab countries or of other nations.
Most of those refugees are people who were too old to start all over again after such a displacement. The same inconveniences may be found in those mass displacements in the case of forced expropriation in our own country when it comes to expropriate thousands of farmers and other citizens conveniently settled on their lands or in their village; the oldest are those who find it most difficult to start again from scratch.
Obviously those refugees living in the Arab countries or in the neighbourhood of Israel are frustrated and are a source of discord but this indicates at least that Israel should be satisfied with the 1948 boundaries and not repeatedly seek to expand its territory which was not freely given by the natives but forcefully granted by agreements concluded by foreign nations, major countries or the United Nations. Those 500,000 Palestinian refugees alone are a hard problem to settle in the midst of a climate of discord.
It is therefore important that Israel be content with the boundaries granted willingly or not in 1948, leave the neighbouring countries at peace and refrain from any attempt at enlarging their territory so that Arab states not be tempted to push Israelis behind boundaries established in 1948.
In 1967, international diplomacy tried to resolve this problem by introducing Security Council Resolution No. 242 which called for the withdrawal of Israel forces back to their boundaries as established in 1948.
In 1967, the famous Six Day war broke out, the Israelis tried to enlarge their territory at the expense of neighbour Arab countries, a territory that had been occupied by Arabs for more than 2,000 years. As years go by, through diplomatic exchanges or takeovers by mere movements of people, utter confusion still shrouds the boundaries of these small countries where one can see Egypt reach friendly agreements with the USSR or Israel with the United States.
And now these two super powers, at the same time as the United Nations, are trying to effect a settlement between small countries that are unable to reconcile their differences themselves. Therefore, this is a tiny nest of dissent right in the middle of Asia, Africa and Europe that threatens to involve the United States and the Soviet Union. Eventually, this small piece of land, where only about 15 million people are living, might give rise to world war III.
It is really surprising that the situation has come to that point. How come these small countries are strong enough to involve all the great powers of the world? This is a mystery that is difficult to explain. But we find ourselves in this really important situation, and we can no longer close our eyes to it. We have seen quite recently Mr. Kissinger propose that an Israeli-Arab peace conference be held around December 9 or 10 in Geneva, but he stated that even though "peace negotiations are positive, a very serious problem will continue to exist, in particular for Israel, as regards the maintenance of its own security."

November 14, 1973
Middle East Peacekeeping Force
Mr. Kissinger explained that it is always difficult to determine the boundaries of these countries, for they differ from those established at the time of the truce. And he added: "What we must avoid above all is that each and every crisis should become a conflict between super-powers."
Things being what they are, Mr. Speaker, what can Canada do? I think we should participate in the activities of the United Nations, like we already do, and participate in the peacekeeping force and co-operate with such benevolent groups as the Red Cross and help the wounded and the prisoners; we should try to bring about peace and understanding between all parties through peace negotiation, a task we have to accomplish as part of the world community and of the United Nations.
Canada's participation in the peacekeeping force of the United Nations should not aim only at fruitful negotiations between belligerents. It must always strive toward the establishment of lasting peace in Middle East and in all the other parts of the world.
May I add that the basic causes of this endless war between Israel and Arab countries goes back to the formation of the state of Israel in 1948; as it is hardly conceivable that the United Nations contingent will be able to settle this conflict now, after 25 years of struggles, discussions, hate and cultivated ambitions, let us hope that we will at least have contributed to dampen violence until better feelings and intelligent arguments make their pacific work in the settlement of this conflict, which could so easily degenerate into a world conflict.
If the countries concerned cannot reach an agreement it is obvious that Canada cannot claim to act under authority. The UN Security Council is the only one that can serve as an impartial referee with some apparent international authority in the present circumstances. All indications allow us to hope that the United Nations will have before too long a military force capable of ensuring peace across the world in the absence of mere persuasion or balance between the armed forces of different countries.
But there is still a long way to go before we reach that objective and that distance must be crossed not only at the international level but also and specially at the level of citizens and families in every country of the world where they must learn to live with all their neighbours as brothers, friends, human beings.
I would like to say in passing, Mr. Speaker, that it is equally regrettable that we are always faced with faits accomplis when we discuss situations as complex as this one.
I would then ask the government to consult all members of the opposition from now on rather than taking on its own decisions that could have so important consequences.


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, as the minister responsible for the Canadian armed forces, I welcome this opportunity to participate in the discussion of the resolution that is before the House. At the outset, I wish to confirm and, in fact, to emphasize my personal conviction that the govern-

ment's decision to accept the invitation of the United Nations to participate in a newly formed peacekeeping endeavour in the Middle East is a decision that is consistent with our belief as Canadians in doing all we can to help to bring about peace in the world. It is a decision that is consistent with our history and with our commitment to accept the role of international peacekeeping under the United Nations.
In speaking to the resolution, I would like to divide what I have to say into two parts. I would like to speak about what we are going to do and about why we should do it. In the first part, in speaking in detail about what we are going to do, I hope I may be answering at least in part the questions raised by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland), and when I speak about why we should be there, I hope I will answer the central question raised this afternoon by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner).
I would like to begin by emphasizing that in my belief what the Canadian armed forces have been asked to do is to undertake a most vital role, to play a most essential part, in the United Nations Emergency Force. I am certain that all of us realize that no military operation of any kind can be effective without good communications. In fact, no military operation of any kind can even begin to function without being linked by good communications in the field. As I stated in the House last week, all of us, even if we are not military people, should know that much about a military mission.
Therefore, I hope that in this continuing discussion of the resolution we will not hear more about the insignificance or about the unimportance of the role that Canada has been asked to play, because exactly the opposite is the case. It is because of their experience, because of their capability, and because of their training that the Canadian forces have been asked by the United Nations to undertake these important duties-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: -of providing a communications system for the whole emergency force, a force that is expected to number some 7,000 officers and men.
To meet this United Nations request, we are building a contingent around the 1st Canadian Signals Regiment. Also, as my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), said earlier in the debate, we are still discussing with the United Nations the possibility of sending additional personnel to carry out other duties in the support and logistics field, including the possible provision of a small air transport unit. But I wish now to speak specifically about what we have so far agreed to do, and to answer specifically the questions raised by the hon. member for Selkirk.
The 1st Canadian Signals Regiment, which is stationed in Kingston, will be augmented by administrative personnel and other experienced communications personnel from many of our units across Canada. Altogether, the Canadian Signals Unit and its administrative support personnel, will number 481 officers and men. There will, in fact, be 46 officers and 435 other personnel.
November 14, 1973

Our signals unit will, of course, take its own communications equipment to the Middle East. Most of this equipment, which consists of radios, telephone equipment and a teletype capability, is mobile and is regularly installed and carried inside communications vehicles. For this reason, more than 100 Canadian vehicles will be transported to the Middle East. These are made up approximately of 30 jeeps, 44 three-quarter ton trucks and 32 two and a half ton trucks, most of them, as I have said, containing communications equipment. In addition, there will be some 40 trailers of which 16 are jeep trailers, 17 are three-quarter ton trailers, and 7 are one and a half ton trailers. We are also taking 4 fork lift trucks and one large tow truck.
In addition to this somewhat sophisticated and extremely useful communications equipment, we will be taking other supplies that will enable the Canadian contingent to be totally self sufficient for at least the first 30 days of their stay in the Middle East. To achieve this self-sufficiency in the field, our personnel are taking 30 days rations, field kitchens, a central cooking unit and water purification equipment. They will also have enough tents to enable the whole contingent to live and work under canvas. They will also have with them their own electrical generating units and batteries. Altogether we will be moving some 200 tons of equipment, and that is not including the vehicles.
Our personnel, together with the various items of equipment and supplies that I have just enumerated, will be transported to the Middle East by aircraft from Canada's Air Transport Command. Most of the personnel will be carried in our Boeing 707 aircraft and most of the equipment will be moved in Hercules aircraft. For this airlift we will be using two Boeing 707's and 15 C-130 Hercules aircraft. During the first 10 days we plan in total seven round trips for the Boeings and 41 round trips for the Hercules fleet. The flying time for a Boeing from Trenton to Cairo is 12 hours-that is flying time, not total elapsed time-and 18 hours for a Hercules. Our first flights began on Saturday, November 10 and we expect to have the Canadian contingent in place and operating next Monday, the 19th of this month.
Having outlined in some detail what the Canadian forces are going to do, I now wish to say why I believe the Canadian forces must undertake this important responsibility. In saying why we should participate in this peacekeeping endeavour I will try to answer directly a central question that was placed before this House just a short while ago by the hon. member for Saint Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner). The reason we must answer this call is to me compelling and obvious. We are today sending troops to the Middle East for no less a reason than that under United Nations guidance, in the search for a peaceful world, mankind is in fact struggling to enter a new era.
We all know that throughout recorded history men in uniform have left their homelands for only one purpose. That purpose was to fight. But for the past two decades, and really since the United Nations peacekeeping force went to the Middle East in 1956, a new and nobler role for men in military uniform has been slowly, and painfully, but surely taking shape. Men in uniform now leave their homelands not to fight but to prevent fighting. The fact
Middle East Peacekeeping Force that peacekeeping operations under the United Nations have not been successful everywhere takes nothing away from the nobility of the peacekeeping concept. We realize that it may take 100 years, 200 years, or longer until the peacekeeping forces of the world outnumber the potentially aggressive military forces of the world. But however long it takes, the peacekeeping concept in which Canada has given leadership, and on which Canadians are embarked again today, provides the best, ultimate hope for mankind, the best prospect for finally achieving peace throughout the world.
Because we are only at the dawn of a new era we should not be discouraged by the failures of peacekeeping. We should be grateful for the examples, such as Cyprus, where the peacekeeping concept has worked. Above all, we should keep our sights on the long-term hope for mankind that peacekeeping makes possible.
Now, Mr. Speaker, apart from what some may consider these idealistic reasons for Canada's participation in a peacekeeping role under the United Nations, there is a much more practical reason why we should participate. That reason, simply stated, is that because of the experience and the training of our men we are extremely well qualified to do the job. This afternoon I was pleased to hear from all sides of the House confirmation of the capability of the Canadian Armed Forces in this respect. Perhaps some hon. members may not realize that starting with the Chief of the Defence Staff, General Dextraze, many of the officers who are today planning Canada's participation in the Middle East have themselves taken part in peacekeeping operations around the world, including the Middle East itself.
Some 29 years ago General Dextraze, as a Lieutenant-Colonel, served under the United Nations in Korea. Ten years ago, as a Brigadier General, he was the first Canadian officer named as Chief of Staff of all the United Nations peacekeeping forces in the Congo. In this respect I am certain that the House will also be interested to know, and in fact be re-assured to know, that the officer we have selected to command the Canadian contingent in this most recent peacekeeping endeavour, Brigadier General Nicholson, was himself, as a major, stationed in the Sinai Peninsula 17 years ago in 1956.
I mention only these two officers by name to indicate in part the depth of our experience, but hundreds, and in fact thousands, of personnel in the Canadian Armed Forces have taken part in peacekeeping operations around the world. And now, Mr. Speaker, once again personnel from the Canadian Armed Forces are leaving Canada, not to fight but to prevent fighting. They are leaving for the Middle East, taking with them their experience and their dedication. They go in peace. Above all, they go with our best hopes for the success of their mission, a mission that is bound to be unforgettable and meaningful to each one of them as an individual, a mission that I believe is of importance to Canada, and a mission that can be of lasting significance to the achievement of peace in the world.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, none of us need to be convinced by the minister of the contributions that Canadians can make in a peacekeeping corps. That, however, is not the issue that we face. As I listened to him I sent out for the latest issue of

November 14, 1973
Middle East Peacekeeping Force "International Perspective," published by External Affairs, the September/October issue. I would suggest that with the strong feelings he has on the subject he should start to convince not us but those who write for the magazine issued by him.
Let me just read a few items. It says:
. .. even if a West-East accord on the operational aspects of ... peacekeeping could be hammered out, there would still be another obstacle to overcome, one that has newly arisen with the entry into the United Nations of the People's Republic of China. It might have been foreseen. That Peking has shown itself indifferent toward, if not hostile to, peacekeeping by the United Nations should certainly have caused no surprise.
Then it says:
It has been said that "UN peacekeeping is dead."
I repeat that this is issued by the minister's own department, under that department's signature.
This may be too pessimistic an outlook. In human affairs, there can be no absolute assessments. Still, it would perhaps be fair to say that paralysis has set in for UN peacekeeping and that, to save it, a heroic cure would have to be found.
That is what it says.


Mitchell William Sharp: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I did not interrupt the hon. gentleman. He can have his say afterwards.


Mitchell William Sharp: May I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker?


John George Diefenbaker: There cannot be any point of order raised at this time. This is simply the old game, when any matter such as this is raised as a subject of debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: I am sure the right hon. member will appreciate the fact that the minister can raise a point of order.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to interrupt the right hon. gentleman, but I do so merely for the purpose of clarifying something. The magazine "International Perspectives" contains contributions from many writers. I wonder if he could say whom he is quoting. That is all I want to know.


John George Diefenbaker: I am surprised the minister does not know. I am always prepared to give information when it is needed, and certainly there is no department that needs it more that the Department of External Affairs under the hon. gentleman. This is an article, "International Peacekeeping: Does It have Any Future?" by John Gellner.


Mitchell William Sharp: Oh, I see. That is fine.


John George Diefenbaker: Sufficient unto the day is the evil thereof. He is one of those who have always been regarded as being in the closest relationship with the Department of External Affairs.
Having said that, there is no need to try to convince me of the benefits of peacekeeping. I do not know whether there is any other member of the House who was in the United Nations Assembly when the United Nations was set up in San Francisco in 1945. I was there in a humble

capacity as adviser on External Affairs to the Conservative representative on the Canadian delegation, the late Gordon Graydon, M.P. I saw there the assembled countries of the free world dedicated, all of them, to the determination that there should never again be war. Molotov was there, but he did not share that view. Out of the United Nations discussions came the determination to set up an international force, representative not only of the small powers but also the greater powers. It did not work out that way. The great powers refused or neglected to give any support' to an international peacekeeping force which had been the dream of all political scientists and international lawyers from the days of Grotius down to the present.
When I spoke in this House in November 1945, I said I believed that out of the United Nations would come a new dedication to peace on the part of all mankind. I pointed out that there were only two species in all of God's creation that made war; one was man and the other was the ant. However, a revised version was produced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he was in China recently. He apparently was not able to read his notes because he spoke at length to Mao, that military expert, about the two species- man and rats. That was his contribution to Mao on the subject of military determination and military action.
In 1956, I raised in this House the question of having a peacekeeping force in the Middle East. The same difficulty was developing then as has developed recently when the U.S.S.R.-which will be visited in the next few days by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp)-set out to cause trouble and bring about war in the Middle East. They are still doing it. I raised the question that we should endeavour to set up, within the aegis of the United Nations, a peacekeeping force. That was on the last day of January, 1956. In answering me, the late Mr. Pearson said he felt that would be impossible as there were no territorial limitations or boundaries that could be policed. The situation today is almost identical with that to which he referred.
Lest anyone has the idea I am not referring to a suggestion that I made I am going to refer the House to a Hansard for 1956-1957 at page 57 and 58. At that time Mr. Pearson was secretary of state for external affairs and the exchange between us went, in part, as follows when he said:
Then on January 31, 1956, the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) brought up in this House the question of an international police force and it was a very pertinent question.


John George Diefenbaker: Just for the Israeli-Arab situation.


Mr. Pearson:: Yes, he was limiting the value of this force at this time to a particular situation on the Israeli-Egyptian border.
A little later he said that he had met with various representatives of the United Nations. The Hon. Earl Rowe interrupted him with a question.


Mr. Rowe:: Mr. Speaker, would the minister permit a question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes.


Frederick William Rowe: In view of the fact, as our representative, did the minister not bring it before the United Nations for consideration?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is just what I was coming to, Mr. Speaker. I have been looking up the record in the last day or two in order to see what we had been able to do in this matter. We did follow it up.
November 14, 1973

I made the suggestion, Mr. Speaker. At that time, there was an exchange of views but parliament was not as uncertain then as is the parliament of today. I say that we face one of the most serious threats to peace that has been faced since 1945 and yet how many members are in this House, how many members of cabinet-four! The Prime Minister is absent at a time when parliament is being asked to support the action decided upon by the government, as was its responsibility. However, even before parliament makes a decision, some forces are abroad. The remainder of the force will complete their journey to the Middle East on Monday next.
Mr. Pearson continued as follows:
We followed it up with the governments most particularly concerned, namely the Israel government, the British government, the French government and the United States government and with the Secretary General of the United Nations and again with General Burns, the truce commissioner.


John George Diefenbaker: What date was that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: This began in February and went on for the next two or three months.
Finally, he said there could be no arrangement arrived at because there was no agreement in this regard. Again, he most fairly dealt with the same situation when he spoke in the House in November, 1956, but I am not going to place that on the record now. There is no necessity to prove to this party the need for a peacekeeping force, Mr. Speaker, because the original presentation was made by a member of this party in the month of January, 1956 and culminated in Mr. Pearson bringing before the United Nations in the month of August, 1956 the general plan that had been worked out for the setting up of a peacekeeping force.
I wonder how it is, Mr. Speaker, that we find, as a result of the activities of the government in the last few weeks, the Canadian people on bended knee, through their representative, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, asking to be permitted to become a member of the peacekeeping force in view of the unusual success, to which the minister referred, that Canada had attained internationally over the years. He did not mention that, while my government was in office, we sent forces to the Congo or that undue haste, without the necessary consideration of the facts in advance, will bring about expense for the Canadian people, such as has been incurred in Cyprus.
When we first went to Cyprus it was said that our force would need to remain there for three months, and it was possible that there might be some extension. We have been there not three months but nine years. And who has been paying the piper? It has not been the United Nations. Canada is the only nation which has picked up the bill. No wonder Canada is allowed to maintain her forces there. The taxpayers of Canada have paid $22 million for a duty which was the responsibility of the United Nations. The costs should have been borne not only by Canada but by all the nations making up the United Nations. They did not do this. France and the U.S.S.R. are not paying their share and Canada, because it pays the bill, is able to keep its forces on Cyprus. That shows that you must approach these problems with great care and attention.
Middle East Peacekeeping Force
What about Viet Nam? Were we not over with the Poles and with the Indian representatives? I went over there to see the situation for myself. Never, ever, anywhere was there a Canadian Forces group as emasculated as that group which went there for the purpose of looking after the peace. Why were they emasculated? The Poles, no matter what Canada decided and endeavoured to advance, said, "No." Now, in 1973 the United Nations, as a result of our pressing and our saying, "Please take us," has finally decided, "We will take you, provided the Poles participate as well." I do not understand that. Apparently, the U.S.S.R. once more is using a country under its domination in order to cause difficulty in the possible settlement of the frightful problems facing the Middle East.
Speaking of the Polish, let me refer to a telegram which the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) received within the last couple of days from the National Polish Congress of Canada. To what are they objecting? It reads:
The Congress deplores the fact that Poles were used because it is very much against the interest of Poles. This is a typical example of the use of small nations by super powers. We hope public influence will prevent other such occurrences. Some of the pilots who flew for Egypt flew for the Communist side in North Vietnam.
The government cannot say that it has no information in this regard, because the Polish Congress communicated with the government. The telegram continues:
As an explanation as to wy Polish pilots did not refuse to go: Many officers refused to participate in the invasion of Czechoslovakia in 1968 and a special prison was set up in the city of Torun. The prison was overflowing with service men who refused to participate in the invasion. These men were finished, thrown out of the army. At the risk of completely breaking their lives and careers they could not refuse.
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) had that information. He brought it before the House last week in the form of a question. No answer was given then, and no answer has been given so far.
Further, I have in my hand a copy of a telegram which was sent to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe by the Canadian Polish Congress. He did not present this himself. It reads:
We were pleased to learn that you have recently raised in Parliament recent newspaper reports alleging the use of Polish pilots in the Middle East. These reports have given us deep concern and dismay. The blatant use of Polish airmen against their will and against the best interests of the Polish nation which has no interests in the Arab-Israeli conflict but save indeed a deep desire for world peace, serves only to expose the role of the USSR in furthering its imperialist policies at the expense of its captive satelites. As Canadians we protest this abuse of captive peoples by the super powers to further their political ends. We urge that this matter be further investigated by the Canadian government. . .
The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe raised the matter alluded to on November 8. An answer has not been provided so far. Further particulars about the matter were given in the Toronto Sun of November 8, 1973, in an article written by Mr. Lubor Zink. I do not always agree with him. Let me say this about him, however: he has one of the most magnificent war records of any person here who is either a member of this House or in the press gallery. In his article he points out this fact: there has not been any answer on this subject because the U.S.S.R., in trying to press forward its aims and bring about what it has sought
7810

November 14, 1973
Middle East Peacekeeping Force to achieve by its machinations for the last 75 years, would use Polish airmen in whatever numbers were available for the Egyptian forces. I mentioned the lack of interest displayed by this House in this subject. I have spoken in the House on many occasions over the years. I was here in the darkest days of war, and today I am greatly concerned over the situation in the Middle East.
In 1956, the U.S.S.R. was in the background, trying to gain control of the oil resources of the Middle East. They are there today. Some years ago, when I was Colonel Nasser's guest, every consideration was shown to me. I went to the Aswan Dam while it was under construction. It was a hot day; I stayed in the air conditioned car while my wife went to the complex. I noticed a number of people who looked as if they were Slavic. Two days before then Colonel Nasser had told me, "There are only 200 Russians in my country." I asked the governor at the site how many Russians there were in the country; he replied, "There are about 2,000". I asked him the composition of this number, and he said that there were so many engineers, so many technicians, and so many others. Next morning he called me and said, "I made a mistake; there are just 200." Everywhere there was the domination of the U.S.S.R. over Egypt.
Where are we today? The Middle East war, launched without notice on the holiest day in the Jewish calendar, Yom Kippur, is viewed with deep fears by many people. That outbreak of war, it is thought, possibly will envelope other nations, and eventually a large portion of the world. There is an armistice today, a ceasefire. It is not a very certain one. Already, in the last 24 hours, disturbing events have taken place. Soldiers participating in the work of the peacekeeping force have been interfered with, not by guns, but physically. There is a powder keg there, the danger of which affects every one of us. The U.S.S.R. has dreamed for generations, from the days of Disraeli and Gladstone, of building a hegemony over the Middle East.
How serious is the situation? While the U.S.S.R. says it believes in peace, it has in the last three years increased its army by one million men to 3,200,000, suggesting at the same time that the NATO nations should reduce their forces. And what about the navy? The largest navy in the world today is the navy of the Soviet Union. And where is it? It has travelled through the Black Sea, through the Dardanelles. The world's largest navy is in the Mediterranean. What is it doing there? Why are Soviet ships going back and forth as they have been doing in the last two or three weeks?
The Winnipeg Free Press-that is a paper which the minister reads with the care all of us do; and he has a personal interest, also-says, and it has not been denied, because Brigadier Malone is one of those people who do not allow statements to be made when they are without foundation-
Soviet forces are now fully established in Egypt with at least one brigade of Soviet airborne troops barring the way to Cairo and another Soviet brigade barring the road to Damascus.
The minister is going to the U.S.S.R. tomorrow, and I wish him all the best. It would be interesting to get their explanation as to the reason they have two airborne regi-

ments in a war in which they say they have no interest. In addition, in the last few weeks, between October 1 and the end of October, 215,000 tons of war material was shipped down the Black Sea into the Middle East area. Furthermore, it is unheard of for tanks to be driven aboard ships with their fuels tanks and ammunition chambers ready filled. Yet this has taken place at the South Russian port of Nikolayev.
Mr. Speaker, too many people in our nation and in the western world, anxious for peace, are permitting themselves to be lulled today by a detente which we practice but which the U.S.S.R. does not practice. I remember Sir Anthony Eden, one of the greatest statesmen Britain produced. When one looks back to 1956, one begins to wonder about the action of, the United States in holding him back. Had he been successful, along with the French and Jewish troops, many of the events which are occurring today would not have taken place.
It has been a terrible war for the Jewish people. It has been a terrible war for the Arabs, too, but their population is almost 20 times that of Israel which means that sooner or later, unless peace is attained, attrition will destroy Israel. All she asks is that she be recognised as a nation. But for the last several years, from 1948 on, the Arab nations have refused. I endeavoured to discuss this matter with Colonel Nasser. He looked at me as if to say: Where is Israel? The attitude of the Arabs is this; if you don't mention a thing, it is not there. They never mentioned it, not one of them, though they knew full well I was going to Israel immediately afterward.
The latest figures released in connection with the 17-day war indicate that some 1,800 of those killed were in the Israeli army. Let me give hon. members an idea of what that means in terms of population. It would mean that
16,000	Canadians were killed. It would mean 108,000 men as far as the United States is concerned. That is how serious the position is. I suggest to the minister that when he gets over there to Moscow, instead of saying "Here's to you!", and "Here's to me!" he should tell them the time has come for them to realise that their conduct in the Middle East is detrimental to world peace.
What is the purpose behind the Soviet moves? Oil. We are all going to suffer because the Arab nations have struck at the industrial jugular of the western world and Japan by reducing the amount of oil they would ordinarily ship. How many people realise how powerful these Arab nations are? I went to the trouble to look up the production figures and, if the House will permit me, I shall place them on record. There is King Faisal of Saudi Arabia. I remember meeting him in San Francisco in 1945. He is king of a country which today produces 355 million tons of oil a year. The Amir Sabah as-Salim of Kuwait disposes of 137 million tons a year; the Shah of Iran, 289 million tons; Colonel Ghadafi of Libya, 109 million tons; President Boumedienne of Algeria, 51 million tons. Then, there is Shaikh Zaid of Abu Dhabi who caused the minister such difficulty when the hon. gentleman heard he had decided against sending any oil to Canada-that was the first time we had heard he existed! This country, Mr. Speaker, turns out 64 million tons of oil a year.
Here are some other rulers whose countries are rich in oil: Shaikh Khalifa of Qatar, 28 million tons; Sultan
November 14, 1973

Qaboos of Oman, 14 million tons; Shaikh Rashid of Dubai, 11 million tons. The total, Mr. Speaker, comes to 1,148 million tons of oil a year. And the U.S.S.R. is in there. That is what it wants. Unless there is a change in the attitude of the Arab nations, an attitude which presently constitutes almost a fatal thrust at the western world and Japan, the consequences are not hard to foresee.
What are the Arab nations using this power for? Blackmail. Any nation which does not fall into line with their views goes on the black list. While the Secretary of State for External Affairs, with the optimism which characterizes him at all times, has not told us the full facts in this connection. I think Canada will not receive more thanks from the Arab nations after the force goes over there than it did before the force arrived. Who is going to win the war in the Middle East? Who has won it? Not the combatants but the U.S.S.R. It has achieved that grasping control that it has been looking for for generations. When the minister talks to members of the Politburo next week, I hope he makes it very clear that Canada understands exactly what is taking place.
I do not read press dispatches often, Mr. Speaker, but I do recommend for reading an article entitled "Five minutes to midnight" by Joseph Alsop which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press on November 8 last. He says:
One source of apprehension, it appears, is the tone the Kremlin has been taking with the U.S. government. Another source-and one by no means to be underrated-is the way the Soviet press has begun to talk about the Watergate horror as crippling to the President.
The article continues:
. .. the Soviets are already making conditional preparations to intervene with their own troops. In Egypt, for example, there is considerable evidence of the new presence of Soviet-made Scuds."
They are tanks. The article says they are still coming in.
This, Mr. Speaker, is how serious this matter is. No one need suggest to me that we do not have to have proved to us that a peacekeeping force is needed there. But with the Russians continuing to foment trouble and to throttle the western world industrially, that peacekeeping force has a responsibility that all of us can contemplate in face of a danger that I hope is not as overwhelming as it appears to be.
Egypt now says it will open the Suez canal. That is part of the aim of the U.S.S.R. Drew Middleton has stated that the reopening and improvement of the Suez canal, already under discussion in Cairo, would strengthen the Soviet Union's strategic position in the Persian Gulf and in the Indian Ocean. The only nation standing against this is Iran. Iran, the dominant military power in the Persian Gulf, is seriously concerned over the prospect of stronger Soviet forces in that area if the canal opens, says Drew Middleton.
I mention these things, without having a prepared speech, because I feel so aroused that the Canadian people do not realize today what is happening. They do not realize it in the United States because, after all, all they can say as far as Watergate is concerned is that no one has yet been drowned in Watergate. But other than that, what is happening in Washington has been to give to the
Middle East Peacekeeping Force U.S.S.R. the new hope and expectation of what it can get away with; it no longer fears the United States because it believes it is divided.
What about this force that is being sent, Mr. Speaker? The minister spoke with pride of Canada's reputation, and there is no disagreement with that. But I suggest to the minister that there must have been an awful lot of soul searching, because the government of Canada advised the number one combat force of paratroopers in Edmonton to get ready. Then, when I raised the question in the House, I attempted to move a motion under Standing Order 43 to this effect:
That this House views with concern the indecorous haste exhibited by the Canadian government in its anxiety to secure consent of objecting nations within the United Nations to having Canadians in the peacekeeping force for service in the Middle East, whereby without regard to the magnificent record of Canadians in two world wars Canada's No. 1 combat alert unit is to be placed in a secondary position in the peacekeeping force being given a responsibility-
-and I then used this phrase-
-analogous to that of hewers of wood and drawers of water-
Then, the government backed up and did the proper thing. It decided to mobilize the Signals from Kingston. I see the minister smile, as if that were one of his contributions. But let me say this to him. The government turned a complete somersault.


Mitchell William Sharp: That was part of the logistics.


John George Diefenbaker: Of course, there is nothing so unusual about the government turning a somersault because they are usually walking backwards. The Signals people were asked to winterize and they winterized within the last ten days. Then, they got the word that winterization was not in keeping with the kind of climate in which they were going to serve under the new plans of the government, and they had to end their winterization and repaint their equipment white as well as put on the letters "UN".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I regret that the time of the right hon. member has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the House has been very considerate and I have tried, with whatever capacity I have, to warn this government and the people of Canada that detente is only effective when both sides indulge in it. But when one side accepts it and implements it but the all-powerful U.S.S.R. gives it lip service, then it is as dangerous today as it was in the dark days of 1938 when I heard Churchill warn the British people, and they laughed at him, as when Eden gave the same warning and left the government. Today, we are in one of the most serious positions that the western world has been in during my lifetime.
[ Translation]


Mr.   Georges-C. Lachance@Lafontaine: Mr. Speaker, I was most interested in listening to the hon. member who has just spoken, because he is well experienced in both the external and domestic affairs of this country.
A year ago, now, I had the pleasure and the honour to accept an invitation from the government of Israel to visit
26635-63;

November 14, 1973
Middle East Peacekeeping Force that country, and before I go any further, I want you to know that I was impressed by how hard the Israelis are working so that their country will become a great country.
Unfortunately, in the last few months, war has erupted between Israel and the Arab countries, especially, the UAR and Syria. For our part, we, in the Canadian government, are not happy about this situation but we are among those who try to find a solution to the Middle East problem.
Today, it can be said that a modus vivendi has come about between the Arab and Israeli forces.
I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this modus vivendi will finally lead to a lasting peace in that part of the world. As a result of that difficult situation, Mr. Speaker, Canada, which is
6,000	miles from the Middle East, has despatched its soldiers. Why are they there? Not because they agree! We must consider several facts, Mr. Speaker. We have to ask ourselves if the Canadians who are over there agree with the Canadian position.
I think they do, because the members of our armed forces are anxious to restore peace. We are pleased to note that Canadians agree on that issue. How many Canadians endorse that principle? I have often spoken with my constituents, Mr. Speaker, and I don't know that many who would be interested in leaving tomorrow morning for the Middle East, Cyprus or Viet Nam. Dedicated people are needed for that, Mr. Speaker.
And are we dedicated? It is extremely important to bear that in mind. That dedication I think that we, the members of parliament, and the people of Canada must keep it alive. This is part, I would suggest, of the great Canadian dedication.
Today, Canadians are in the Middle East. Mr. Speaker, and I have talked about it to many people, we must show a lot of respect for those who agree to leave for the Middle East.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, November 15, 1973