1973-10-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as most hon. members know, an international conference aimed at the elimination of pollution from ships is now under way in London, England. I would like, briefly, to outline the stand that Canada is taking at this United Nations sponsored conference and to describe some of the principles we would like to see incorporated in a convention which will be binding on flag states and coastal states alike.
Modern society depends, to an increasing extent, on ocean transport of oil and other cargoes. Mobility is important, but so is the preservation of our marine environment. We must, therefore, see to it that vessels carrying substances which are harmful to marine life or which can reduce the value of ocean-front property must be built and operated in a safe and sensible way.
I am confident, Mr. Speaker, that the world's ocean shipping can meet these requirements without incurring exceptional costs. New ships can be built and operated with a greater margin of safety without adding more than a few percentage points to the over-all cost involved in moving goods from one port to another.
An international convention which will not only preserve mobility on the world's oceans but also protect our marine environment has four major attributes: it must be universal in its application; it must include strict standards for the construction and operation of ships; it must be enforceable; and it must be capable of amendment so as to take into account the latest advances in maritime technology.
Construction standards are very important. Canada supports the resolution, for example, that all tankers built after January 1, 1975, should include provision for segregated ballast and double hulls wherever possible. Hon. members should bear in mind that most of the large oil tankers needed during the rest of this century will be built between now and 1985. Hence our concern about the implementation of new construction standards at the earliest possible date.
We believe that the existing convention dealing with pollution from ships should be expanded to cover all suffocating and toxic substances. It should include light oils
as well as heavy oils, "white" oils as well as "black" oils. Our research indicates that the more highly processed petroleum products are often more poisonous than crude oil. This is why we want to see them included in the new rules dealing with pollution from ships.
Our experience with the 1954 convention shows us that exclusive reliance on enforcement by ship owning or flag states simply does not work. If the new convention is to have teeth, it must prevent pollution everywhere. It must prevent violations of the convention wherever they occur. It must enable us to apprehend the offending vessel as soon as it enters the port of any nation which is a signatory to the convention.
This idea is now being referred to as the "port state" concept. Canada is its author. The United States now supports us. We are hopeful that most other countries attending the IMCO Conference in London will endorse its inclusion in the convention as well.
Evidence of a wilful discharge or spill has been hard to collect. We are, therefore, urging that the old "parts per million" stipulation in the 1954 convention be abandoned. In our opinion, it should be replaced by an evidentiary rule whereby the word of a responsible officer will be regarded as sufficient to secure a conviction. Sighting of a sheen of oil on water will be enough. Sworn evidence to this effect will constitute proof of a violation unless probative evidence is presented to the contrary.
A prosecution, following our reasoning, would then take place as soon as the offending vessel entered the port of any signatory country and at any time within three years of the violation having been apprehended anywhere in the world.
We also believe that compulsory arbitration is necessary in order to ensure that all states fulfil their obligations under the new convention, thereby guarding against arbitrary or unjust enforcement actions.
I referred earlier, Mr. Speaker, to the universal application of the convention. It will set a basic standard for all shipping everywhere in the world. This is not to say, however, that two nations or a group of neighbouring nations could not set even higher standards in waters washing their shores. We could set higher standards in the Strait of Juan de Fuca on Canada's west coast, for example. We could do the same in the Bay of Fundy as the result of another joint agreement with the United States.
Incidentally, this provision will also help us to gain international recognition for our Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to report that, in respect of most of these matters, we are in general agreement with the United States. Where we differ is in respect of warships, which the United States wishes to have exempted from the convention, and in respect of the

Pollution From Ships
distance seaward in which unilateral or one-nation enforcement of the convention would be operative. The United States, unlike Canada, wants to limit this provision in the convention to the territorial sea, which, in its case, is three miles. We would like to see unilateral provisions extended seaward to include all the waters which fall under the jurisdiction of the coastal state. This would, of course, include our more extensive fisheries zones.


Mr. John Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to answer the Minister of the Environment I wish to say that as far as the objectives set out by the minister are concerned the government has the unqualified support of the party to which I belong and we wish every success to our delegation at the conference.
We are especially cognizant of the fact that some international control must be exercised over ships plying the high seas as well as coastal waters. For far too long certain states have taken the position that it is somehow an infringement of their right to the high seas to be regulated in any way. I can assure the minister he has the support of this party in pressing as vigorously as possible the Canadian position that warships should not be exempt in any way from the terms of the convention and also that the areas of control contiguous to the coastal states should be allowed to extend beyond the traditional three miles.
There is, however, one aspect which I think it proper that hon. members should consider and which is notable by its absence from the minister's statement. We who come from the west coast have seen recently in Vancouver harbour the results of a relatively minor oil spill and the difficulty, even when supplies and equipment were close at hand, of effectively combatting the consequences of that spill by containment and clean-up. There is nothing in the minister's statement to indicate he is pressing for certain other measures which are also of importance. The first concerns international navigation standards. I ask the minister to consider seriously whether or not we should also be pressing for improvement in this direction. After all, if a ship collides with another it is probable there will be oil spillage no matter how much pains are taken in the construction of the ship.
There is another omission from the minister's statement. He says nothing about pressing for international co-operation in efforts to contain and clean up oil spills. It is one thing to talk about compensation, but compensation brings little comfort if containment and clean up do not take place immediately. In this regard, at least in some situations, international co-operation is necessary.
The minister spoke of wilful discharge. Although it does not seem to be absolutely clear, I hope that wilful discharge on the high seas will be covered by the convention because danger lies as much in that area as in coastal waters.
I repeat that the government delegation has the complete support of this party. I trust account will be taken by its members of the several items I have mentioned as being worthy of consideration.
Lastly, I wish to say that if Canada is to have any moral force in pressing such terms on the conference we must ensure that we are consistent within our own boundaries

and in our own coastal waters with respect to the way in which we view and treat the transport of oil by sea. I refer to criticism implying that our position with respect to tankers on the west coast is inconsistent with our lack of position with regard to the passage of tankers on the east coast.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, before the minister left Canada to attend the IMCO conference in London the newspapers were devoid of any reference by him to the position Canada intended to take at that conference. This prompted me, about a week and a half ago, to express the opinion that Canada would take a neutral position at that conference, in other words, that it would have no definite stand to present. That prompted the minister to reply to me in the press in his usual fashion and thus completely confuse the issue. But at least it did result in the minister saying something, and we are pleased that he has today finally got to the stage of taking the Canadian public into his confidence and telling the House what position Canada is trying for at the IMCO conference in London. In respect of those matters that he outlined in his statement today, we wish him and the Canadian delegation well and hope for an international convention of a sufficiently high standard that it will assist Canada in preserving its coasts from oil spills.
There are two ways in which a nation can deal with this problem. One is unilaterally; the other is by way of an agreement or convention, in other words, multilaterally by agreement with several nations. We must never lose sight of the fact that so far as Canada is concerned the protection of our land is the most important and the prime consideration that should always underline the position the Canadian government takes at any conference of this nature.
Oil spills can cause and have caused immeasurable damage to our land and our marine resources as well as to life itself in this land. That is why we must first protect our own interests. If we cannot reach a multilateral agreement, or if the convention that comes out of the conference is not of a sufficiently high standard to preserve and protect Canada's interests, then Canada must be prepared to act unilaterally without regard for what is developed by the conference.
There is ample precedent for taking unilateral action. A few years ago this parliament passed the Arctic Waters Pollution Prevention Act. Incidentally, the minister did not use the correct name for the act in his announcement, but that is par for the course for this minister. This unilateral action has been classified, and we agree, as the finest, most stringent piece of oil pollution prevention legislation anywhere in the world. The act applies to the Arctic and to waters extending 100 nautical miles beyond the Arctic archipelago. I wish it applied to the east and west coasts as well because this would go a great way toward preserving and protecting our land from the difficulties that could arise from further oil spills, whether on the high seas or close to land.
The minister should not wonder about the requirement for unilateral action to extend whatever legislation Canada wants to pass respecting oil pollution control in so far as our territorial seas and fishing zones are concerned. I say to the minister sincerely and directly that the oppor-

tunity rests in our hands as the Parliament of Canada to declare that we will preserve our territorial seas and fishing zones and protect them from pollution.
Any convention arrived at by the IMCO conference will not be of the high standard we would like it to be because it will be the subject of negotiations between some 90 countries that are attending the conference. Each will have a little different view and each country will seek to give a little in order to get a convention that embraces everybody's point of view. As a consequence the standard undoubtedly will not be as high as we in this nation would like to see. There is no question about our jurisdiction to extend to the edge of our fishing zones and territorial seas legislation dealing with oil pollution control. We should be preparing to do that in any event regardless of the conference.
If a convention does come out of this conference it will have no value whatever in regard to the Cherry Point situation in the state of Washington, just 15 miles or so beyond the border of British Columbia. It is in the United States, on its land, and no convention that I can conceive of this conference developing will have any effect whatever with respect to the kind of situation that arose at Cherry Point a couple of years ago. At that time a tanker was at the dock and oil was being pumped from the ship. A coupling broke, resulting in the flooding of beaches in British Columbia with oil. That is something not conceived of in this statement and I do not think it can be dealt with by a convention at the IMCO conference.
I hope a convention is developed and that it is of a sufficiently high standard. However, I think Canada must be prepared to act unilaterally if the standards arrived at in the convention are not high enough for Canada to accept.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on the statement of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis).
Our party welcomes his statement; we congratulate him for it. This statement shows the intention of the government to act in a more effective and more appropriate way in the field of tanker construction, in the field of highly commercial maritime transportation and in that of preservation of our environment. We want to congratulate the minister for that.
Mr. Speaker, having said this, I would like to draw his attention on the need for taking a logical and constant attitude; inasmuch as he-and I know he is sincere- defends and will defend the policy that he has announced today, by the same token the government ought to be aware of the importance of preserving the environment on the St. Lawrence. My riding, like those of several of my colleagues, stretches out along the St. Lawrence south shore where maritime transportation is carried out in a very well organized fashion. But properties along the shores are greatly damaged.
A very old government policy concerning retaining walls and riparian land is now applied and it is completely
outmoded, therefore the Quebecker who invested along
Arab-Israeli War Debate
the St. Lawrence is discouraged. The St. Lawrence constitutes extraordinary resources, although it is polluted at this time and fishing has become impossible. Mr. Speaker, the Public Works Department policy is nevertheless totally inadequate and does not meet the needs as regards construction of retaining walls along shores.
Moreover, the standards on shipping on the St. Lawrence river are also inadequate. Mr. Speaker, government experts feel that when a ship is sailing further than a given distance from the shore, she causes no damage. The government is not assuming the responsibility for damages caused by the tide.
Now, Mr. Speaker, riparian owners are penalized since they cannot use the river for commercial purposes. They are left with nothing to do but watch boats go by and, still worse, they see their properties damaged.
Therefore, I strongly urge the Minister of Environment (Mr. Davis) who seems to be aware of the pollution problems and of the environment protection to make the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Dube) mindful of it in order to bring standards up to date, to revise the protection policy applying to the two shores along the St. Lawrence and to really develop an unparalleled wealth in Canada, namely the St. Lawrence, and finally to prevent Canadians from being penalized by sea transport and to allow them to benefit from it.


Mr. Lawrence:: There is also Lake Ontario.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, as we all recall, yesterday there was a desire expressed to have a debate on the Middle East situation. In the meantime, consultations have been held among the parties. If it is agreed generally by the House, we would recommend that a special order be made to debate the Middle East situation beginning at eight o'clock tonight under a motion to adjourn the House. The arrangement suggested is that the lead-off speaker for each party be allowed 20 minutes and that subsequent speakers be allowed 15 minutes, with the terminal time for the debate being 10.30 p.m. That is the agreement that has been reached as I understood the discussions, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, we are satisfied that the initiative of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) yesterday has brought about this special debate tonight and we agree to the terms of debate as suggested.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the terms suggested are terms with which we agree.

Mi'. Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we subscribed to the unanimous agreement to a special debate on the problems of the Middle East, and our party is ready to participate actively in it.

October 16, 1973
The Senate


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion made by the President of the Privy Council. Is it agreed and so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BROADCASTING
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move a motion under Standing Order 43. I do so because of the failure of the Canadian Radio-Television Commission to implement the recommendations of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, as concurred in by the House of Commons on July 24, 1973,- in connection with the examination of the subject matter of Bill C-22, an act to amend the Broadcasting Act, advertising on children's programs, and in view of the commission's position as outlined in a public statement dated October 16, 1973. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart), the chairman of the broadcasting committee:
That the public announcement by the CRTC dated October 16, 1973, be referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for St. John's East. This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


THE SENATE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to seek unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That this House favours abolition of the Senate in place of its recent continued use as a depository for Liberal Party faithfuls.


Mr. Speaker:: This is not the first time the hon. member has proposed a motion about which the Chair has had serious doubts. I would hope the House would not feel that this motion should be put at this time under the terms of Standing Order 43.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Jean-Marie Boisvert (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to seek unanimous consent of the House to discuss a very urgent matter.
In view of the extreme slowness in the economic development of the Eastern Townships, in Quebec, in view of the fact that in some parts of the Eastern Townships there is a decline in the economy instead of progress, and in view of the fact that some cities like Drummondville, Sherbrooke, Victoriaville and Granby among others do not receive the necessary encouragement from the federal government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin):
That this House consider the economic situation in the Eastern Townships area in order to design it as a special area.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the hon. member's motion. This motion, put forward under the terms of Standing Order 43, requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity; therefore the motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
f English]

Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Now that it is clear that we have the worst employment rate, seasonally adjusted-


Mr. Lewis:: You mean unemployment rate.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: -the worst rate of unemployment ever associated with a year to year jump of S'A per cent in the cost of living, is the Minister of Finance now prepared to reconsider the answer he gave yesterday and present a budget to the House?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Finance):: No, Mr. Speaker. While the actual unemployment rate in September of 4.6 per cent was virtually unchanged since last month, I say frankly to the House that the seasonally adjusted figures are startling, disconcerting and very difficult to reconcile with the very strong expansion of the economy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
October 16, 1973


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is the Minister of Finance now prepared to concede that there has been in recent months, and particularly during the past month, an upward trend in the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment, and despite the confusion he has expressed this afternoon what does he propose to do about this?


John Napier Turner: All the evidence indicates-and I think members of parliament from all sides of the House returning from their constituencies will bear this out-that the economy is currently operating at nearly full or full capacity. The factors limiting growth are the now widespread shortages of materials and many types of equipment in many parts of the country, and shortages of skilled and unskilled workers in many industries and many regions. I think the House is entitled to look at the fact that over the first nine months of this year there has been an increase in new jobs involving the employment of 417,000 men and women, which is the strongest increase in employment in the history of this country.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I thought the minister would go through that old song and dance about the strong rate of growth in the early part of the year.


Mr. Hees:: And the land is strong-don't forget that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Would the minister concede now that there is an upward trend in the seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment in Canada today and in recent months, and do his economic indicators forecast to him that this is going to change, that the trend will be downward to, say, about 5 per cent by the end of the year? Is this what the minister is telling us or, on the other hand, is he simply indicating to us that he does not know what to do in the present circumstances?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: The indicators still are that the real growth in this country will be 7 per cent, as I indicated to the House on February 19, that this will produce a very strong growth in jobs, that the figures published today indicate that unemployment is highly concentrated among young people.


George Harris Hees: You don't care much about that.


John Napier Turner: In seasonally adjusted terms, the movement of young people out of the labour force back into schools is something that we have to look into very seriously. In raw, unadjusted terms, the unemployment for men in this country over 25 is 2.9 per cent and for women 3.4 per cent.


UNEMPLOYMENT RATE INCREASE-REQUEST THAT FUNDS FOR WINTER CAPITAL PROJECTS BE INCREASED
David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, whatever other indicators the Minister of Finance may console himself with-


Mr. Diefenbaker:: You will still be voting for him.
Oral Questions


David Lewis: -the fact is that the unemployment rate has gone up. Since the rate has been going up and in view of the danger that unemployment may reach an even higher level during the winter months, will the minister act to increase the funds for winter capital projects so that there may actually be more work created through making available to provinces and municipalities the necessary amounts of money to carry out these works?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have said to the House that the underlying strength of the economy, as we see it, is there, that there is already in play $100 million in LIP projects and there is still available under the three year winter capital works projects program an amount still unexhausted of $275 million. I said to the hon. gentleman that the strength of the economy is there and that it is absorbing new workers into the labour force at a record rate. I want to say also to him that I take no consolation from the seasonally adjusted figures published this morning. I said they were startling and disconcerting, and I know what they mean in human terms.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Lewis: Arising out of the minister's answer, may I try to put the question this way. In view of the fact the information he has given us clearly underlines that private industrial expansion is not producing the jobs necessary to absorb the unemployed, probably because of modern automation and computerization, and in view of the fact that jobs can only be created through investment by governments at the federal, provincial and municipal levels, may I ask him whether he will, in a budget or in some other way, increase the amounts spent by governments in creating jobs, the only way in which jobs can be created?


John Napier Turner: Of course, direct governmental intervention is always under review. I have said to the House and to the hon. gentleman that the evidence seems to be apparent right across the country that there is a widespread shortage of labour in many regions and in many industries, both skilled and unskilled. But, as I say, we are always reviewing direct government intervention in the economy.


UNEMPLOYMENT RATE INCREASE-EFFICACY OF MANPOWER CENTRES IN PLACING PEOPLE IN JOBS
David Lewis: I have another supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister's answer to my second question brings me directly to a supplementary which I want to address, with your permission, Sir, to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the results of a survey made by the Ontario Department of Labour and other information showing that only about 11.5 per cent of those who find jobs find them through the manpower centres, and in view also of the information that a very small proportion of available jobs is registered with the manpower centres, which may explain the inability to match available jobs with unemployed people, may I ask the minister what steps he is going to take to make his department effective so that tie Canadian unemployed

October 16, 1973
Oral Questions
may get some benefit from the hundreds of millions of dollars spent on the Canadian Manpower Centres?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would dispute the figure of 11 per cent noted by the hon. member. Off the top of my head, Mr. Speaker, I believe about 30 per cent go through Canada Manpower. That is not to say that, as the minister responsible, I am satisfied with the performance. In fact, we are now moving into what I consider a breakthrough by establishing, based on the pilot project in Ottawa-Hull and the pilot project in Hamilton, the results of which are very encouraging, job information centres across the country which I think will give the country a far more effective program. I share the hon. member's view that there is still much to be done.
t Translation]


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Richmond wish to ask a supplementary?


Mr. Beaudoin:: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I shall recognize the hon. member in a moment after having heard a few other supplementaries on this subject.


UNEMPLOYMENT RATE INCREASE-GOVERNMENT INTENTION RESPECTING INTRODUCTION OF PRODUCTION INCENTIVES
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. As neither inflation nor unemployment will be improved until national production is materially increased, is it the intention of the government to introduce in the near future production incentives aimed at inducing the additional production that is necessary and, if so, when may we expect to have these production incentives introduced?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I read with great interest the hon. gentleman's speech that he made on the west coast.


Mr. Nielsen:: You might learn something.


John Napier Turner: I always learn something from the hon. member. I would like to remind him that as a result of the corporate tax measures passed by the House investment intentions by business in equipment, materials and plant has risen 19 per cent over last year, which indicates a tremendous increase in productive capacity.


Mr. Haas:: Mr. Speaker, as the minister obviously did not make any attempt to answer my question I might ask him this: is it the intention of the government to require the country to put up with the same policies the government has introduced in the past, which have landed the country in the horrible economic mess it is in today?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. A question asked in those terms is irregular. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Richmond and then return to the hon. member for St. John's East and others who have supplementaries on this subject.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, but in his absence I should like to get an answer, if possible, from the Minister of Finance.
I have already asked the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion if he thought that the Sherbrooke area should be considered a designated area. He replied that there would no longer be designated areas in the future and that, with his counterpart or the Minister of Finance in Quebec, he was thinking of developing a new format. I would like to know if this format has been developed and when it will be announced to replace the special zones.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that there is a certain excitement concerning the designation of Sherbrooke as a special area. Under the circumstances, it seems that everybody is talking about it in the Sherbrooke area. I merely wish to say to the hon. member that the definition of special areas will be an issue greatly discussed in the future between the federal government and the various provincial governments. If an answer was to be given in the near future, it would come from the provincial government following some consultation with the federal government.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. If the employment situation in Canada has improved to the extent that the Minister of Finance claims, may I ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration if he can explain to the House why the unemployment insurance fund is worse off now than it was in 1972?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will be making a statement on this in more detail at a later time, but I would point out to the hon. member that there are many forces at work which are involved in that situation, not the least of which is the maturation of the maternity benefits and the special benefits, the fact that the act itself calls for an increase in the eligible income, and the fact that the average weekly
October 16, 1973

benefit has gone up by virtue of that from $62 to $68 a week-


George Harris Hees: Don't forget the weather.


Robert Knight Andras: We can use the weather if you want.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May we have order, please. Hon. members will note that there are a number of members seeking to ask supplementaries on this subject. I am not sure if this is what hon. members want because, if it were so, we could spend most of the question period on this important matter. The hon. member for St. John's East has a further supplementary and he will be recognized for that purpose.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I ask the minister what immediate steps he is taking to protect the unemployment insurance fund and to beef up the fund?


Robert Knight Andras: As I say, Mr. Speaker, I will be making a more detailed presentation to the House at some reasonably close date, but the fact of the matter is that I have already indicated publicly and in the House that a major re-organization of the Unemployment Insurance Commission operation is under way. Those details are available to hon. members.


UNEMPLOYMENT RATE INCREASE-DEPARTMENTAL ESTIMATE FOR BALANCE OF YEAR
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Given the fact that the labour force has declined in size and we have had a seasonal increase in unemployment, given the fact that the growth in the economy recorded so far this year was in the first quarter, and given the fact that obviously in making economic policy we have to look to the future, can the minister tell us what prediction or estimate of unemployment the Department of Finance is operating on for the balance of this year?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, we are operating on a prediction of a real growth of 7 per cent and of 300,000 new jobs, as I said in my budget speech, and that will probably be well exceeded.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, the point of the question is that all the growth in the Canadian economy that the Minister of Finance is talking about now took place in the first quarter of the year. The second quarter figures showed no growth at all. Surely if we are going to have a decline in unemployment we should have action-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member would now like to ask a question so that we may proceed.


James McPhail Gillies: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. My question is simply this: given the forecast that the Minister of Finance has made of inflation for next year with his indexing figure, what forecast of unemployment is the Department of Finance operating on in making decisions with respect to fiscal and monetary policies for the balance of this year?
Oral Questions


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have never made a prediction, in this House or elsewhere, of unemployment figures. I have not done so either inside or outside the House because of the variables in the strength of the economy, the movement of the labour force, the participation rate, those entering and leaving the labour force.


UNEMPLOYMENT RATE INCREASE-SUGGESTED ABOLITION OF CORPORATE TAX CUTS AND TRANSFER OF REDUCTIONS TO INDIVIDUALS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the corporate tax cut incentives obviously have not lowered the unemployment rate, can the minister say whether or not he is considering terminating them and using that half a billion dollars for tax cuts for ordinary citizens, thus stimulating their purchasing power, or providing the money to Crown corporations to invest in labour-intensive industries?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman ought to recall that the purpose of the corporate tax cuts was to strengthen and expand the productive capacity of the economy and to increase, in the medium and long-term factors, the ability of the Canadian economy to compete abroad. He also ought to recall the figure I gave the House earlier, that the strength of the economy is measured in 417,000 new jobs for men and women brought into the labour force this year.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that in the House today the minister referred to the great industrial corporations and the expansion of their production and so on but did not refer to how many jobs the corporate tax cuts have created, can he say definitely how many jobs those tax cuts have created?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would hope, by the time I bring in an interim report to the House on the effect of the corporate tax reductions at the end of March, that there will be far better information available than we have now.


UNEMPLOYMENT RATE INCREASE-REQUEST FOR NEW BUDGET
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Minister of Finance is startled and disconcerted by today's unemployment rate but not startled and disconcerted enough to take the House into his confidence and tell us on what figures the government's expansion plans are based, leaving aside the unemployment figures, could he tell us, in respect of the inflationary rate from which we are all suffering, how he juggles the figure of 6.6 per cent as contained in the tax credit index today-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am not sure that a question asked in these terms is in order. Perhaps the hon. member might like to rephrase his question.

October 16, 1973
Oral Questions


Allan Frederick Lawrence: My question is simply this, and it goes back to the first question asked today: will the minister please reconsider his adamant stand not to introduce a budget, in view of the soaring inflation and unemployment rate in Canada today? It is as simple as that.
# (1450)
[ Translation]


UNEMPLOYMENT RATE INCREASE-UTILIZATION OF SPECIAL INVESTMENT PROGRAM BY QUEBEC MUNICIPALITIES-PROVINCIAL CO-OPERATION
André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance who announced several months ago a special investment program for municipalities to assist in development and creation of new jobs.
Can he say whether he received many applications from the province of Quebec in view of the fact that it is one of the hardest hit provinces in Canada as far as unemployment is concerned? If so, did that province co-operate with the federal government in the allotment of those investment funds?


John Napier Turner: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a lot of co-operation and co-ordination between the province of Quebec and the federal government.
As far as specific figures go, Mr. Speaker, I would like to get them and send them to the hon. member.


UNEMPLOYMENT RATE INCREASE-ACCEPTANCE OF CERTAIN LEVEL BY GOVERNMENT IN LIGHT OF ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Howard Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
I would like to know if he will continue to go along with the Governor of the Bank of Canada that economic expansion is largely responsible for unemployment, inflation, and that a certain level of unemployment is acceptable to the government. I want to know if a rate of 6 per cent at the national level and 8 per cent in the province of Quebec is acceptable to the government at this moment.


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, neither the rate of price increases nor the rate of unemployment is satisfactory to the government.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Then what are you doing about it?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Central Nova. [Translation]


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps we might allow the hon. member for Brome-Missisquoi to ask a supplementary question, after which I will recognize the hon. member for Central Nova and then the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar.


CONSULTATION WITH QUEBEC ON WINTER WORKS PROJECTS TO RELIEVE UNEMPLOYMENT
William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the hon. Minister of Finance.
In view of the seriousness of the present situation, will the hon. Minister of Finance contact without delay the government of the province of Quebec to prepare definite projects to improve the situation in that province during the winter months, because of the 8 per cent unemployment rate existing in Quebec at the present time?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I am in contact fairly regularly with my provincial counterpart and other ministers of the provincial government. Should any acute problems arise, there would doubtless be immediate contacts.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister in the absence of the minister responsible for DREE. In view of the steady rise of what one might call the discomfort index in the poorer regions of Canada, will the Acting Prime Minister indicate whether it is government policy now at last to tailor policies on finance and transportation, for example, to assist rather than to act in a counter-productive fashion in regional development?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I have not been aware of any inconsistency in the policies of the government on this score. They are all directed to improving conditions in all parts of the country, particularly, of course, where growth has not been as rapid as it has been in the centre of the country.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. In view of his earlier answer which indicated that in his opinion unemployment is concentrated mainly among the unemployed, is he now prepared to indicate that he will voluntarily make some adaptations in his policy to complement the policies of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I will want to read that question very carefully in Hansard. I want to tell the hon. member, however, of the very close co-operation and co-ordination between myself and my colleague.


FEED GRAIN-ESTABLISHMENT OF PRICES BASED ON OFF-BOARD SURVEY
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister in charge of the Wheat Board arising out of his statement in the House on September 14. The minister stated at that time that monitoring of off-board prices for feed grain on the Prairies would be carried out by Agriculture Canada under the authority of the Agricultural Products Board and the results would then be supplied to the Wheat Board and to the Canadian Livestock Feed Board for their use in determining sale prices to purchasers. Will the minister inform the House whether the survey has been completed and if, as a result, grain prices have been established by the Canadian Wheat Board?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, a second such survey has taken place. The first survey was used to test the techniques which were being applied. The Wheat Board is in the final stages of determining the price basis upon which sales of grain will be made to users of grain throughout Canada.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Can the minister inform the House if the present prices at which feed wheat and feed barley are being sold to feeders and feed mills in eastern and western Canada are based on the monitored prices as described in the statement of September 14, and will he tell us what those prices are for utility wheat and feed barley?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the prices in effect at the moment continue to be the so-called corn competitive prices established by the Canadian Wheat Board in line with its past practices. As I indicated in my previous answer, the first price based on off-board prices is in the final stages of being determined and will be put into effect as soon as the mechanics for that placing into effect are available.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar for a last supplementary, then the hon. member for Lisgar who has a supplementary, and then the Leader of the Opposition.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a further supplementary question. I must assume that off-board prices are not the base, as he said. Is grain being sold within Wheat Board designated areas at non-board grain prices in western Canada as well as in eastern Canada and British Columbia?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the Wheat Board is continuing its practice of using its Thunder Bay price base for the sale of grain into eastern Canada and western Canada. That practice, which is long established, is continuing.


WHEAT AND BARLEY-POSSIBILITY OF INCREASE IN INITIAL PRICES
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister responsible for the
Oral Questions
Wheat Board. Since the Wheat Board has stated that it expects the final payment for wheat will be $4.92 and it is now paying an initial price of $2.25, may I ask the minister whether the government is going to increase the initial price for all grades of wheat and barley delivered to the Wheat Board and, if so, when does it intend to do so?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, consideration is not being given to a further change in the initial prices, which were changed, I should remind hon. members, on July 31, having been originally set for the year in March. However, there is provision in the Wheat Board Act for the Canadian Wheat Board at some point to recommend that an interim payment be made. There is significant pressure from farmers on the board to withhold such recommendation until January 1 so that any such payment may fall into the new tax year rather than the present tax year.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance who has conceded that he is startled by the upward movement in the seasonally adjusted unemployment rate, particularly this month and in recent months as well. He has refused to present a budget. Will he give the House the assurance that he proposes to do something about this? Can he assure the House that at the beginning of next week he will present the House with a statement incorporating some positive measures that he intends to take to offset this upward trend in unemployment inasmuch as he had all along expected unemployment to fall off during the year as a result of his budget measures?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in absolute terms unemployment is down over a point since this time last year. In terms of new jobs this reveals an economy expanding at close to capacity. I want to say to the hon. gentleman that if the indicators were to change in such a way as to justify further expansionary measures, of course I would consider them. At the moment the economy is expanding at a close to capacity rate.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, since the minister will give me no assurance regarding the statement for which I have asked, will he give us a statement showing how he has managed to accomplish achieving a rate of inflation of 8 V4 per cent associated with a seasonally adjusted rate of unemployment of 6 per cent?

October 16, 1973
Oral Questions MANPOWER


ALLEGED AWARDING OF CONTRACTS TO TWO TORONTO PRIVATE PLACEMENT COMPANIES TO HIRE EMPLOYEES FOR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the high unemployment rate and in view of the fact that the federal Department of Supply and Services recently awarded two contracts to two private placement companies in Toronto to hire employees for the federal government, may I ask the minister why it was necessary to spend taxpayers' dollars on such a venture and, second, why these people were not sought through the manpower offices which come under his direction?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I will take note of the hon. member's representations and look into them. I would be surprised to find that the facts are exactly as stated, but I will dig into them.

[ Transla tion]


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the recent unemployment figures, particularly affecting the maritime provinces and Quebec, is the government prepared, following the Quebec election, to hold a Quebec-Ottawa conference on Quebec economic outlook and more precisely on the future of young people on the labour market?


John Napier Turner: I will take into consideration the hon. member's representation. I must say that I am in almost constant communication with my Quebec counterpart and that we have projected a federal-provincial meeting for early next year.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary. At the time of the federal-provincial conference after October 29, would the government be prepared to have the opposition parties, both federal and provincial and the intermediate bodies directly involved, participating in this conference?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, one of the
difficulties is that we have never been able to obtain the provincial governments' consent.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the

minister indicated he had pledged on behalf of Canada some $274.5 million to the World Bank Development Fund. In view of the fact the total of Canada's cash foreign aid was some $475 million last year, will the minister or his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, indicate if there is a shift in the policy of Canada with regard to foreign aid and the concentration will now be more on a general fund rather than Canada deciding for itself which individual countries it will assist?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, this amount of $274.5 million for the replenishment of the International Development Association under the World Bank is payable over three years. Our proportion is 6.1 per cent of the total replenishment of $4.5 billion. Our contribution over the past three years was 6.26 per cent, so there is virtually no change in our contribution.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Is there a change of policy so that a greater proportion of Canada's foreign aid will be concentrated toward a general agency such as the World Bank Development Fund rather than Canada dealing with countries individually on a one-to-one basis?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, possibly I might be given an opportunity to comment on this question. For a number of years Canada has had a policy of increasing the proportion of its aid to international organizations with a target in mind of about 25 per cent. The decision that was made in Nairobi on the contribution to the IDA was in line with that target.


TRANSPORT
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the fact that the Thunder Bay area reports a low movement of grain to elevators there. There are 5,000 cars arriving weekly whereas the elevators could easily handle 9,000 cars. As a result of the reduction in the number that could be handled there have been layoffs. In view of the fact the season for shipment out of Thunder Bay continues only through November and part of December, will the minister at once get in touch with the railway companies and impress on them the necessity of supplying the necessary cars so there will be full employment at Thunder Bay and at the same time western wheat will be moving to market?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will immediately inquire into this situation and see whether something can be done at this time. I recognize it is late in the season and that we should do our utmost to have full employment and ship the grain.


John George Diefenbaker: In order that we will have full information, will the minister get in touch with the Minister of Manpower and Immigration who received full information
October 16, 1973

from the Thunder Bay and District Labour Council last week? If there is a little communication, it may help.


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


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I wish to assure the right hon. member that that communique has been conveyed to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board, the Minister of Justice-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, it was impossible to hear what the Minister of Manpower and Immigration was saying.


Mr. Speaker:: May we have order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: No one would want to miss such words of wisdom.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


SHORTAGE OF BOXCARS FOR SHIPMENT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA LUMBER
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport with regard to the allocation of boxcars. Is the minister aware of the situation in north central British Columbia where there is a shortage of approximately 2,000 boxcars for lumber shipment, the result of which is increasing unemployment in sawmills and the logging section of the industry, all because CNR is unable to supply the required number of boxcars to move the lumber out of that area.


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the situation is the same for the British Columbia Railway which is owned by the British Columbia government. Because of the strike there are shortages everywhere. Attempts are being made to supply as many boxcars as possible. There is a shortage at the present time. There is no doubt about it.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I bring to the attention of hon. members that there are just three or four minutes before the end of the question period. The hon. member for Skeena might ask one supplementary, after which I will recognize the hon. member for Rimouski and try to have two or three other questions before the end of the question period.


Frank Howard: Is the minister aware the British Columbia Railway took action earlier this spring to acquire a number of boxcars and CN has been sitting on its ass doing nothing?
Oral Questions


HOUSING
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State responsible for housing.
Following the adoption of Bill C-133 and in view of the fact that winter time is closing in and that the municipalities have projects to be implemented, can the minister tell the House whether the negotiations with the Quebec government are completed? If so, is the minister prepared to make a statement in the House to indicate the contents of this agreement?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, there is an agreement between the government of Canada, Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation and the province of Quebec for the use of National Housing Act programs within the province of Quebec. That agreement is in operation and is working.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance, in
view of the fact the average weekly benefits paid by the Unemployment Insurance Commission have risen by 13 per cent from July, 1972, to July, 1973, and for the same period the consumer price index rose 7.7 per cent, will the minister admit that the UIC scheme is providing a disincentive to work that may affect the figures recently received?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Due to the government's ten month delay in settling wage negotiations with the nursing group of the Professional Institute of the Public Service, which is causing serious economic problems for the nursing staff at Deer Lodge Veterans Hospital in Winnipeg, plus low morale, staff shortages and, the most serious aspect of the problem, decreasing nursing attention to our veterans in that hospital, will the minister order an investigation and take corrective action on the deplorable conditions which exist at Deer Lodge?

October 16, 1973
Oral Questions


Hon. Daniel J. MacDonald (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: First and foremost, the question is not entirely relevant. As far as negotiations with the nurses are concerned, this matter is being looked into.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Harney (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce I direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. The government of Canada, through the Export Development Corporation, cut off credit to Chile in October, 1972. Is it now the intention of the government to favour the present military government of Chile by renewing credit in concert with United States policy at this time?


Mitchell William Sharp: The
information upon which the hon. gentleman bases his question is quite inaccurate. During the period of the Allende government the Export Credit Corporation and other Canadian agencies extended very large credits.


John Paul Harney: Bearing in mind that in a committee of the House last year there was discussion about the fact that these credits had been cut off, would the minister care to table at a fairly early date the history of these credits and their allocation to Chile as well as the reconsideration which was supposed to take place in April of this year?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, maybe I could briefly give the House two or three facts which would help to dispel the sort of misinformation now being spread. For example, in April, 1973, a loan of $5 million was approved for the purchase by Chile of Canadian aircraft and telecommunication equipment.


MANPOWER
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It is based on the fact that two days have now passed since the deadline for the receipt of applications under the LIP program, and the fact that fewer applications have reached the department than was the case last year, the reason being that necessary information was late in going out to citizens in isolated northern communities. Would the minister now consider extending the deadline beyond October 15 in order that more people may be able to submit applications and thus provide employment in those areas to which the program is directed?


Robert Knight Andras: The basis upon which the hon. member has posed his question is really quite incorrect. The number of applications was incorrectly reported publicly. We have received 6,700 applications although the number was reported as being 4,500. We have now received requests to an estimated value of more than $200 million. We are extremely pleased by the calibre of the projects submitted. Having said that, if I found a constituency which, for some reason, had not been able to get under the wire I would consider what might be done, but there will be no general extension beyond the deadline date.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Braton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. It is one he undertook to answer before the recess when I raised it earlier. Has the hon. gentleman had an opportunity to study the discrepancy between the evidence placed before the court by the Cape Breton Development Corporation and the evidence placed before a parliamentary committee in order to ascertain whether Tom Kent was in contempt of parliament or in contempt of court?


Otto Emil Lang: I have had a report on the matter which leads me to believe that there is no such element present.


Mr. Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: On a
point of order, Mr. Speaker, the fact is that the evidence before the court shows that the Cape Breton Development Corporation made one claim before the court and has since put in writing the exact opposite point of view and has given that same evidence before a committee. How can the minister say there is no discrepancy when he himself has the opportunity to read the written and oral evidence given by the Cape Breton Development Corporation?


Otto Emil Lang: On that question or point of order, the answer is that the legal opinion I am receiving and the legal opinion I accept is different from the legal advice I am getting from the hon. member opposite.


Donald MacInnis: On a
further point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That was hardly a point of order. Perhaps the hon. member might be recognized for the purpose of asking a supplementary question, after which I will call orders of the day.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to say to the Minister of Justice that I have not been asking for a legal opinion. I have been asking him to examine evidence placed before the court and placed before a parliamentary committee so that he himself could see the discrepancy in that evidence and give a ruling whether Tom Kent is in contempt of court or in contempt of parliament. It has got to be one or
October 16, 1973

the other. There is no denying it. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that nobody knows this better than the Chair itself.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, October 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Lalonde that Bill C-211, to provide for the payment of family allowances in respect of children to supplement the income of Canadian families and for the payment of special allowances to provide for the care and maintenance of other children, and to amend the Income Tax Act in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs.
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, last night at ten o'clock I made a start on my comments concerning Bill C-211 to raise family allowances. It is not my intention to take up much time today since it is the wish of my party that second reading should be expedited, thus enabling us to get the bill into committee.
It is obvious that a great majority of members of the House are in favour of this measure. One might say that anyone who is not in favour is not aware of the extent of poverty in our country or of the need to direct financial assistance to growing children in all segments of our society. It is obvious, too-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I apologize to the hon. member but I should like to bring it to the attention of all hon. members that it is difficult for the speaker who has the floor to make himself heard above the conversations which are taking place. I suggest that if members must conduct conversations they should do so behind the curtain or in the lobbies.


Jack Marshall: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. It is obvious, too, that all ten provinces support the bill. I hope that with the co-operation of all parties at the committee stage, including the minister, we can make the few changes which appear necessary and pass the bill in its final stages so that its benefits can become available in January of next year, as is the objective of the legislation.
The official spokesman for our party, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) indicated yesterday that this was the position of our party and I am sure members of all parties share this attitude. I, therefore, hope that after almost four years of intermittent debate on this subject, and after the introduction of three other bills dealing with this issue, we have finally resolved our differences and can direct the results of the legislation to those to whom its benefits are aimed.
Family Allowances
Hundreds of thousands of mothers in our country are waiting anxiously for this bill to be passed. It is unfortunate that as a result of four years of debate on this topic, as well as two poor bills, Bills C-170 and C-274, which left doubts in my mind, at least, as to the capability of the Department of National Health and Welfare, there should be skepticism in the minds of many of our citizens concerning the government's sincerity. I am sure many thousands of poor Canadian families will not credit the government with sincere intentions in connection with Bill C-223, increasing the allowance to $12, until the cheques are actually in their hands on October 20. The same applies, I believe, to the increases afforded under Bill C-211, with which we are dealing today. I trust that by taking a conscientious attitude to the bill before us we can regain some respect in the eyes of that segment of our society which desperately needs financial assistance in order to cope with inflation, and inflation which we cannot seem to control.
It is fine for the economic experts to keep saying that this is not the direction governments should be taking in fighting inflation. They have all the answers by expounding words of wisdom with their mouths, but they do not know or feel what it is like to have a hungry stomach, and they are evidently not aware of some of the suffering that exists amongst our five million poverty stricken citizens. They evidently do not know that at this very moment many thousands of our children are restricted in their ability to learn because they go to school hungry. They evidently do not know or do not care that thousands of our children are undernourished, and will grow up underdeveloped and therefore unhealthy.
Almost every day we hear about increases in the cost of health care and the inability of provinces to cope with medical care costs. But surely someone has to realize that the reason that more and more people are in need of medical attention in their adult years is that more concentration of our efforts was not directed towards the development of our youth with proper nourishment, so that in future years they would grow up to be healthy and physically fit citizens. Because governments have failed to do this over the years, since we have not been able to provide employment to all our citizens, since we have not been able to provide programs for those who are restricted in their ability to provide for themselves, and since we have not been able to provide that quality of life for all our citizens which everyone proclaims, how can we blame the poverty stricken or their children for the condition in which they find themselves in our supposedly wealthy and healthy nation?
Again today in the House during the question period much mention was made of the government's inability either to control inflation or to deal with unemployment. This disease has been going on for years because of this government's inability to cope with these problems. But while we still look for the answers to these problems, do we continue to allow the poor children of our country to wait and grow up undernourished, uneducated and not able to cope with society? No, Mr. Speaker. Until we who represent some 22 million Canadians can overcome these problems, it is our duty to provide social measures and

October 16, 1973
Family Allowances
give financial assistance where necessary. There is no doubt in my mind, then, Mr. Speaker, that the family allowances program and the benefits derived by all children of our country on a universal basis will be of the utmost benefit to Canada as a nation. We have the wealth, and it is our duty to distribute this wealth to those who need assistance.
We are directing reasonable benefits to our senior citizens, and we are directing reasonable benefits to other disadvantaged citizens of our country, such as our worthy veterans, through disability pensions and war veterans allowances. We are now slowly getting to the stage where we can provide a sensible means of making annual increases to these pensions to cope with rising costs as they occur.
Probably I shall be taken to task by some who may quarrel with my use of the word "reasonable", but I am sure that this is no time to be political or to bandy around figures for the sake of political advantage. I also hope that, through consultation with the provinces when discussing the orange paper on social security, we will come up with a program for a guaranteed income for those Canadians whom we must help, and one that provides proper, built-in work incentives for those who are willing to work and who have the initiative to provide for themselves and their children.
I hope that the minister, as he indicated to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) yesterday was the case, is making progress with the provinces in regard to the Canada Assistance Plan and the need for the provinces to increase social assistance which is also directed to disadvantaged children and poverty stricken families.
In regard to cost of living increases, since these pertain to the bill before us and were mentioned in detail by some hon. members yesterday, I may say I am a bit concerned over the fact that under the provisions of clause 13 the Governor in Council is given the right to propose these increases. I feel this right should be included in the bill, as it exists in pension legislation. I agree with the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and also with the hon. member for Hillsborough, that the percentage increase in the annual cost of living adjustment should not be less than $1. Surely, an automatic provision in this regard can be included in the bill.
I have no quarrel either with the provision of the bill giving the provinces the right to vary the benefits according to size of family and the age of children. With ten provinces probably coming up with ten different schemes I hope not too many administrative difficulties will be caused, to the disadvantage of those to whom the benefits are directed. However, this question can be dealt with at the committee stage.
I am concerned, too, that the minister has discussed with the provinces, along with proposed improvements under the Canada Assistance Plan, the proposition that no province reduce social assistance benefits as a result of increases in the family allowances afforded under this bill. I say that such action would considerably reduce the effectiveness of the bill, particularly in light of uncontrollable cost of living increases, and I ask the minister to give details of these discussions at the next opportunity.

I did indicate, Mr. Speaker, that it was not my intention to belabour the bill in view of the interest of our party in getting the bill to committee. May I simply repeat what I said when we were debating Bill C-223, that we agree with the bill and think it is a good one. I hope we will get on with the job and finally give to those Canadians who derive benefits from the bill that quality of life that will help them in the future.


John Paul Harney: Mr. Speaker, yesterday we heard two very fine orations. Perhaps I should say three, because I should like to include in that catalogue the speech of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie). But certainly we had one very detailed and sober presentation from the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), and a very unusual, but nevertheless intriguing, address by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I say unusual in that it was so complimentary. He praised the minister to a certain point, justifiably so, for the excellence of the program and for the way in which the bill had been presented to the House by the minister.
I should like to advise the minister that the words spoken by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre ought perhaps to be taken with a little grain of salt. We all know that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has a background in divinity, and I could not help but recall while he was speaking the words of Paul, which I believe were-"Kill your enemy with kindness and so heap coals of fire upon his head". So there is a warning. I do not intend to heap any coals of fire on anyone's head. In fact, I shall continue the compliments given to the minister. I think that he did this House and the country a service in the way that he presented the bill, particularly the way he went around blowing up some old canards.

As the French song more or less goes: ... de sorte que le beau chasseur qui s'en allait chassant, visa le noir et tua le noir.

One particular canard that I was glad to see blown up was the ancient one that higher family allowances would simply entail an increase in the birth rate. I do not know why anybody would not be aware in 1973 of the facts that the minister outlined so capably yesterday. It has been proven for a considerable number of years that about the only significant factor which tends to reduce the birth rates of various nations is the increase in the per capita gross national product of those nations. It appears that human beings behave very humanly Mr. Speaker and that when they are assured of security they can plan for their future; they can plan for their families and the maintenance of those families. Indeed, it is in those countries which have a very low per capita GNP, where people are underprivileged in the extreme, where they cannot look to their old age with security that they tend to see children as an economic value and breed accordingly. This has not been the case in Canada for a good number of years. I was glad to see this canard blown up but I was very saddened this morning to see how the news of the minister's address appeared in the newspapers. The only headline which I
October 16, 1973

saw in the morning paper was this: "Higher family allowances not primarily to help Quebec, Lalonde says".
It is very sad that at this time in our history a minister should feel it necessary to attack this particular old tale. He did demolish the myth and he did it very capably by saying that the birth rate in the province of Quebec was indeed the second lowest of all the provinces in the country, but I think it is sad that he should feel it necessary to do this. It is very sad because should it be the case that one area of our country, because of economic, social and cultural conditions and traditions should have a higher birth rate, we in this House should not be niggardly to the point of enunciating that welfare benefits or social insurance programs are designed to satisfy particularly the needs of that region or that province.
While the minister was out hunting and choosing his canards, Mr. Speaker, I wish that he had attacked another one as well. As a matter of fact he fed the canard rather than shot at it. It was this one: That in the new proposed program, even though there was a considerable amount of flexibility, even though the provinces and the federal government did come to see eye to eye on the way that these programs could be made more flexible, even though they had been a long time coming to this point and how glad we all were that they had, even in spite of all this we, the members of this House, were handed back a little bauble. It was that the federal government would be present still in the cheques issued for family allowances. What does it matter Mr. Speaker? Surely, we do not think that Canadians are going to be influenced in their loyalty to the country by the fact that the cheques say "Government of Canada" rather than Gouvernement du Quebec, Government of Newfoundland, Prince Edward Island or whatever. Let us get rid of this canard. He has disposed of one already and there are others in the bill waiting to be hunted.
As a final compliment, Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the minister and the government on his and their return to the policies of the late Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson and the late Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Paul Harney: For a while last year it looked very much as though the principle of universality in social insurance programs and redistribution programs was to be thrown overboard. The FISP program was a denial of this principle of universality, a denial of the principle to underscore the belief held by many people in this country that programs such as family allowance programs were not welfare but a very necessary aspect of social justice in this country. I am very glad, as are all members of my party, to see this return by the present government to the beliefs and principles of the Pearson government and also the return even further back and, as significant, to the principles and policies of the King government of 1945.
We are now beginning to approach the level of payments under the family allowance plan that existed in 1945. The minister gave us the figures. In 1945 the basic payment was $5 per month per child and now, after a leap to $12, we
Family Allowances
are going to a level of $20. That sounds pretty impressive but I should like to put it in perspective.
In 1945, $5 was worth much more than $20 is now- considerably more. I will give a couple of concrete examples to underline this point, Mr. Speaker. One is a personal recollection. I remember as a teenager being at the dinner table in a friend's house and his mother said to his father, "Well dear, we have just received the family allowance cheque for our four children". He said, "Oh well, what is that worth?" After opening the envelope and seeing the sum of $20 he said "Well, at the very least it will pay the rent." That was true because their rent then was some $23 per month. On a street in Quebec City you could rent a three bedroom house for $23 per month in 1945. I should like to know what size of family you would need to pay the rent today Mr. Speaker. Even at $20 a month each you would have to be pretty prolific to be able to cover the monthly rent.
Let us put it in real terms. I am sure if you look at the dollar value in 1945 and the dollar value now that the increase from $5 to $20 is, nevertheless, considerable. This increase takes account to a certain degree of the devaluation in our dollar; the fact that it buys less today than it did then. But it overlooks one extremely important factor-that what the people are facing today is not simply a rising pattern in the cost of living but an excruciating increase in the cost of the necessities of life, food and shelter particularly. If you compare the cost of food today, the cost of shelter, the cost of clothing and the cost of basic transportation, these costs that the ordinary people of our country find so very difficult to meet, with the cost of those items in 1945, you will find that the proportion is much more than four to one. So, let us not praise ourselves too much. We will not have done very much when we pass this bill to bring the payments to an average of $20 a month. Before we cover ourselves with too much glory, let us consider the plight of the ordinary family in the face of the economy of today and how things have materially changed for them between 1945 and now. It is a slight return to the days of Mackenzie King but not a return that goes far enough.
Mr. Speaker, there was one element in the proposal which alarmed me somewhat, an element which is not so much contained in the bill as in the agreement which may or may not exist between the federal government and the provincial governments. I do not know for sure, and I believe such is the case for most members of this House, how the provincial governments will handle this increase in family allowances in relation to the social benefits that they pay to welfare recipients. Judging from the reaction of the relevant minister in the Ontario legislature yesterday when he announced that Ontario would apply an average of $20 per month across the board, and not try to pro rate it in any way among other recipients, it would appear that the provincial government there is going to take account of the increase in the family allowance in order to adjust, likely reduce, benefits paid now to various welfare claimants.
I am sorry at this stage to have to correct my hon. friend and mentor, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Yesterday, in castigation of the hon.

October 16, 1973
Family Allowances
member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), he said that this program is not a welfare program. Well, it now appears that when it comes to welfare recipients the family allowance program is considered as a welfare program, at least in Ontario, and this may be the case in several other provinces in this country. In dealing with Ontario, at least we are dealing with one very significant proportion of the population of this country. So, it would appear there is the very real possibility that the people who need the help the most under this program will get the least. Why should this be?
Well, it appears there is a concern among those people who are considered the experts in respect of social benefits and social welfare to the effect that the working poor should receive at least as much or more income as the people on social welfare. At first this might appear to be a very legitimate concern, but let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that is not a concern that goes far enough. Of course, we will all agree that people who work, no matter how low their income may be, should either equal or surpass in income the people on social benefits. But that is not the only concern we should have. I, for one, do not want to be drawn into an argument as to whether the working poor are more deserving than the' people on social welfare. The kind of argument I want to become involved in is whether the working poor and the people on social welfare both receive their due share of the national income. If we let ourselves become involved in this kind of niggly little debate-not niggly but niggardly debate-in which we wonder whether the persons on social benefits are receiving more than the working poor, then I suggest we will lose sight of the main or stated intention behind this bill.
The stated intention should be fairly obvious. It is that this is a program designed to help redistribute income in this country. It is very obvious to the minister and many other observers of the Canadian economic scene that there are people who receive much more than their fair share of the national income and others who receive much less. It is very obvious to practically everyone in this House that we cannot let the private enterprise system run by itself. We need something called welfare or social insurance programs to get rid of the worst deprivations of the private enterprise system. The figures are startling to anyone. Yesterday the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre quoted figures cited by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) which indicate how staggering the difference is in the incomes received by the various sectors of our population.
For example, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre stated that the first quintile, the bottom 20 per cent, of income workers in this country in 1971 in terms of family income received 3.6 per cent of the national income and that the fifth quintile, the top 20 per cent, received 43 per cent of the national income. These are staggering figures indeed. They become even more depressing if we look at the figures for income distribution through the years. Rather than see the situation improve we see it deteriorate. It is 3.6 per cent now for the bottom fifth of the population in income terms. It was 4.4 per cent in 1965, 4.2 per cent in 1967 and is now 3.6 per cent. On the other hand, the top fifth which now receives 43.3 per cent has progressed from a figure of 41.5 per cent in 1965 to 42 per cent in 1967, to 42.6 per cent in 1969 and 43.3 per cent now.

So, in spite of all the mythology to the effect that too much money is being spent by government on social programs, social insurance programs, old age pensions, what is called generically welfare by some of the members to my right, in spite of all this, the fact still remains that the distribution of income in Canada is not moving toward equality but is moving toward greater and greater inequality. That is why I must ask myself if the present program proposed by the minister will change this trend. Sure, there will be a distribution, but will it be in the right direction? I say that if the provinces are to be allowed to adjust downwards social welfare benefits, whether they do that by taking into account the fact that families will be receiving $20 per child and will therefore reduce the benefit themselves or whether they calculate this new $20 per month per child as a form of income for a family, then we will not alter this trend toward greater and greater inequality in distribution of income in this country.
I know the minister would probably say the figures are accurate because they are from Statistics Canada. We all have reason to believe in Statistics Canada. He could also add that these figures do not take into account the programs which have been initiated in the past number of years or the fact that now there is considerably more public housing in certain sectors of the country, that this is a way of alleviating the condition in which some people find themselves and that there are medicare programs across the country as well as hospitalization programs. I see the minister nodding. He has made suggestions to this effect before. The people who comprise what might be called the professional welfare community in the country would agree with him.
Let us get back to the real world and consider some other points. In many provinces although there is medicare and hospitalization people must pay for this. In the province of Ontario, where I live, the combined medicare and hospitalization premium is staggering. Many a worker who thinks this premium is paid for by his company does not realize that this is simply part of his pay. It is part of his pay that is negotiated in the contract he gets from his employer. Another factor ought to be considered in this real world we are looking at. Many of the programs that have been instituted and implemented in the past 20 years are in a sense stop-gap programs. They have been implemented and improved because the costs felt by our citizens in those areas were becoming unbearable.
Let me cite, for example, hospitalization. The costs of hospitalization have gone up enormously, and so has the need for hospitalization because the way of life of Canadian citizens now is totally different from the way they lived a generation or two ago. So what in effect is happening is that in spite of the fact that these programs have been initiated and improved, the real situation of the deprived, of the poor in this country, in relation to their fellow citizens has not changed.
The reason there are so many people in my riding living in Ontario housing is that there is no more housing being produced for them by the private housing industry. While 40, 50 or 60 years ago the housing industry in the city of Toronto was able to produce good, solid, durable, decent, clean housing for the working people of that city, it is no
October 16, 1973

longer able to do so. So where private enterprise chooses not to go, the state, under its welfare approach, has to go. So we built housing for these people, inadequate as it may be. We have to build housing for them. So their real condition in relation to their fellow citizens has not changed for the better; indeed, it has probably changed for the worse. They are in the same market place except that in the market place those who used to be able to muscle them out before can muscle them out to an even greater degree now because they simply have more money to spend.
A few days ago there was the beginning of a debate in the press of this country when it was revealed that wage earners had not only failed to advance their position over the past year but had been able to do less than hold their own against rising prices. Immediately after that, information was produced to negate the statement. We were told that the total disposable income in this country, after taxes have been taken into consideration, and after the rate of inflation has been deducted, has gone up by 6.2 per cent. Was that not good news, we were asked. Of course, it was good news but the logic of the situation must stare us in the face. If the wage earners as a class have not moved ahead but have slipped backward, and if we as a total group of Canadians have moved ahead by 6.2 per cent in real disposable income, then it means that certain groups in this country have gone ahead by much more than 6.2 per cent.
So, here we go again. We are not moving toward a state of better and more fair distribution of income but quite the opposite. This is why I urge the minister not to buy the kind of policy which entails an argument as to whether the working poor are getting as much as people on social benefits. Let us forget that argument; it is not an important one. Let us ask ourselves whether both of these groups are getting their fair share of the national pie and, at the very least, let us not get involved in a program which will allow the provinces to effectively dispose of the increase in family allowances in such a way that people who are both in the working poor group and welfare recipient group are not to benefit in any significant way.
The distribution of income in our country, as I have been stating, is obviously not good. It is alarmingly bad. But some of us are probably inclined to take comfort from the fact that we are not as badly off here in Canada as others are in other areas of the world. For example, there is an editorial in the Globe and Mail of Thursday, September 27, which is signalled by the usual archness of Globe and Mail editorials, which deals with upgrading foreign aid. It reads in part;
The past 10 years of economic development have in fact left 800 million people relatively worse off than they were before. The upper 40 per cent of the population of developing countries typically gets 75 per cent of the national income, while the lowest 20 per cent gets 5 per cent.
I am sure that many of us reading this editorial would have shaken our heads in dismay. What a sad state of affairs! In the developing countries, 40 per cent of the population gets 75 per cent of the national income, leaving 25 per cent to be distributed with generosity and largesse to the remaining 60 per cent. I am sure that on looking at these figures we took some comfort from the fact that such was not the situation in Canada. I am sorry to have to
Family Allowances
report to you, Mr. Speaker, that these are the facts in Canada; indeed, they are exactly so in Canada. If you consider the income received by individuals who are earning the income of the top 40 per cent, you will find that they get, according to the 1971 figures, 75.2 per cent of the national income. So here we are lecturing the developing countries about their unequal distribution of income, whereas the situation in our country is exactly the same as the one which we condemn in developing countries. In terms of the distribution of income, we are a developing country. We have an extremely long way to go. I know I have quoted figures that only go back over the past few years. I could go as far back as 1951 and demonstrate that the situation then was pretty much the same, except for one year or two when the situation really became disastrous, and that was in 1960 and 1961. Those were the infamous years when there was no real gain, as a matter of fact, a loss in total income for Canadians, years in which there was inflation as well. So I do not think it is a matter of singling out which party did what when. The record has not been good.
Again, I must refer to the province of Ontario to try to discover why our record has been so bad. From the beginning of this confederation and before, we have always had an extremely niggardly outlook regarding the poor. In the old days they used to be called, not the poor or the unemployable welfare recipients, but the sturdy beggars; this was the term used. We used to ask ourselves: what shall we do with the sturdy beggars in our society, people who beg but are strong enough to work? We have always been so concerned with the little dollars and cents that may go to the wrong person who may not be totally deserving, these people who, according to certain people in our society, actually populate vast areas of our cities. These people are always to be seen on a Saturday afternoon on the back stoop with a case of beer, doing nothing else but watching television. We have always been so concerned with this that we have failed to tackle the main problem which is that we have an extremely unjust society and there is nothing that has happened in the past three or four years to indicate that it will become just.
I am suggesting this afternoon that unless measures are taken to provide for the adequate distribution of family allowances there will be no change of any significance in terms of the distribution of income in our society. This program is one which I will support in principle. I certainly hope to correct it in detail, but I will support it in principle because it can be a step towards greater social and economic equality in this country. But I would like to remind the minister that this is a step, and only a very small step.
If the governments of this country, the federal government and the provincial governments, were really concerned with the working poor they would do something about the minimum wage. Why should it be that a man who works needs to have some kind of supplement from the state for his income? I know such proposals are entailed in the discussions that are going on at the federal-provincial level, and that somehow a way will be found to supplement the incomes of the working poor. There are great numbers of working poor in this country. In my city

October 16, 1973
Family Allowances
of Toronto, the working poor vastly outnumber the people on welfare. It is a matter of choice for them. They would rather receive less than go on welfare. They would rather work and earn their own way. It is a natural, human desire. So there are now proposals in the wind which will have the effect of supplementing the incomes of the working poor.
We will figure out how much they get from their employers. We will find out how much they need in order to survive, and then we will supplement their incomes. But call it what we will, it will be another form of welfare. It will not be welfare for the employee; it will be welfare for the employer. Rather than having to carry the burden, what the employer is going to do is hand the can over to the government and, while he is at it, complain about high taxes.
We should never get involved in such programs. This is the. worst kind of thinking which has come out of the administration of President Nixon in the United States. I remember seeing the U.S. President proposing his new welfare package two or three years ago. I remember a lot of people nodding and saying, "Yes, we should do more to help people who are working because they deserve it, whereas people who don't work and receive social benefits should be viewed rather sternly. We should build incentives into the system so that we can give the chap who is working an extra number of dollars a month."
But Mr. Speaker, what we will be doing with that is subsidizing the cheap rate employer. The governments of this country will have to tax more in order to do that, and as they tax more the attack on government activity, on government participation in the welfare and well-being of our population, will be given more and more support. I do not buy that idea at all.
If we want to help the man who is working, let us do something about the minimum wage. It is disgraceful in most sectors of this country. At the very least, Mr. Speaker, the minimum wage should be sufficient to bring a man and his family above the poverty threshold. And while we are at it, I do not want to hear the old canard that if we raise the minimum wage some industries will have to close down. I say that if they are going to live on the backs of their workers, then let them close down. We do not need the goods and services that they produce. However, if we do need them, let us to be ready to pay more directly through the market place for these goods and services.
There are other ways of seeing to it that income is more fairly distributed in this country. I am sure the minister has the figures. I am sure if he goes back to the 1920's, the 30's, 40's and 50's and watches the progress in the distribution of income he will find that the only time in which there was a significant shift in the distribution of income in Canada was the period between 1935 and 1944. Why was that? Yes, there was an increase in transfer payments. I will grant you that. There was a considerable increase in them around that time. But more important than that, this was the period when there was a vast and significant increase in the amount of union organization in Canada. When the CIO moved into Ontario in particular, there was a very real shift in the way that the goods and services that we produced were distributed among our people. We owe that not to government activity but to the activity of

the people themselves, who organized to take what was their due.
In this society and under this type of government, I do not think the poor or the working poor can ever hope to be granted their just due. Their only hope is to organize themselves to take it. Power is never granted; it is only taken. Many people in this society are beginning to realize that. One of my colleagues points out that this is what the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) says. In fact, he said it the other day. I am quite sure he understands it. He may not pay much attention to it now, but he certainly understands it.
If the government were really interested in doing something about the distribution of income, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) would cosy up to the Minister of Labour (Mr. Munro) one day and say, "Look, my honourable colleague, this is a real problem here in Canada. Lots of people are not getting enough, and the reason they are not getting enough is that they are working for lousy pay. One of the reasons they are working for lousy pay is not because they are working for the railroads and we ordered them back to work for lousy pay, but because they are working in all kinds of industries which are not only not organized, not unionized, but cannot be organized and unionized for two reasons. One reason is our laws. We make it almost impossible for these people to get organized. The second reason is that the costs of organization are so enormous the union movement cannot carry them."
Let us not forget, Mr. Speaker, that the union movement, which is supposed to be rolling in money, has to carry out all further organization of workers out of the dues it receives from those it has already organized, and in many cases these are people who do not earn all that much. "So couldn't you," he could suggest to his colleague, the Minister of Labour, "think of redesigning your department so that rather than having a Department of Labour which really only polices the industrial situation in our society,-it just sees to it that there are no outbreaks, riots or great crises-have a positively oriented Department of Labour like the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, which goes out to help businessmen, or at least tries to help them? That department takes businessmen over to Europe to look for new contracts and new business. It holds seminars for businessmen. It goes further than that. We have many programs in this country to aid small businesses. They may not be terribly effective but at least they try. And we have lots of programs to aid big business-"


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: He may continue if there is unanimous consent of the House. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Paul Harney: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Colleagues to my right who wish to speak today suggest that I take another two minutes. The parallel, the analogy was not finished. In the same way the Department, of Agriculture tries to help
October 16, 1973

the farmers. Provincial departments send out Ag. Reps. I know because I used to train Ag. Reps. They try to help the farmers grow better crops and find better markets. Couldn't we have a Department of Labour that actually goes out to try to help working people, that tells them what their rights are under Canadian law, that tells them what unions are available for them, and yes, even helps in the process of organizing? I am not suggesting that it help in bargaining. We can leave that up to the unions for they are capable there. This proposal could bring about a very significant shift in the distribution of income in this country. That would be something real.
In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, because the minister has given us an indication that he is moving, that he is willing to take this one small step, I will go along with him. Members of my party will go along with him. We will help him not to falter as he takes this step, but we will expect him to keep in stride.
[ Transla tion]


Mr. Romeo LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, there might be a good number of reasons to support Bill C-211. It could be of course to gain a political advantage but I think we should support it mainly because we established its beneficial effects for lower income families, that is to say the majority of my constituents and a good number of citizens in my province of New Brunswick.
You only have to visit the small fishing plants along the Northumberland Strait to understand why the housewives who work there are waiting for the increase proposed by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). They often get only the provincial minimum wages, or $1.50 an hour and often their husband does not do any better. However, the real needs are not lower in these regions. Those housewives describe what it costs to dress the teenagers who are going to school, particularly to regional schools. To those of us who lived through days when clothes had to be mended and when patches stood in testimony of mothers' skill and family poverty, no need to recall that things like television have on the youth a levelling effect and that there are no more really remote or isolated regions. Country and small town teenagers want to live like the people they see on television and want to follow the fashion and for that, they make a strong pressure on their family.
But if they wish to be like others, country and small town teenagers have few opportunities to get casual income. There are not many opportunities for newspaper boys, work in the corners store or babysitting. In other words, all the burden is on parents who desperately want to give their children the education they did not get themselves.
If I insist on the needs of teenagers it it because this group is often tempted to quit school prematurely to make a few dollars and it is at that age that one is most affected by the feeling of not keeping up with the rest. Instead of the standard $20 a month per child formula chosen by the province of New Brunswick, I would have preferred a formula that would put greater emphasis on teenagers and their parents.
Family Allowances
Mr. Speaker, the increase in family allowances contained in this bill was quite rightly biased in favor of low income families. They will thus receive substantial increases, roughly $114 net after taxes annually for every child in the province of New Brunswick, over $27 million a year for that province alone. Even if it is taxable, the greater majority of citizens in that province will keep nearly all the increase contained in this bill. I for one fully endorse the principle of giving more to those who need it most and I am glad to see that principle set out under the Income Tax Act. The Minister of National Health and Welfare stated in his speech yesterday that such a way of distributing family allowances represents a step in the direction of more equitable regional distribution of income. It seems to me that within an area that distribution will benefit those who live away from large centers, who do not want to move in those centers and who are prepared to make certain sacrifices to continue and live in their towns. If it is true that large amounts were spent on regional development it is also true that those monies were spent mainly in growth centers better equipped to draw the maximum out of them.
Some people see family allowances as a sort of supplement to a minimum vital income. Mr. Speaker, it must be hoped that in a great number of cases families will use those monies as a supplement that will also allow to improve the quality of life whether it is by improving the quality of food by going to the dentist, by paying for musical lessons and even by allowing the boys to attend hockey schools. All these things are considered as normal in more wealthy regions but they are often a luxury in disadvantaged areas.

One can hope, Mr. Speaker, that provincial authorities which provide only a strict minimum of services in schools and community life will not use this increase in family allowances to reduce or to slow down the progress in the improvement of services. The fall-out in taxation terms from this increase which, for example, in New Brunswick should result in an increase of 4.4 million dollars, would be well invested if it were reserved for improvement in dental care for children, in education for better nutrition, in kindergartens and in greater allowances for teenagers. Some provinces, including, I believe, Alberta, Quebec and Prince Edward Island, have already indicated clearly that they would favour increasing allowances for teenagers to beyond $20.
I also wish to say that I support the minister's statement that family allowances will continue to be sent by the federal government directly to families. If we are to have unity in this country it is important that citizens understand where their tax dollar is spent, and by whom. In fact, when I was in my riding last Friday I read with interest in the New Brunswick newspapers that "the provincial government has decided to distribute $20 a month-a child-under the federally financed family allowances program." The Saint John Telegraph Journal carried the headline, "New Brunswick plans to pay $20 a child allowance". One might say that the author of the headline had not read the story, or had not realized that three paragraphs below, the newspaper honestly reports that the federal government pays the whole amount of the
6914

October 16, 1973
Family Allowances
family allowance. However, my experience with newspapers leads me to believe that the headline is important, and not the third paragraph. Nevertheless, one might say that the implication is left that it is the provincial government, which did not tax, which is spending.
Speaking as one who represents an area where income is low, where opportunities for employment are still limited and where school and health services are still modest, I rejoice that Bill C-211 is before this House and I congratulate the minister for bringing it forward.
[Trans la tion]


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, in intervening in this debate on second reading, I look around me and notice that benches are empty; I can conclude, with the help of experience, that the quality of the bill seems to be inversely proportional to the number of hon. members present to hear its merits praised or its shortcomings criticized.
I think that the government leader was perhaps right when he suggested at the last conference of Commonwealth parliamentarians that it would be a good thing for democracy to have television cameras installed in the House of Commons to inform the Canadian people of the behaviour of hon. members.
Mr. Speaker, we have an excellent bill before us, about which we already talked intelligently and wisely. My colleague from Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), we know it, with a deep and very accurate understanding of the problems of Canadian society, could express in an exquisite language the attitude of the official opposition towards this bill.
I shall only have to recall some words of the hon. member for Hillsborough, and notably those which are recorded on page 6871 of Hansard where he really puts again in its context the bill we are to pass and where he indicates why, if in some respects this bill appears relevant, it is insufficient and it should be completed by other bills within the scope of a much more general scheme.
The hon. member for Hillsborough said, for instance, and I quote;
Why are these ministers so silent, so supine, so superlatively recumbent in face of the cost of living volcano that is shaking Canada's economic structure to its very roots? Is nothing forthcoming to strengthen the economy of this country and to halt the advance of grievous inflation? Certainly the minister, despite his best intentions-and he is not always at his best-cannot cope with this problem. We cannot welfare ourselves into a sound economic society. We cannot capsulize palliatives enough to overcome the economic agony of the Dominion of Canada.
On the other hand, I noticed with surprise and with some dismay, the words of the knowledgeable, respectable and venerable hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I noticed from what he said that the lust for power and the present coalition singularly transformed the unpretentious and humble man he was. He now shows, it seems to me, at least in his language, a certain conceitedness. It is with a smile that all members heard him taking credit for this measure. For the enlightenment of my colleagues, I will now quote the following sentence from the speech of the member for Winnipeg North Centre, that we find on page 6881 of Hansard:

If some of my friends in various parts of the House think that I am being too generous in welcoming this legislation, it must be obvious that the reason we welcome it is that we know we are responsible for it.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that by taking all the credit for this legislation, the distinguished member of the New Democratic Party will also be willing, a little later, to share the responsibility for some weaknesses that may appear in government policy, and as we approach another event in 1974, I hope that the member for Winnipeg North Centre will share the anxiety of the government with which he wants to share the credit today.
Mr. Speaker, we would also be tempted to take a little of the credit for this good measure and to say that if we can do justice at last to Canadian families, it is due to the official opposition. Should we refer to the last election campaign, should it be told once more, we would realize that during the various debates and the various television broadcasts, we too had said that the government should be much more comprehensive and much more generous towards Canadian families, and relying on the respect for this family value, conscious of the burden already born by family heads on account of the raising cost of living, we had undertaken to increase substantially family allowances in co-operation with the provinces and to provide for their escalation on the cost of living if necessary.
Of course, when we spoke about it in October 1972, we were told, in particular by the hon. member for Langelier who was then minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand), that these were silly and unconsidered promises, a thing completely unbelievable. Today, we are pleased to see that the Liberal cabinet makes due apology, realizes that our claims were justified, and as a result of the Official Opposition's claims, and with the co-operation of the provinces, they introduce Bill C-211, a very positive and relevant bill.
Are we not right, Mr. Speaker-and I wish to make a short digression at this point-to ask ourselves questions and wonder why during the last election campaing our Liberal friends have let the people believe that a reform of the family allowances Plan as suggested by us would be but silly promises? Mr. Speaker, it is because of such a change in attitude by political parties and men that the people are growing restless with public life, and it is because of such slights against truth, logic, earnestness and consistency that young people especially are disgusted with politics. It is because of such refusals from outgoing governments, as the refusal during election campaigns to discuss seriously bills that others may suggest, that one of the most striking features of democracy-electoral campaigns-is losing more and more its real significance. Moreover, hon. members will remember the presentation of the budget on February 19. They will remember that at the time the government did not yet believe in the increased needs of the families. In Quebec as elsewhere the people better understand today how we were justified, in the official opposition, for denying our confidence to this government on the occasion of the Speech from the Throne and also of the budget debate.
This required the pressure from the provincial governments which by definition are certainly closer to the
October 16, 1973

citizens and, on another standpoint, the sharp increase in the cost of living. This required the perseverance and aggressiveness of my party. It also required, from the Liberals who are whispering during my speech, the fear of losing power or, and this amounts to the same thing, the fear of breaking this almost anachronic "flirt" they are entertaining since October 30 last with the NDP. All this was required for the Liberals to change their mind and to introduce this bill. The long delays, the government's hesitations, the discussions-


Mr. Guay (Levis):: The discussions-


Claude Wagner: -the discussions, yes, as the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) just stated, the demagogic and never-ending discussions about amending the family allowances were so many factors which seemed to occupy much of the time of fathers and mothers. This has not been a waste of time since finally the House is studying a bill aimed at improving the present living conditions and which will better take into account the family needs.
Bill C-211, which does not originate with the Liberal party, will be a Canadian government's bill which will be passed by the Canadian Parliament-


An hon. Member:: Thanks to the Liberals!


Claude Wagner: -representing all Canadian parties. The credit will not solely be taken by the Liberal members, as now suggested by a member. This bill is incorporated in an integrated social policy eagerly sought by all and now seriously initiated.
The formulation of the bill now under consideration indicates for once-and it is the exception which proves the general rule-a flexibility of the central government regarding its provincial counterparts. Henceforth, may it be likewise in every field, whether the energy policy is concerned, whether it is some concerted action against that calamity called unemployment or again an effective fight-which is still awaited-against the most important current problem, that is inflation.
The federal-provincial agreement which has been concluded in that respect must not however lull us at the federal level concerning the deep yearnings of the provincial governments, especially the determination of several premiers to take part in the elaboration of socio-economic measures dealing directly with their priorities. We should not think for example, that Quebec, having accepted Bill C-211, has forgotten the spirit of its interventions in Victoria in June 1971.
To believe it would be to bury one's head in the sand and sooner or later be in danger of being bitterly disappointed. Besides, have we not heard lately the outgoing premier of Quebec decide to reopen the Victoria file, if he were given the opportunity, and I hope that the federal government will eagerly welcome his desire.
Mr. Speaker, on another level, being universal and taxable the allowances plainly seem to be intended to serve first the families that need it most. However, let us not believe that the bill amounts to a decisive stroke in the
Family Allowances
great challenge of the fight against poverty. We know, for example, that according to Statistics Canada, in 1969 already the average debts of the family in Canada was $4161; if necessary we shall read again the 1973 message of the bishops of Canada on our social inequities. We will remember it and will have to notice that the continued increase in the cost of living, unfortunately left without any serious solution from the present government, affects all social classes but more seriously those at the lower echelons in our society.
Basically, the increases provided by Bill C-211 do nothing more than correct the social injustice suffered by low and average income families as a result of inflation which, it seems, benefits the richest people in our consumer society. Besides, Canadians remain sceptical about the socio-economic initiatives of the present government. A Gallup poll published last June-my friends need not worry, I am not referring to the Gallup poll showing the rising popularity of the Progressive Conservative party and the lowering of the popularity of the Liberal party, but to the Gallup poll showing that most Canadians foresee that prices will rise quicker than family income. In fact, 85 per cent of the Canadians then interviewed foresaw that, in 1974, prices would rise much more quickly than family incomes. At that rate, Mr. Speaker, because of its inertia against inflation, this government seems willing to admit that they are absolutely right.
Therefore, Bill C-211, despite the value of its structure, despite also the new gross gains that it will bring to families, does not even deal with the problems of the struggle against poverty, the shocking increase in food, clothing and housing prices. Of course-I will admit it readily-the legislation could not solve everything at once, and at least it does constitute a concrete measure to remedy, partly at least, the inadequacy of the net income of needier families. So, Bill C-211 is a limited measure aiming at changing the situation imposed on the family. The area of family policy is much greater and more complex, especially at a time when an ever growing number of women are forced, for lack of money, to get back on the labour market. Let us note here that one third of all Quebec women at work have children under 10. Together with the provinces, if not through their initiative, since this is their responsibility under the constitution, we shall have to tackle the definition and development of a genuine family policy. Among other sources, Quebec family organizations and especially the Richelieu-Yamaska Family Council, whose headquarters are in Saint-Hyacinthe, have already introduced very appropriate recommendations for the establishment of a real family policy. Suffice it to mention here the need for more and fuller medical services in poor neighbourhoods and in outlying areas, the need for assistance services for married couples and families, the urgent need for a wider distribution of family planning information, easy access for all to family recreational activities, especially since the whole question of the urgency of a family housing policy is closely related to federal responsibility. On this last point, the failure of the present government to take action concerning the present interest rates is seriously affecting low or medium income families.
Mr. Speaker, those are some of the things that we should all keep in mind if we really want to solve the true
6916

October 16, 1973
Family Allowances
problems of the Canadian family. As Mr. Philippe Garigue once said-and I should like to conclude with these words-the fact remains that the real purpose of a family policy, and therefore of an integrated family allowance policy, is not only the promotion of the family but, through the family, the development of a better human society more in keeping with the goals of man.


An hon. Member:: The just society.


Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, changing one's mind may be better than changing parties, but the question is this: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe said that provincial governments were closer to the people; I wonder if he knows that federal policies benefit the people from the cradle until the last old age security pension cheque, that some are related to housing and others are designed to pay 50 per cent of the entire cost of welfare programs. Therefore, I should like to know if he was aware of the federal government's contributions, which is in closer contact with the people, even more than provincial governments.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that I was aware of this, but I should like to point out to the hon. member that municipal governments are normally closer to their people than provincial governments, which in turn are closer to the people than the federal government and that accordingly, the outgoing governments, both at the federal level and in the province of Quebec, are very far from the people under their jurisdiction.


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, rising as I do having heard the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), and having read in Hansard the speech given yesterday by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), it seems to me that these two speeches embody the thinking of each of their respective parties. It seems that both parties are attempting to take credit for this bill; in fact, both are claiming paternity of the new baby bonus. I think I can say to the minister, through you, Mr. Speaker, that this indicates the most excellent quality of the bill and of its provisions for Canadians and Canadian families.
It is interesting to note that when the government prepared its Speech from the Throne it made provision for the increases that we now see in this bill. Let there be no doubt that this was a Liberal policy brought forth by this Liberal government, consistent with the original plan in the Speech from the Throne, and that it follows Liberal thought going back many years, from the inception of family allowances in 1944 to the increases that we see today.
The bill provides initially that there shall be paid out of a consolidated revenue fund for each month a family allowance of $20 or such greater amount as may be determined from time to time. Further, there is a provision in clause 13 to take into account changes in consumer price levels occurring after the commencement of this legislation. This is but another of the constructive, and I say positive, measures being taken by this government to ensure greater security for Canadians.

The central theme of this government's philosophy is both respect for the individual and for individual freedom. Recent government policy has largely been oriented towards providing the conditions, economic and social, for realizing this aspect, not in some theoretical framework, but in everyday life, for as many people as possible. This is not an easy task. The views of the young, the old, the rich, the poor, the labour unionist, the consumer, the retailer, or any of the multiplicity of groups which comprise Canadian society, all have the right to be heard. All have demands which frequently are conflicting. One of modern government's crucial roles is to determine to what extent the state can meet these various demands, given available resources and the existing values within society, without creating severe conflict.
I believe that Canadians expect to provide for their own needs through their own efforts and that they expect others to do the same. We believe that each of us should contribute, to the extent of our individual ability, to the support and well-being of our own families and to be of assistance to those who cannot help themselves.
We also believe that we have a responsibility to help our fellow Canadians. As the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) stated in his speech yesterday, the provisions incorporated in this bill will supplement the income of Canadian families and improve their capacity to meet the cost of raising children. The bill will provide three and a half million Canadian families, most of whom are on low or middle income, with a net additional disposable income of $840 million. The family unit is still, and I trust will remain, the cornerstone of Canadian society. It is the family unit which bears the greatest burden brought on by the high cost of living and the increased pressures of inflation. In addition to the long range effects of aiding the integrity of the family unit, the provisions of this bill increasing family allowances will immediately provide much needed assistance to families on low or middle incomes to meet the increased cost of food, clothing and shelter.
This is but another example of the measures continually being taken by this government, as outlined in the Speech from the Throne, to provide for the needs of Canadians. Basic old age pensions have been increased by 15 per cent. With guaranteed income supplements, single persons will receive a maximum of $170 and couples will receive $325. War veterans allowances have been increased by 13 to 15 per cent. Disabled war veterans allowances were increased by 25 per cent. The government has ensured that Canadians continue to maintain adequate incomes by providing for increases in these programs to reflect changes in the cost of living.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is being distracted perhaps by conversations in the chamber. I ask that the hon. member be accorded the usual courtesy.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In addition, personal income tax rates will be adjusted commencing in 1974 to reflect the cost of living changes. Since January of this year the government has taken necessary and decisive action to protect families with regard to the most basic and essential items of life, that is, food, clothing and shelter. Many of these actions have been taken even
October 16, 1973

though they involved tough decisions and brought about some criticism. This was expected and anticipated at the time the decisions were taken.
If we in this country are to have adequate shelter from the weather, we must be assured of an adequate supply of heating fuels at a reasonable price. For without fuel, in this climate we indeed have no adequate shelter. The actions taken by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) to effect the continued supply of heating oils to Canadians at a fair price was the right decision for Canada and for Canadians, and was taken notwithstanding the fact that it could be anticipated that it would be subject to much criticism from some areas within our country. These steps were taken to ensure that all Canadians could heat their homes and could afford to pay for such heat. We all know that rising prices are a world wide problem and that every Canadian, to some degree or another, has felt the adverse effects of this trend.
Similar to the steps taken to ensure adequate heating fuels, this government has taken measures to reduce the cost of basic foods and to help maintain the stability of supply and prices. These steps include the payment of a subsidy of $1.25 per bushel of wheat consumed by Canadians and to guarantee a payment of five cents per quart on milk to the provinces where marketing boards will agree to maintain or reduce the cost of milk for at least one year. On September 4, when speaking of measures to deal with costs of living, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) stated: "In present world conditions the most urgent task of the government is to ensure that those who are least able to defend themselves against the effects of inflation are protected. This has been a fundamental objective of the government."
The increases proposed by this bill, Mr. Speaker, which will effectively triple family allowances will be welcomed I am sure by most Canadians. They will, in the words of the Prime Minister, assist those who cannot so easily assist themselves. The provisions of this bill will enable parents to better provide the necessities of life for themselves and their children. By providing more economic stability for the family unit, we will strengthen that unit, the cornerstone of our society and help to keep families together. Since the inception of family allowances in 1945, mothers across Canada and in this community have awaited the arrival of the family allowance cheque and have used it wisely to benefit their children and their families.
The additional funds being provided by this bill will enable these same mothers to provide even more for the welfare, education and health of their children. This parliament, by the adoption of this bill, has a great opportunity to provide much needed economic assistance through increases in family allowances, to solidify and strengthen the family unit in Canada and help provide for the needs of the young.
I trust all members will support the immediate benefits and long-range objectives of this exemplary piece of legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Family Allowances


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, following the speech delivered by the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), I am very happy to take part in this debate which is of vital importance for the wellbeing and the survival of Canadian families.
In referring to statistics published in March 1973, I say that the country had the following number of children: 3,863,678 under 10 years, 2,781,580 between 10 and 15 and 513,710 aged 16 and 17. The cost of family allowances in September 1973 was for the first group about $23,180,000; for the second group, $22,252,000, and for the third group, $5,147,000. The total cost reached $50,571,808.
With the increase, the allowance being $12 per child, the costs for October will be as follows: For the first group, $46 million, for the second, $33 million and for the third, $6 million, for a grand total of $85,907,616, which is an increase of $35,335,808.
This is undoubtedly a wonderful increase, Mr. Speaker, but I do not think it meets the needs now arising from the higher cost of living. Considering our bountiful production, I wish to point out quite frankly to the minister that he should have been and could be perhaps more generous towards our fine Canadian families.
If the government is really aware of the needs of Canadian families and of the will to supplement immigration by encouraging couples to carry on and by providing them with a purchasing power to that effect, we, the Social Credit, are advocating the payment of the following allowances: For the children of the first group mentioned earlier, $30 a month, for the second, $60 and for the third, $90. The estimated cost would be about $115,910,340 for the first group, $166,894,800 for the second and $46,233,900 for the third, a total of about $329 million.
It should be noted that the amounts of $30, $60 and $90 represent $1, $2 and $3 a day respectively. It must be considered that up to the age of 9 or 10 the child stays with his parents and goes to school close to home. But from that age on he often has to go relatively far from home and in doing that he must bring his noon meal with him. Then his meals, his leisure time and his sports cost more. Too often it is difficult for the mother to balance the budget with the present allowance even though they were increased to $12 as of October 1 last.
If a comparison is made with the amounts paid by the government to foster homes and orphanages for children of the same age the difference is enormous with what the mother gets for the same work she must do for her own children at home.
According to the statistics for the beginning of November there are presently in Canada 7,238,968 children between the ages of 0 and 17. Children represent nearly one third of the total population in Canada. Normally they depend on the father who, unfortunately, too often gets little more than a single man's salary with which he must feed his family.
If one bothers to do a little arithmetic one finds that it is not exaggerated to take roughly 3 per cent of our national production and give it to roughly 33 per cent of the population. Let us loosen up when it comes to giving to those whose mission will be to increase our vigorous

October 16, 1973
Harbour Commissions Act
population and let us give this nation the possibility to bloom and give this country many, true Canadians. At this rate, a calamity is threatening to put our genuine Canadians definitely in a state of minority mainly because of the low birthrate. It is really discouraging to realize that, from 1950 to 1972, that is to say over a 22 year period, the birthrate for Quebec has fallen from 30.3 per cent to 15.2 per cent per 1,000 habitants. Presently, the birthrate, mainly in Quebec-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member will not mind if I interrupt his speech at this point. It being five o'clock, pursuant to special order made earlier this day, it is my duty to interrupt proceedings now before the House. Debate on the motion for second reading of the bill will be resumed at the next sitting. I would also remind hon. members that there will be no late show tonight.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private member's business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills and notices of motions.


Mr. Reid:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Reid) on a point of order.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I think there would be agreement to take Order No. 6 standing in the name of the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds).


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the suggestion by the hon. parliamentary secretary agreed to that we proceed to discussion of Bill C-39?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
[Stage Direction]
e (1700)

Mr. John Reynolds (Burnaby-Richmond-Delta) moved: that Bill C-39, to amend the Harbour Commissions Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to provide for the election of capable and qualified people to positions on the Harbour Commissions by electors of the local municipalities involved. I wish to begin by saying this bill is in no way intended to be disparaging of the people who are already appointed as harbour commissioners in the area. In most cases they are doing a good job. They are doing the job the people want done in the area. I would also have nothing against this bill being amended in the committee to allow some appointments to the board if the government thought it necessary.
(Mr. Allard.]
I believe the important point in respect of this bill is the input by the people of the community. I do not intend to take very long, Mr. Speaker. In fact I am just about finished. I know what the people of my area want. They want some elected officials on the Harbour Commission. Therefore, I intend to make a short speech. The last time I did so someone on the other side suggested that there must not have been very much I could have said. The people in my area decided to support this principle not only by electing me but by electing people on my left and around me who support this principle. I suggest to government members that instead of spending the 55 minutes remaining in talking out this bill they should send it to the committee to ensure that we arrive at a better method of selecting harbour commissions than we have now.


Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to support what the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds) has just said. I have an odd reservation about the bill but I think it is most important that this bill be referred to the committee. There has already been an attempt in this house by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) to accomplish a similar objective. In that instance this House saw fit to allow that bill to go to the committee. I think at that time members made a very wise decision because this enabled the issue to be raised again.
The issue is that under the present Harbour Commissions Act the people who live in the area of the harbours concerned are disgusted and disturbed about the way in which the organization of harbours is proceeding. The most active groups, such as the environmental groups, are not being consulted in respect of the way in which the harbours are being developed. A committee must have a look at the way in which harbours are being developed. The most important function of a harbour can be recreation for the citizens of the community. The reason I am pleased to support my hon. friend's bill is that this would give an opportunity to the people in the community to run for office.
I said that I had a reservation about the bill. The suggested new section 5(1) provides that all members of the commission be elected, although the hon. member did indicate in his remarks that he would be amenable to some amendment in this regard. I think we need a combination of elected and appointed members. The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Rose) has a private member's bill which has received first reading. This bill provides for the appointment of members to the Harbour Commissions.
One of the interested groups is the environmental group. Another is fisheries and a third represents the people involved in sport. More than the commercial aspect of a river and harbour is involved. Therefore, I am very pleased to support this bill. I am hopeful that the government will have second thoughts about talking it out. As my friend has said I assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the people of this area do not want this bill talked out. They want it discussed during this session.
Another reason for supporting this bill is the chaotic way in which our harbour facilities have been developed on the Pacific coast. What we really have is a good old-fashioned free enterprise system. I shall not tell you how the free enterprise competitive system is failing in this
October 16, 1973

area. Each community is competing with each other for harbour facilities. There is a completely irrational development of facilities. There has been no general study of the needs. The community which happens to have the most effective appointed commission receives the largest amount of investment and development in many cases. This situation arises for unnecessary reasons.
I suggest what we need first is a rationalization in respect of port studies on the Pacific coast. This is something we have not had until now. My hon. friend's bill will raise this issue again. Second, we must have input from the environmental groups and from groups interested in recreation on the river. So, I am very pleased to rise in support of the bill. I would urge my friends across the aisle not to talk out this bill because to do so would be a disservice to the people of my community and all communities which have harbours in the province of British Columbia.


Mr. Joseph-Phillippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say, first of all, that the remarks of the hon. member who presented the bill could have far-reaching effects. When we discussed the bill introduced by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), as I said in this House on April 13, 1973, I felt that if we were to start enacting legislation in respect of each harbour commission across this country possibly we would not be granting a particular favour to anyone. I suggested that we should have national legislation dealing with all harbour commissions rather than do it on a piece-meal basis.
At that time I mentioned that we were open for suggestions from members of this House. So far there has been very little reaction other than this bill. Canada's major multipurpose harbours are under the general supervision of the Ministry of Transport. I should like to name some of these harbours. They include Belleville, Fraser River, Hamilton, Lakehead, Nanaimo, North Fraser, Oshawa, Port Alberni, Toronto and Windsor. In addition, there is a historic commission, 1912, which exists at Winnipeg-St. Boniface for river control.
I believe we ought not to forget all those smaller areas I have mentioned. Traditionally each commission had its own individual act of incorporation-Toronto, Hamilton and North Fraser for example-dating from the 1911-1913 period. But in 1964 Parliament passed the Harbour Commissions Act. A great number of difficulties related to the individual acts. The 1964 act provides uniform controls. This is really what I referred to at the beginning of my comments. It provides uniform control over such matters as revenues, expenditures, borrowing and financial matters in general. It also encourages active participation and local initiative in port promotion and development planning. To date, five commissions have been re-incorporated under this standard act, these being Fraser River, Lake-head, Nanaimo, Oshawa and Windsor.
As a general statement, the commissioners are responsible for the development, administration, promotion operation and maintenance of the harbour, and for maintaining a close liaison with the Ministry of Transport and with regional and local interests which they serve. The commissioners are local residents, prominent businessmen interested in local harbour affairs and the development of the
Harbour Commissions Act
port. Are we then saying that those who are presently serving on the harbour commissions are not qualified as the hon. member who presented the bill is suggesting? Their appointment is considered to be more in the nature of a director of a corporation and as such may be paid an honorarium from the harbour revenues in an amount approved by the governor in council.
Opposition to this bill falls into several categories and degrees of importance, the most serious of which is the effect on the control over the harbour and its functions by the federal government, in particular the Ministry of Transport. The 1964 act authorizes commissions to purchase lands, to construct and operate wharves and other harbour works. The commissioners administer federal harbour lands, wharves and other facilities which have been transferred to them by order in council, together with any municipal or provincial harbour lands transferred to their control. The commissions also have various monetary powers, expropriation rights and other related powers with degrees of control exercised by the governor in council.
The federal government has a vested interest in the harbours administered by the 1964 act, and this interest has been entrusted to the commissioners. Because the federal government has a statutory responsibility for navigation and shipping and the harbours and ports designed to service the marine transportation industry, it is felt that the powers and authority to appoint federal representatives cannot be abdicated.
A harbour commission is formed if certain basic requirements are met, these being, first, local initiative to promote the harbour; second, local willingness to contribute harbour front property; third, significant interests for long term development, and fourth, sufficient harbour revenues to support a separate administration.
If these conditions are met, a change from direct Ministry of Transport administration under the government Harbours and Piers Act and the Canada Shipping Act to administration by a harbour commission may be considered. Commissions are established, therefore, to carry out a function which otherwise would be carried out directly by the Ministry of Transport, and thus there is a delegation of authority by the ministry. Accordingly, federal appointees on a harbour commission are considered to be necessary components of the administrative function of a harbour commission, and under no circumstances should this federal element be deleted. This is the point that should be stressed most strongly in rejecting Bill C-39.
An argument against Bill C-39 can also be formulated on the basis of the federal interest in transportation. The marine administration of the Ministry of Transport is obligated to provide safe and efficient facilities and services in support of water-borne commerce and marine operations. In view of this goal, the federal government has provided a wide variety of ports and harbours, main line channels and canals, navigation aids, ice-breaking services, and the like. These facilities and services are, of course, utilized by ships of all nations. The five harbours which are administered under the 1964 Harbour Commissions Act are no exception.

October 16, 1973
Harbour Commissions Act
This line of argument leads into a discussion of the twofold interest or responsibility of a harbour commission. As previously stated, commissions are formed on the basis of a great deal of local initiative and interest to promote the port to the benefit of the local community and its environs. The commissioners have the mandate to develop the local port potential to the maximum economic and social benefit of their community. That is the reasoning behind the appointment as commissioners of prominent local citizens who have a sincere interest in the total well-being of the port as a whole. It is felt that the appointment method best serves the community in that a careful selection of candidates can be made in view of the importance of the position of the harbour commission in the local community.
I just noted what was mentioned by the hon. member who presented this bill, and I might say that if he had his way I think the effect would be just the opposite from what he wishes. I think that the appointment of the commissioners should be the responsibility of the department under the 1964 act.
This local interest, although very important, is only one aspect of the function of a harbour commission. The second major interest of the commission is related to the fact that the harbours which are administered by the 1964 act are component parts of the national and international transportation system. The ports provide a vital land-water interface in the transport and transshipment of goods, people and services.


John Douglas Reynolds: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the hon. member could tell us-and I am not quite sure I understood what he was saying-whether he feels that the people in the area could not elect better people as commissioners than his government or any government could appoint. Is that what he is saying?


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I did not understand the point made by the hon. member. Is he asking me a question regarding my view of the matter? If so, I would like him to repeat his question.


John Douglas Reynolds: My point of order does not relate to the hon. member's view but his statement. He referred to my remarks. I am wondering-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Daniel):: Order, please. The hon. member should address himself to the Chair. The hon. member is asking the parliamentary secretary a question regarding certain remarks. The parliamentary secretary is entitled to reply if he wishes, or he may complete his speech.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: May I accept that suggestion immediately, and upon concluding my statement I will be glad to answer the hon. member's question.
Because the British North America Act of 1867 placed navigation and shipping under the exclusive jurisdiction of the federal authority, the federal interest is an inherent part of harbour administration in Canada. This historic direction is carried out by the appointed commissioners and it is felt that commissioners elected by the municipality may not evidence this philosophy in their administra-

tion of the port, and thus the election of commissioners may not be in the best interest of Canada as a whole.
The national interest in port development and administration goes beyond the constitutional jurisdiction of shipping and navigation. The federal government, through various assistance programs, is involved in the economic development of various agencies and industries which use the port facilities. In view of the dependence of many of these industries on the port facilities in Canada, it is felt that the appointed commissioners function as a guiding control in the development of the port as a service function for these industries. The development of the total port hinterland in terms of the national economy is viewed as being an important function of harbour commissions, and in light of this it is felt that commissioners appointed by the governor in council and the municipalities involved best serve this purpose.
Bill C-39 calls for the election of capable and qualified people as commissioners, and a third line of argument may be built around this proposal. It is on this matter that the hon. member was questioning me, I believe. It is felt that on the whole, the commissioners who have been appointed in the past, both by federal and municipal authorities, have been dedicated to their task and have conscientiously carried out their port development and promotion policies with the best interest of the total industry in mind. It is felt that the appointed commissioners have not allowed their personal biases to influence their decision making process. We feel and fear that under certain, albeit hypothetical, conditions the situation could arise whereby elected commissioners could be influenced greatly by local pressure groups, and their decisions regarding port administration might not be made with all due regard to the real function of the port.
It has been our experience that local groups, concerned for example about ecology and pollution, can raise a strong lobby in the media and create a very biased public opinion with regard to port operations and administration. This has been very graphically evident in Hamilton, for example, where land fill operations and land exchanges between the commission and the local steel companies have developed into major public issues because of the actions of extreme lobbyists.
If Bill C-39 were to be passed it is possible that a concerned but extreme group of citizens could put forward a slate of candidates who would only be concerned with one segment of the port, or one problem associated with the port, to the subjugation of the over-all local and national interest. It is entirely possible that the elected commissioners could be wholly composed of fishermen, or stevedores or environmentalists and, as a result, the work of the harbour commission might possibly reflect their very strong personal biases and not the over-all concept of port development. We feel that the views of the various concerned or action groups which exist today must be given their fair voice and hearing, but that these people are not the ones to administer harbour commissions. It is felt that the appointed commissioners appreciate their responsibility to the larger community served by the port and that the appointment method should be continued.
October 16, 1973

A practical problem can be exemplified by the situation of the Fraser River Harbour Commission. The physical boundaries of this commission encompass five federal electoral districts including Burnaby-Richmond-Delta, Surrey-White Rock, New Westminster, Fraser Valley East and Fraser Valley West; and nine municipalities including Richmond, Delta, Surrey, New Westminster, Coquitlam, Pitt Meadows, Maple Ridge, Langley and the city of Port Coquitlam. To campaign effectively through nine municipalities is no easy task and the question arises: could justice be done in the election campaign of potential harbour commissioners? At present the appointment of two commissioners by agreement of the nine municipalities is working quite satisfactorily in the local interest.
On the business side, the harbour commissioners conform by legislation and policy to the whole concept of paid operation on a businesslike, self-sufficient financial basis. It is most essential therefore that businessmen of proven successful experience be appointed to the positions thus ensuring, in so far as possible, conformity with the national transportation policy.
The proposed bill should also be considered in the light of the work currently being conducted by the National Ports Council. The council is composed of the members of the National Harbours Board, the chairmen of the ten local port authorities of the National Harbours Board ports, the chairmen of the ten harbour commissions, the senior officials of the Ministry of Transport responsible for harbours and ports, and representatives of each provincial government and of certain other federal government departments. The council was set up to advise the Minister of Transport on matters relating to the improvement of port and harbour economies and structures and related maritime matters.
The first meeting of the council was held in September, 1972, and a second meeting was held in March, 1973. At that time, one of the major items under discussion related to ways and means of creating an instrument which would permit Canada's ports and harbours to function harmoniously within one structure. It was felt that possibly this could be achieved by bringing together all of the larger ports under a new single national network, under a new act that would encompass the best features of the National Harbours Board Act and the Harbour Commissions Act without disturbing the operation or administration of the existing harbour commissions. It was recommended that a review of the organization of Canada's ports and harbours should be undertaken, and in response the minister announced such a review some time ago.
The third meeting of the National Ports Council was held on October 10 of this year. At that meeting position papers were submitted by the harbour commissions and by the National Harbours Board local port authorities setting forth their views on a format for a harbour administration structure for Canada at the local, regional and national levels. Provincial representatives have also been asked to submit their views, and it is our intention to seek a melding of the various views into the position which was announced last spring after the second meeting.
What I have been saying, Mr. Speaker, is intended as a basic statement in opposition to the bill. There is other material which could be made available and that might be
Harbour Commissions Act
useful to answer other questions which hon. members may have. The ports and harbours of Canada comprise 25 large multi-purpose ports, some 300 smaller ports, and several hundred wharves on the east coast, the Great Lakes, the west coast, in the Arctic, and on interior lakes and rivers.
The administration of Canadian ports is generally under the Ministry of Transport's marine transportation administration which I mentioned a while ago, and which was formed in 1970. Canada's harbours are subdivided into National Harbours Board ports, harbour commissions, public harbours, and government wharves. The governing legislation in this field comprises the following acts: the Canada Shipping Act, Part XII, the Government Harbours and Piers Act, the Harbour Commissions Act 1964, the individual harbour commissioners acts for the harbours of Toronto, Hamilton, Belleville, Winnipeg and St. Boniface, North Fraser and Port Alberni, the National Harbours Board Act 1936, the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority Act and the Navigable Waters Protection Act. To outline each of these would take some time, and it is not my intention to do so at present.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired. He can continue only with the unanimous agreement of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Mr. Charles Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the harbour commission system of harbour administration has prevailed in Canada in various forms dating from the pre-Confederation period. Existing acts of incorporation go back to 1911, but several new commissions have been incorporated within the past ten years. Traditionally each commission had its own individual act of incorporation, but in 1964 parliament passed the standard Harbour Commissions Act under which commissions may be established by order in council. Five commissions have been re-incorporated under this standard act and it is anticipated that others will follow in due course, thus leading to greater uniformity in the governing legislation.
A harbour commission operates through a set of bylaws made by the commissioners under the authority of their act and approved by the governor in council. These bylaws replace the harbour and wharf regulations which formerly applied when harbours were administered directly by the department. The bylaws vary according to the particular needs of the harbour, but basically they are designed to control traffic, to establish a schedule of rates and charges and to provide generally for the management of the harbour.
A harbour commission constitutes a largely autonomous body subject only to general guidance through the ministry of transport. A commission is free to engage staff as required to carry out the purposes of its act, but the new act of 1964 gives the minister of transport the right to approve the salary of the chief executive officer. Generally, their acts authorize commissions to purchase lands and to construct and operate wharves and other harbour
6922

October 16, 1973
Harbour Commissions Act
works. They administer federal harbour lands, wharves, etc., transferred by order in council, together with any municipal harbour lands transferred to their control and management. They also have borrowing and other financial authority, expropriation rights and other related powers, with degrees of control exercised by the governor in council.
A harbour commission does not receive financial grants from the federal government. It is expected to operate out of revenues, though assistance may be given by the government in the form of cost-sharing arrangements for harbour works. The commission's share of costs is provided from its available funds or, if necessary, by means of federal loans or authorized chartered bank loans on which the commission pays full interest and amortization. As a harbour commission develops, it is expected to assume progressively more responsibility for capital works. None of the commissions in Canada are yet completely financially independent.
Under the act of 1964, after providing for operating costs, interest and depreciation, a commission may maintain funded reserves as approved by the Minister of Transport, with any remaining surplus payable to the Receiver General. The still existing acts of the 1910-1914 period provide for the payment of surplus funds to the municipality. In actual practice such surplus funds do not materialize. Harbour commissions are required to give an annual report of their operations to the minister, or governor in council, and various other controls are specified in their respective statutes. The 1964 act includes uniform provisions for such important matters as financial reporting and auditing by the minister.
In all cases, the appointment of harbour commissioners is made by the federal government and by the local municipality, and in all but two existing cases involving historical considerations, Toronto and Winnipeg, the majority of the members is appointed by the federal authority. Under the standard act of 1964, harbour commissions may be established by proclamation of the governor in council. The proclamation defines the harbour limits, states the corporate name and fixes the number of commissioners, not less than three and not more than five, with a majority being appointed by the federal authority and the remaining member or members appointed by the local municipal council.
Commissioners are appointed for terms not exceeding three years and may be reappointed for further terms. They may not be elected officials of other levels of government, for example the provincial legislature or municipal councils, and are not paid a salary. The commissioners are local residents and are usually prominent businessmen interested in local harbour affairs and development of the port. They elect their own chairman and hold regular meetings as may be necessary to deal with policy and planning matters and other major items, leaving the day to day harbour operations to the chief executive officer and other commission staff.
There are now five commissions operating under the standard act of 1964, namely Fraser River, Nanaimo, Lake-head, Oshawa and Windsor. The following ports were incorporated and come under harbour commissions: Toronto, Ontario, incorporated in 1911; Hamilton, Ontario,

incorporated in 1912; Fraser River, British Columbia, formerly New Westminster, incorporated in 1913; North Fraser, B.C., incorporated in 1913; Port Alberni, B.C., incorporated in 1947; Belleville, Ontario, incorporated in 1952; Windsor, Ontario, incorporated in 1957; Lakehead, Ontario, including Port Arthur and Fort William, incorporated in 1958; Nanaimo, B.C., incorporated in 1960; Oshawa, Ontario, incorporated in 1960; and Winnipeg-St. Boniface, Manitoba, incorporated in 1912.
At the present time Canadian harbours are administered pursuant to a variety of legislation and policies, and to ensure a comprehensive system designed to more fully meet modern requirements it is expected that some change in the law will be required as well as changes in administrative procedures. In recent years the administration of Canadian ports and harbours has been under close study. In May, 1971, the then minister of transport announced a new Canadian port policy providing for greater local participation in management at National Harbours Board ports through new, local port authorities. This was in keeping with the cabinet committee decision of March 24, 1971. The new policy also provided for the establishment of a ports and harbours planning committee to review all major harbour development proposals and for the establishment of a national ports council with membership on a nationwide basis acting as an over-all advisory body.
The new ports and harbours planning committee was established as part of the Canadian marine transportation administration of the ministry of transport. The committee was set up by cabinet to review all major development proposals in National Harbours Board and harbour commission ports as well as at public harbours and government wharves. This important committee has been functioning since 1972 and several federal departments are represented, including the ministry of transport, the National Harbours Board and the Department of Public Works. Recognizing the increasing importance of environmental and urban planning considerations in the planning and development of Canada's ports, representatives of the Department of the Environment and the ministry of state for urban affairs are also participating actively in the work of the planning committee.
The council is composed of members of the National Harbours Board, the chairman of the ten local port authorities of the National Harbours Board ports, harbour commissions, the senior officials of the ministry of transport responsible for harbours and ports, and representatives of each provincial government and other federal government departments. The council was set up to advise the Minister of Transport on matters relating to the improvement of port and harbour economies and structures and related maritime matters.
The first meeting of the newly-established ports council was held in September, 1972, and the second session, a two-day meeting in Ottawa, was held in March, 1973. At that time one of the major items under discussion related to ways and means of creating an instrument which would permit Canada's ports and harbours to function harmoniously within one structure. Possibly this could be achieved by bringing together all the larger ports in a new, single national network under a new act that would encompass the best features of the National Harbours Board Act and
October 16, 1973

the Harbour Commissions Act, without disturbing the operation or administration of the existing harbour commissions. On the recommendation of the National Ports Council, a review of the organization of Canada's ports and harbours will be undertaken.
At its last meeting, the council also considered the question of competition between ports, particularly vis-avis Canadian and United States ports, and some time was also devoted to the problems arising out of the evaluation of tankers and bulk carrier vessels of increasing size which the majority of the traditional, multipurpose ports in the world are unable to handle. It was recognized that the challenges facing Canada to develop deep water port facilities at suitable sites are complex and will require farsighted planning to meet our country's future needs.
The third meeting of the National Ports Council was held on October 10. At that meeting, position papers were submitted by the harbour commissions and by the National Harbours Board local port authorities setting forth their views on a format for a harbours administration structure for Canada at the local, regional and national levels. Provincial representatives have been asked to submit their views also, and it is our intention to seek a melting of the various views into the position which was announced last spring after the second meeting.


Mr. S. Victor Railtori (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to take part in this discussion on harbours. I live in Port Colborne, a harbour of considerable importance, with many varied and difficult problems to settle. This has given me some insight into harbour problems in general. As a member of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications I have become even more interested in problems with regard to water transportation.
When this bill was introduced it was suggested that local people should be elected to harbour commissions. On superficial examination this seems to be an excellent idea. Who other than local people who are interested in the growth and smooth working of their port facilities would be better able to look after the interests of a port? However, as I said, this opinion is arrived at only after very superficial examination.
The hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner) presented a very good breakdown of the present method of administering ports and harbours. I think my remarks will be of help to the hon. member who introduced the bill. There are many large harbour commissions which have local interests at heart, such as those in coastal cities and cities such as Toronto and Hamilton on inland waters. They have done a great deal for their local areas. Harbours of that type have not really contravened any of the overall regulations, so there is no reason why they should not continue hand in hand with the federal administration.
The hon. member who introduced the bill expressed fears about pollution of the environment. Naturally, members from British Columbia are worried about oil pollution. Oil pollution is a great menace to water, beaches, fish, fowl and persons who live along the shores. There is also a human danger. The problem of oil pollution could not be settled by a local administrative body. It is international in scope. There must be worldwide conferences on
Harbour Commissions Act
how to handle the problem. Yesterday we had a discussion about territorial waters. This has a large bearing on the oil pollution problem. The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Davis) has spoken about this problem many times in the House. He hails from British Columbia and is familiar with this problem, as well as the problem of sea transportation from Alaska to Seattle. I do not think local bodies would have any effect on the question of oil pollution.
There is no reason why we should not have local representation in this regard. As the hon. member for London East pointed out, these bodies have local appointees with no function except to look after the interest of their local area. They have a great deal of time and are not torn by political considerations. They are not political appointments. They are not even representatives of the municipalities or regions. For these reasons I think such appointments are good.
The member who introduced this bill expressed concern worried about small ports. As has already been mentioned, there are hundreds of these. Some are not much more than marinas which have been built by private interests. Private ports of that kind in Ontario involve a great deal of regulation. Just like someone buying land where there is a beautiful beach, in order to create a private, money-making marina type of operation, private ports sometimes become an environmental hazard to residents of the area. The same thing could happen with private marinas. For that reason, a local group would not be sufficient.
Larger harbours which involve fishing, protection from storms, coastal and pleasure craft, should be treated uniformly across Canada. For example, we have had a great deal of discussion in committee about the ports in Newfoundland and other areas in the east. Fishing ports require upkeep. This involves more than could be handled by a local municipality. They have to be under the supervision of the federal government. To pass enough money around to satisfy all local needs would be very difficult. No matter how much they scream, the available money has to be divided equally.
This is the case in Port Colborne, and even in Welland. We have a nine-mile bypass which has been a great boon to shipping. The curving of the narrow channel in the city of Welland was eliminated. If we in Port Colborne and Welland had everything we have asked for, we would be another Montreal or Toronto. Although it would be very desirable from a local standpoint, it is impossible to squeeze that much money out of the government. I say that even though I am a member of this government. I have spent a great time trying to persuade the Department of Transport and the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority to find the money to do what we think should be done to improve our environment and beautify the old canal.
The National Harbours Board is a very worth-while institution. It functions in the area of grain transportation both by rail to port terminals and by transhipment. This must be a federal matter mainly, again, because of the financial aspects involved. However, I invite hon. members to look at the broader aspects of water transportation in this country, forgetting for a moment about the small ports and I do not mean that unkindly.
26635-8:

October 16, 1973
Harbour Commissions Act
There are many hundreds of these small ports, and they need help; it is a practical problem. We should realize that Canada has a terrific water transportation system, including the ocean ports in the east and in the west. Improvements are constantly being sought. Efforts are being made to enlarge the port of Churchill which is at present open only for two or three months of the year. The day may come when more ports will be constructed in this region of Hudson Bay and James Bay, perhaps even in the Arctic itself. Those responsible for the planning of our deepwater ports must think nowadays of providing for ships which draw 80 feet or more, compared with 30 feet which we used to consider exceptional. These large vessels are already discharging cargoes of oil and general merchandise in Vancouver and Halifax and shortly, it is thought, it will be possible to bring them right up to Montreal.
Developments are under consideration concerning harbours at Riviere du Loup and Gros Cacouna both by the province of Quebec and by private developers. Anyone familiar with the Welland canal and the canal system in general from Montreal to Thunder Bay and Chicago knows that the seaway is used by ships as large as some of the biggest which ply a purely ocean trade. To facilitate the passage of such ships, the seaway will have to be enlarged-another $500 million or more will have to be spent on it. Increasing importance is being attached to water transportation because it is cheaper. But the attention of the federal government is needed if these tasks are to be done well.
The mover and the seconder of this bill are probably looking for help for the smaller ports. I should like to see every assistance possible given to these small ports in their rehabilitation both for pleasure and for commercial uses. However, the institution of action of this kind would, I think, call for a change in the Canadian Constitution which has made certain provisions respecting the care of both ocean and inland ports. I believe that one of my hon. friends who is to follow me in this debate will make this point in more detail from a legal standpoint.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks I should like to commend the idea which generated the bill now before us. However, I feel that as a private member I have an obligation to address myself to one particular difficulty which, as I see it, this measure presents. As I read the bill, it became evident that it gives rise to a substantial constitutional problem and in my view it is defective on that basis.
Section 91 of the British North America Act provides:
It shall be lawful for the Queen, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons, to make laws for the peace, order and good government of Canada in relation to all matters not coming within the classes of subjects by this act assigned exclusively to the legislatures of the provinces; and for greater certainty, but not so as to restrict the generality of the foregoing terms in this section, it is hereby declared that notwithstanding anything in this act the exclusive legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada extends to all matters coming within the classes of subjects next hereinafter enumerated-
A number of subsections are then enumerated. I shall quote three of them:

9.	Beacons, buoys, lighthouses and Sable Island.
10.	Navigation and shipping.
12. Sea coast and inland fisheries.
It is an understanding of the whole system of government which seems to me lacking among the sponsors of this bill, because evidently the constitution provides that authority over ports and coastal matters is given to the federal government. As everyone knows, the federal government comes to power as the result of an election. There are in the constitution certain provisions with regard to elections at the provincial level as well. At the municipal level there are provisions for elections under statutes created by the provinces. I am sure no one here would wish to restrict or to limit our rights and prerogatives as members of the House, but I suggest that the effect of the bill before would do just that. Its sponsors are saying, in effect. "If we do not have the power to deal with harbours, we must let the public decide on a municipal basis, under electoral provisions set out in provincial legislation, the way in which these harbour commissions are to be appointed."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Question.


Mr. Blais:: It appears to me that those who support the bill are ignoring the provisions of the constitution. I would even suggest that the bill should not even have been introduced because it is out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hour for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the special order made earlier this day, Mr. Sharp, seconded by Mr. MacEachen, moves:
That this House do now adjourn.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, ten days ago Egyptian and Syrian troops launched heavily armoured attacks across the ceasefire lines of the Suez Canal and on the Golan Heights into territories occupied by Israel since 1967 and large-scale warfare replaced an uneasy truce in the Middle-East. I speak for the government and I think I speak for all members in this House when I deplore this development. Canadian sympathies go out to the people caught up in this dreadful tragedy. Canadian efforts must be directed to what can be done to stop the fighting and start the process of achieving by peaceful means a just and lasting settlement.
After these ten days of heavy fighting, with great losses in lives, the military outcome is still unclear and indeed

the situation on the ground does not seem to have varied greatly from what it was at the resumption of hostilities. Egyptian forces are established in strength on the east bank of the Suez Canal but their further advance into Sinai is hotly contested by Israeli forces.
On the Golan Heights, Israel has apparently recovered ground yielded initially to Syrian forces but has met strong resistance in its penetration of Syrian territory. What is clear is that the continuing fighting in the air and at sea, as well as on the ground, the steadily mounting casualties on both sides, the resupply of destroyed arms, and finally the growing involvement of civilian populations altogether give a distressing picture unrelieved by clear hopes of a cessation of hostilities.
At a time like this we look to the United Nations. The Secretary General stated in his appeal last week:
I am profoundly concerned with the role of the UN in such circumstances. The primary purpose of our organization is the maintenance of international peace and security. If we fail in that role, the central point of the organization's existence is jeopardized.
With the United Nations Security Council apparently unable to agree on the terms of an appeal for a ceasefire, there is increasing concern that the conflict in the Middle-East may have wider implications for the world at large, and may indeed endanger the whole process of detente which eastern and *'estern governments had laboriously been working at over the past few years and with which Canada has been very much concerned.
I do not intend to dwell on why the fighting resumed at this particular time. The facts are that the truce has been violently broken, a truce which never evolved as was intended toward a settlement in the intervening years since 1967. Immediately at the end of that conflict a long and difficult negotiation, in which Canada actively participated, took place in the Security Council of the United Nations, with the result that resolution 242 was adopted unanimously. Every word of that resolution was negotiated and its delicate balance results from a protracted effort at setting out in the clearest possible terms, acceptable to the greatest possible number of states, the main points which have to be dealt with in order that there may be the beginning of a settlement to the Middle-Eastern conflict which has been with us for 25 years.
I had thought, Mr. Speaker, that I might read into the record the terms of resolution 242, but in order to save time I wonder whether it might be agreed that the text be included in Hansard at this point in my speech.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: The resolution referred to above is as follows:]


RESOLUTION 242 (1967)
[Stage Direction]
Adopted by the Security Council at its 1382nd meeting, on 22 November, 1967
The Security Council,
Expressing its continuing concern with the grave situation in the Middle-East,
Arab-Israeli War
Emphasizing the inadmissibility of the acquisition of territory by war and the need to work for a just and lasting peace in which every state in the area can live in security,
Emphasizing further that all member states in their acceptance of the Charter of the United Nations have undertaken a commitment to act in accordance with article 2 of the charter,
1.	Affirms that the fulfilment of charter principles requires the establishment of a just and lasting peace in the Middle-East which should include the application of both the following principles:
(i)	Withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict;
(ii)	Termination of all claims or states of belligerency and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force;
2.	Affirms further the necessity
(a)	For guaranteeing freedom of navigation through international waterways in the area;
(b)	For achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem;
(c)	For guaranteeing the territorial inviolability and political independence of every state in the area, through measures including the establishment of demilitarized zones;
3.	Requests the Secretary General to designate a special representative to proceed to the Middle-East to establish and maintain contacts with the states concerned in order to promote agreement and assist efforts to achieve a peaceful and accepted settlement in accordance with the provisions and principles in this resolution;
4.	Requests the Secretary General to report to the Security Council on the progress of the efforts of the special representative as soon as possible.
Mitchell William Sharp: Canada has supported resolution 242 since its adoption in 1967. Our adherence has been total but strictly limited to the terms of the resolution itself, and we have always refused to add anything to it or subtract anything from it or even to interpret it or draw implications from it that were not immediately apparent from the very wording. Since it is the only text in the whole 25 years of recent Middle-Eastern history that has met with wide acceptance, we still believe that it constitutes the only suitable and available framework for peace.
This peace must come from a settlement negotiated by all the parties involved in the conflict. There is no other way to devise a just and lasting settlement. One implication that can be drawn from the recent resumption of hostilities is that even the greatest powers cannot impose a settlement but, on the contrary, may be drawn into the conflict on opposing sides and thereby endanger their own attempts at opening a dialogue and developing a better climate for the peaceful resolution of other world problems.
When I say that a negotiated settlement on the basis of resolution 242 is the only way finally to resolve the conflict, I am fully aware that since 1967 the two sides have never come together on the means of getting down to negotiations or the discussion of a settlement. While the numerous efforts of intermediaries such as Ambassador Jarring on behalf of the United Nations went on, the positions of the two sides never came quite close enough to open the avenue to negotiations and to the implementation of resolution 242. Therefore, the ceasefire which was to open these avenues finally broke down.

October 16, 1973
Arab-Israeli War
A ceasefire, while undoubtedly necessary at the earliest possible moment, as I said in my statements of October 6 and October 8, will not be enough. A ceasefire should provide the opportunity for the belligerents to discuss such questions as the drawing of border lines or the resettlement of civilian populations displaced by warfare, or indeed any of the other points mentioned in the resolution. Unfortunately, the past 25 years of conflict in the Middle-East prove that without the will to make peace on both sides, a ceasefire is only a temporary expedient between bouts of war and a period in which the two sides rearm and prepare for the next round of fighting.
Canadian policy, as I repeated in the House yesterday, begins from the premise that the State of Israel has a right to exist, just like any other state in the world, and the right to exist behind secure and recognized boundaries. Some of us, Mr. Speaker, have had the privilege of visiting Israel. We had the experience of flying from south to north in a few minutes, seeing the whole of Israel spread out below us. I think we understand the concern for recognized and secure boundaries.
The first states to recognize its boundaries must be its neighbours, those states that share these boundaries with it. It follows that the frontiers of Israel must be negotiated between these neighbour states and Israel in order that they will be accepted by all. A ceasefire which does not open the way for negotiation in that direction will not deal with the basic problems of the area. We understand the grave difficulties but we plead that a start be made on the road to a negotiated settlement.
I have noted with approval the statement of the nine member countries of the European Community, which says:
This ceasefire, which would make it possible to spare the peoples affected by the war further tragic ordeals, should at the same time pave the way for true negotiation in an appropriate forum, permitting a settlement of the conflict in accordance with all the provisions of resolution 242.
As I have said on previous occasions, Canada remains prepared to play its part in a UN context if there is a useful role for us. We could envisage a contribution to peacekeeping if desired and required by the parties as well as the continuation of peace observation operations. These would, of course, be under the authority of the United Nations for we consider, as I said at New York on September 25, that only under such an authority do these operations stand the best chance of success. Canada has participated in the United Nations Truce Supervision Organization since 1954. While as a result of the current hostilities some of the UNTSO posts in the Suez Canal area have had to be evacuated, I should like to emphasize that UNTSO continues to exist even though it is unable to pursue fully at the present all of its commitments. It is important that it remain intact for future duty.
If the parties to the conflict are prepared to have a peacekeeping force constituted under the authority of the United Nations, we would be prepared to make our contribution. However, I would emphasize 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. That is a lesson that our experience, particularly in Indo-China, has taught us. Unless there is a basic agreement by the parties involved,

the peacekeeping functions cannot be discharged satisfactorily. We must admit that it is one of the distressing aspects of the situation that parties do not appear likely to agree at this time and it is very discouraging that the Security Council has so far been unable itself to agree on a call for a ceasefire or on any other action.
While the war is going on, others have growing responsibilities and can either prolong hostilities or exert great influence in the direction of peace. The major suppliers of arms to both sides obviously can exert a moderating or stimulating influence. The United States Secretary of State, Dr. Kissinger, in his press conference on Friday, October 12, issued a call for moderation on the part of the Soviet Union, especially in the matter of supplying arms. It is unfortunate that the Soviet Union should have continued supplying arms since this appeal was made, and of course we now have the situation in which the U.S. in its turn has also felt compelled to do so.
Earlier there were encouraging signs that both these powers were concerned that the conflict should not be widened or prolonged although signs now point in another direction. I hope that the great powers are still concerned to use their restraining influence to help bring about a ceasefire followed by negotiations. Otherwise one cannot envisage anything but a continuing conflict with increasing casualties on both sides and with the supplier states finding themselves arraigned in opposite camps as in the worst days of the cold war. It is a bleak prospect indeed that, with replenished supplies at their disposal, both sides should continue the artillery duels, the tank battles, the strafing and bombing by aircraft while casualties mount among the civilian population and the theatre of war tends increasingly to engulf cities away from the main field of battle.
There can be no victory in this atmosphere, but only losers on all sides. In the long term, since a just and lasting settlement is not possible without the agreement of both sides, it is obvious that the way to a settlement is not through a war of attrition which seems to be developing at this time. The longer this is allowed to continue, the more heavy will be the human losses and the material devastation.
Until now, the war has been fought largely in the territories of the Suez Canal and the Golan Heights and the fighting has not seriously affected the major population centres either in Syria, in Egypt or in Israel. But who can forsee what a prolongation of the war will bring? Already there are reports that the bombing of military targets has brought losses to the civilian populations. It would be an even more grievous conflict if ground warfare should bring the contending forces within gunfire of the large cities, as is likely to happen unless an end is put to tbe fight.
At the beginning of hostilities there were relatively few Canadians in the area and I am happy to report that until now there have been no casualties among the Canadian residents or tourists present. Canadian diplomatic missions in the war area are actively concerned about the safety of Canadian residents and visitors in their areas of responsibility. The embassies maintain records of Canadian residents and endeavour to keep track of visitors to assist in maintaining contact with them in time of trouble.
October 16, 1973

Contact is normally made by telephone, though telephone facilities sometimes become overloaded.
All international airports in the area, with the exception of Damascus and Cairo, remain open for scheduled flights. As a consequence, no build-up of stranded tourists wishing to return home has developed except in Cairo where on October 10, 1973, approximately 100 Canadian visitors were waiting for transportation from the area. This number is gradually being reduced, as tourists, with embassy assistance, obtain bookings on ships sailing from Alexandria and on buses to Benghazi. Arrangements are now being completed to enable any Canadian tourists who remain from this number, or residents who wish to do so, to leave on a ship which the Americans have chartered. Our embassies in Cairo and Tel Aviv have reported that they are not aware of any injuries to Canadians in their area and that all whom they have been able to contact are safe and well. All Canadians who wished to do so have already left Syria.
The present situation in the Security Council does not encourage us to envisage a Canadian initiative at the UN at this time. This does not mean that we remain inactive. The views of the Canadian government about the road to peace in the Middle-East as I have outlined them here and in previous statements have been conveyed to all the governments concerned. I personally made them known to the ambassadors of Arab countries represented in Ottawa and the Ambassador of Israel, as well as the Ambassador of the Soviet Union.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took the opportunity to speak to Chinese leaders and urge them to use their influence for peace. Our ambassadors abroad have been very active conferring with representatives of foreign governments, and special instructions have been issued to our ambassadors in the Middle-East to present these views to the governments of Israel, Egypt and Syria in particular. We will continue the vigorous activity. At the same time, we are maintaining our long-standing embargo on Canadian arms to parties in the Middle-East conflict.
I return to what I said at the beginning about Canadian sympathies for our fellow human beings who are caught up in this tragic situation. We want to see the citizens of Israel and of all the Arab countries live out their lives in peace and security without constant fear of another war. We want the refugees to have a settled home instead of living out their existence in frustration and plotting. We therefore urge with all the emphasis we can that there be a ceasefire as soon as possible, followed by immediate steps along the path toward a settlement negotiated by the parties to the conflict which is fair and just to all concerned.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, during the first hours of the present parliament, we were deep into the Viet Nam problem; in the first hours of our return in this House, we are deeply involved in the Middle East conflict. We can no more remain indifferent to the conflict opposing Israel and the Arab states than to the tragedy in Viet Nam.
Arab-Israeli War

Mr. Speaker, the situation in the Middle East is one that concerns not only Canadians but all peoples who truly understand the potential that any regionalized international conflict has for spreading its effects across the world. The concern that Canadians share, regardless of where their private sympathies may lie with reference to the principals locked in conflict, makes it essential that this parliament provide the nation with a forum for a discussion and airing of the issues. That is why we called for this debate to take place.
I want to assure the minister that, as my leader indicated in his statement of this afternoon, our party is prepared to support any reasonable efforts on the part of the government to bring about a ceasefire, hopefully related to a continuing round of serious negotiations with reference to the material disputes in the Middle East.
Our purpose in requesting this debate is to ensure that the government has a full reading of the sentiment and concerns of this minority parliament as it prepares what initiatives it can take to deal with this tragic situation. I believe it is fair to say that most Canadians would prefer that our government reflected in a balanced sense our general concern about restoring a lasting peace to the Middle East. Yet I feel compelled to indicate that as a result of the UN observer-reported violations on the party of Egypt and Syria of the 1967 ceasefire lines, and the responsibility this violation must bear for the present crisis, it may be neither appropriate nor possible for Canada to maintain a perfect sense of balance in the present difficulties. Canada was a party to the UN vote that created the State of Israel and must therefore share the commitment expressed by the United Nations that Israel had a right to exist.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Wagner: That right must remain the cornerstone of our pursuit of peace and conciliation in the area. I do not believe that there can be any equivocation on this matter. Nevertheless, those who care about Israel's right to exist should understand that that right is strengthened by peace and weakened by war. That is why many friends of Israel have counselled a more conciliatory attitude on her part at times, and that is why many still believe that the ultimate securing of peace and an existence without war will depend on Israel's ability to sue for peace and continue that pursuit regardless of the odds. Perhaps, as friends of Israel, Canadians expect more of her and feel that she can and should take the first and perhaps the longest step if peace is to become a reality.
Yet it becomes clear that there are powers that do not want peace in the Middle-East and are determined to stand in its way at high cost to the region and to the world. If a true peace in the Middle-East results only from a lasting settlement, surely the basis for peace must be the desire not to make war. That is often a product of a carefully maintained military balance. Those interested in peace must of necessity be concerned about that balance and its maintenance.
The decision reached by Egypt and Syria must relate to some sensing on their part that somehow the balance was tipped in their favour. Be that the actual case or not, that

October 16, 1973
Arab-Israeli War
sense could have come only from and at the encouragement of the Soviet Union. That, Sir, is the tragedy within the tragedy of the Middle-East. That the Soviet Union would pursue a policy of upsetting the existing balance of power there, while suing for peace, detente and understanding elsewhere, is incomprehensible and, frankly, puzzling. My party has joined with others in this House in welcoming the growth of detente and east-west understanding. What reasonable man would not? Yet there is a loophole in the detente of the Soviets, a loophole that seems to be wide enough for Arab and Israeli blood to flow quite freely. There are those who would talk about an arms embargo now. Yet to discuss that embargo after the weighing down by the Soviets of the scales on one side has brought about this outbreak seems a little naive and not all that relevant.
My party takes the view that where previous initiatives have failed-and I refer to the Jarring mission of the U.N. in particular-new efforts should be undertaken. It may be possible that some new aegis for negotiation moderated by middle powers slightly more disinterested than the great powers would have some greater success than previous efforts. In any event, we would hope that it could be offered and that Canada might make that offer with others.
The extent of the present difficulty is really not known. To what extent will the Soviets continue their build-up? Will they supplement their technical advisers and other assistance with more damning participation? How far will our neighbour to the south be forced to go in order to maintain the balance? These are haunting questions that are being answered bit by bit as more and more die on both sides in the Middle-East.
There is one question that we as parliamentarians and human beings must answer, and answer quickly. Do we believe that Arab and Israeli blood is cheaper than our own? Are we prepared to say that Arabs and Israelis can continue to fight their battles without interference? Is this to be the approach that we can condone? I suggest that no one in this chamber wants any part of that type of thinking. I suggest that both the Arabs and the Israelis cannot afford many more little wars at regular intervals. I suggest that we will indeed be lucky if the present conflict remains within the category of a little war.
The international community must exert its influence on the belligerents so that the seeds of war are replaced by the seeds of peace. For example, on the question of the refugees, where something less than compromise has characterized the attitude of both sides, friends of both sides should encourage the creation of an international commission of inquiry, with representatives of both east and west, for the purpose of mapping out options and alternatives that the Middle-Eastern community might be encouraged to consider. It is clear that as long as Israel rejects responsibility for these individuals, and the Arab states propose only a solution that would threaten Israel's right to exist as a sovereign state, the principals to the dispute will not be able to reach a reasonable solution.
On the general question of negotiation, while not in any way questioning the good will or potential of the United

Nations, I believe that the continuing conflict indicates that negotiations at the UN cannot take the place of negotiations between the principals themselves. If, as the Arabs claim, Israel occupies Arab territory, then the Arab states must seek to negotiate the return of that territory from Israel. If, as Israel claims, she desires but a lasting and secure peace, then she must negotiate that peace with the Arab states based on Arab concerns for the return of territory. While international agencies are not to be ruled out, their role might be more usefully that of bringing the two parties together to negotiate with one another.
Canadians of both Arab and Jewish origin are deeply concerned about the conflict, and for reasons that other Canadians understand full well. Our government can best respond to these groups' concerns by reflecting the bipartisan will of this House in seeking those initiatives that will truly open new avenues and channels of peace for both sides. This may involve some frank exchanges between our government and the Soviet Union. I feel sure the minister understands that he will have the support of my colleagues in any initiative he might take in this regard.
The Middle-East is not any more an issue at which Canadians can look in terms of one side being all right and another being all wrong. The sense of injustice and bitterness on both sides makes such an analysis most simplistic. Yet the present crisis, the present difficulty, cannot be laid at Israel's door. A massive Soviet-built force was set against Israel on her southern and northern flank. Notwithstanding the rationales both historically and otherwise that exist on both sides of the Middle-East dispute, the unilateral violation of the 1967 ceasefire lines cannot be construed as an act of peace or good will.
The tragedy of the Middle-East is told in the story of a horse trying to cross a small body of water in the Middle-East and finding a scorpion on its back poised to strike. The horse tried in vain to convince the scorpion that, should it strike, both would plummet to an untimely death on the river bed. As the scorpion struck and both sank to the depths, the horse turned in puzzlement to the scorpion and asked, "Why?" The scorpion laughed and answered, "Because this is the Middle-East." The scorpion rides not only the back of the Middle-East; it is riding the back of the entire world. If we cannot eradicate its venom, we must at least be united with others in searching for an antidote.
I happen to believe that it is an inestimable tragedy for Arab and Israeli to do battle rather than to live side by side. It is tragic that two great civilizations should be faced with no other alternative. And as soon as a war breaks out, the alternatives are always limited and the options are always restricted. The option of peace in the Middle-East will not be furthered by ceasefire violations. It can only be enhanced by a desire to turn a transient ceasefire into a permanent arrangement.
It is possible, Mr. Speaker, that the survival of peace in the Middle-East will be coupled with the issue of the survival of secure borders. There are still those who indicate that the only peace will be that following the destruction of Israel and the end of her survival. That, Mr. October 16, 1973

Speaker, is something that no Canadian and no Canadian government could ever tolerate.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, we join with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) in deeply regretting the breaking out of a new and bloody chapter in the tragic history of the Middle-East conflict and we express our most sincere sympathy for the people who are suffering on both sides of the line.
The renewal of war by the forces of Egypt and Syria on October 6, the Day of Atonement, marks the refusal to use the only means possible to bring about a just and durable peace. I refer to the process of negotiation on the basis of the formula set out in Security Council resolution 242, to which the Secretary of State for External Affairs has already referred. Mr. Speaker, I suggest that that is the only formula for peace that has found universal acceptance and that it is the only formula on which peace in the future in the Middle-East can be based.
The essence of that resolution was that it emphasized two aspects necessary to the peace. In the recital it spoke firstly of the inadmissibility of the acquisiton of territory by war, and secondly it spoke of the necessity to work for a just and lasting peace in which every state in the area can live in security. Section 1, the main operative section of the resolution, provided also for two things, the withdrawal of Israeli armed forces from territories occupied in the recent conflict, the termination of all claims or states of belligerency, and respect for and acknowledgement of the sovereignty, territorial integrity and political independence of every state in the area and their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries free from threats or acts of force. Mr. Speaker, you will note that I stressed the words "within secure and recognized boundaries" because they are essential to an understanding of this matter.
It will be noted that both the preamble and the resolution are balanced. They do not speak of the withdrawal of armed forces alone, but they balance that against the right of every state in the area to its independence and territorial integrity and sovereignty with the right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries. The one is made conditional upon the other. The tendency has been for the Arab states and those who favour them to put all their emphasis on the first part, on the withdrawal of the Israeli armed forces, and they refuse to give adequate attention to the second part, namely, the right of all states in the area to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries.
The problem, unfortunately, is and was that the resolution was ambiguous and incomplete. It did, as I have said, refer to secure and recognized boundaries, but it really constituted a series of guidelines and not an agreement. It lacked a definition of what the secure and recognized boundaries should be, and they remain in dispute. That dispute can only be properly resolved by bona fide negotiations. There is no other way to determine what those boundaries should be. But the Arab nations have refused negotiations, insisting on prior withdrawal by the Israeli forces. They have now taken steps to secure withdrawal by force.
Arab-Israeli War
That the present phase of the conflict was initiated by Egypt and Syria, later joined by other Arab states in various degrees, is abundantly clear. Let there be no pretence to the contrary. We recognize, as most people must, that the Arab states, particularly those bordering on Israel, may have legitimate cause for grievance. But what we cannot accept is that they should have resorted to force before efforts to negotiate had been tried and failed. This failure and unwillingness to negotiate, and the present resort to force, cannot, therefore, be condoned.
The modern State of Israel was the creation of immense determination and commendable industry and ingenuity on the part of the people of Israel. These efforts were contributed to by Israelis from many parts of the world who had ancient and traditional, and indeed continuing ties with Palestine, as indeed had the Arabs who resided in that area under the Ottoman empire. The creation of the modern State of Israel was also the creation of the world community acting through the United Nations. It followed the agony of the holocaust which gave an impelling motive to establish an independent state. The United Nations, by resolution 242 on November 22, 1967, clearly recognized the right of Israel to independence and security as well as the rights of neighbouring states in the Middle-East.
That resolution was adopted unanimously by the Security Council and accepted by all those concerned. As I have said, it failed to provide the adequate machinery for bringing about a just and durable peace, but it did at least clearly recognize the right to political independence and sovereignty of the State of Israel. For these reasons, Mr. Speaker, the survival of Israel is a moral and political necessity and a priority for those who believe in democracy and international order. Until it is accepted, and accepted both formally and sincerely by all the nations concerned, no lasting peace can be secured.
We do not want to pretend that mistakes have not been made by the Israelis and that statements made by some of the leaders in that country have not been harsh and intransigent, however much justification they may have had, but we do say that the independence and security of Israel is an international concern. It cannot be abandoned without shame to the world which accepted it, and indeed created it.
It may be that the present attack by Egypt and Syria and their associated states was indeed, as they proclaimed, for limited objectives. But I for one cannot blame the Israelis fof being sceptical about these limited objectives. After all, history is replete with the words of Arab leaders speaking to their own people in particular of the liquidation of the State of Israel and of driving the Israelis into the sea. Indeed, even today when the Egyptian president, Colonel Sadat, spoke of ending the war he set out two conditions, one being the total, immediate and unconditional Israeli withdrawal from all the Arab territories lost in 1967, and then he added this phrase, "as well as the return of the rights of the Palestinian people." What does this vague phrase imply? Israelis, naturally enough, interpret it as just another formula for the liquidation of Israel as a sovereign Jewish state.

October 16, 1973
Arab-Israeli War
As recently as February, 1971, A1 Ahram, the prestigious government-controlled newspaper of Egypt, printed the following words:
-there are only two specific Arab goals at present, elimination of the consequences of the 1967 aggression through Israel's withdrawal from all the lands so occupied and-
Mark this, Mr. Speaker.
-elimination of the consequences of the 1948 aggression through the eradication of Israel.
The latter part, just a couple of years ago, was set out as the second goal of the Egyptians. Therefore I say, Mr. Speaker, that I cannot blame Israel for being somewhat sceptical about the professing of limited objectives. In any event, it is very difficult to limit objectives when war has been unleashed, as history has shown.
I suggest it is clear that there can be no lasting peace in the area without the acceptance of negotiations and the conclusion of an agreed peace. These negotiations must concern, among other things, the plight of the Palestinian refugees. Resolution 242 of the United Nations Security Council to which I have referred affirms the necessity for achieving a just settlement of the refugee problem. No one will suggest that this is an easy objective. It will demand constructive action on the part of the Arab states and of Israel, and indeed a contribution by the world community. Canada, as part of the world community, will have her share to contribute.
I think it is clear, too, that the problem of the refugees cannot be solved without the creation of peace in the area. As long as there is no acceptance of peace and no genuine negotiation, the refugees will very likely become a pawn in the bitter game of hatred and mistrust. I do not mean, by speaking of the problem of the refugees and of the necessity of its solution, to blame the existence of the problem on the State of Israel. Propaganda has often asserted that the refugees were thrust out or thrown out of their homes and farms. After the United Nations, in 1947, called for partition and the creation of two states in Palestine, the Arab states refused to accept the decision and attacked the State of Israel almost as it was born. They encouraged the flight of Arabs from their homes and farms, and no doubt encouraged the expectation that they would return with the victorious Arab forces.
Many Arabs who refused to flee and remained in Israel have lived in peace and prosperity in that country. Indeed, the Arabs have done little to alleviate the fate of the refugees and have appeared to maintain the status quo as a festering sore and a propaganda device in the struggle against Israel. However that may be, the rights and welfare of the homeless Palestinians is a major and essential item for the negotiation which must follow.
The government of Israel has from time to time asserted its willingness to contribute to the settlement of the refugee problem and, indeed, it is clearly in the interests of Israel that this problem be solved. Indeed, it is clearly to the interests of Israel, a nation infinitely smaller in numbers and ultimate resources than the Arab countries that surround it, that there be a lasting peace. It is hard to believe, therefore, that in negotiations the government of Israel, be they designated as hawks or doves, would not be

willing to make substantial concessions so long as its ultimate security is not jeopardized and its existence and survival guaranteed.
Far above and beyond the present conflict there looms the threat of escalation. The two super powers have armed and supported the different protagonists for some time. Indeed, since the outbreak of the present conflict the U.S.S.R. seems to be fanning the flames. In so doing they are destroying the proposals of detente which they have claimed to support. Both the super powers have replenished or promised to replenish the arsenals of their clients which have been depleted through combat losses. In this way lies world disaster. The weapons handed out are modern, destructive, sophisticated and murderous in their power.
When the Security Council discussed resolution 242 there was consideration of a provision originally contained in the United States draft. That was a provision to halt the arms race in the Middle-East. The reason for its elimination is not clear. One's initial impression might be that it was cut out because Soviet large-scale support of supplies and military equipment to the Arab countries was insisted upon by the U.S.S.R. However, it is a fact of history that the Soviet draft resolution, presented at the final stage of the Security Council debate on resolution 242, included a similar call to halt the arms race, couched in almost identical terms to those used in the United States text.
If both the super powers at that time saw the necessity of containing their dangerous race to arm their friends in this explosive area, surely the time has now come when this resolution should again be considered. The Security Council should revive the proposal for an arms ban and, what is more, act upon it promptly. If they fail to do so, the continuance of the conflict threatens the peace of the whole world.
Canadians, Mr. Speaker, and every man of good will throughout the world, will earnestly hope for an early end to hostilities, and this time not just a ceasefire but a long and lasting peace. Canadians will also, as good members of the world community, be ready to assist in the reconstruction of the societies damaged by the conflict.
I can think of no better way to end my remarks, in which I have not tried to match the depth of my feelings with the length of my speech, than to quote Rabbi W. Gunther Plaut of Holy Blossom Temple, as quoted in an article in the Globe and Mail of Tuesday, October 9, in the following words:
Perchance we dare to hope, when the fire ceases, the fourth war will at last lead to negotiation and then to peace so that refugees may find a home and Arab and Jew, cousins by descent, may join in building the world of tomorrow.
Perhaps the rabbi was, in his reference to cousins, thinking of the African concept of the extended family. May the peoples of the Middle East find a way to build the world of tomorrow in the spirit of the extended family.
[ Translation]


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, for the second time since I have been elected to this House, the war in the Middle East is the subject of an emergency
October 16, 1973

debate. In fact, on June 8, 1967, we had a similar debate during the so called six-day war. At the beginning of the current conflict I heard people say that we did not have to worry and that this war would not last long.
We see that the conflict is to last since both parties involved are much better armed and the soldiers much better trained. During the debate of June 8, 1967, I said- and I would like to repeat it tonight-that in my humble opinion the reasons for this war which had been lasting for so long still existed and that the fire which broke out so suddenly these last few days had been smouldering for twenty years. The fact that the belligerents have laid down their arms does not mean that the fire is completely extinguished but rather that it is under control and that if the United Nations which are representing the world community do not take the necessary steps, this fire is liable to break out any day. Unfortunately this happened, the fire broke out again because the diplomacy mentioned tonight was not efficient. They have tried to convince the Jews on one side and the Arabs on the other that it was no good for them to fight and kill each other and I am almost convinced they agreed but had to answer: We can stop fighting but what are we going to do with the weapons you compel us to buy? This is the answer, this is the reason. If diplomacy is to be efficient we should rather convince those who are benefiting from this situation, the arms manufacturers and traders who are making money through the destruction of others. At the beginning of his remarks, if I did not misunderstand him, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) stated that Canada should take measures to ensure peace in the Middle East. But what measures can we take? Should we take up arms and kill them so that they will stop fighting. It is ridiculous! There is another means, persuasion. But should we try to convince those who fan that fire? Not very long ago, that is at the end of last spring, more specifically on May 30, was held in Ottawa the second annual conference of the Canada-Israel committee and I have in hand a policy statement which I would like to quote. It reads as follows:
Canada has always distinguished itself at the international level thanks to its diplomacy, especially in the Middle East with its firm support for the establishment of the Israel State as well as with its contribution to the creation of a mechanism required for the application of a truce ordered by the United Nations. On the other hand, our country has always co-operated in the organization of special forces of the UN during the period covering the years 1949 to 1967. In addition, Canada enjoys at the present time a unique position which enables it to maintain friendly and neighbourly relations for our economic development with the United States as well as with the Soviet Union.
Thanks to those relations as well as successful diplomatic efforts associated with the international assistance plan, the Canadian people are in a position to voice their opinion on all problems connected with the Middle East in the international forum as well as before the United Nations.
Well, Mr. Speaker, this policy statement of the Canada-Israel committee recognizes the value of the Canadian diplomacy and it is at that level, I think, that Canada can more effectively intervene. But it must make representations to great industrial nations that take advantage of those wars, not only in the Middle East but also in Viet Nam, Korea, the Congo as well as all other conflicts that have taken place since the World War II. And these four great international powers take advantage of these conflicts. On November 24, 1971, Le Droit of Ottawa, com-
Arab-Israeli War
menting on a report published by Stockholm's International Peace Research Institute, said that 90 per cent of the Third World's armaments were provided by four countries: The United States, the U.S.S.R., Great-Britain and France. And for 25 years, according to the report, all wars have been carried out in poor countries, and the weaponry used was provided in large part by industrialized nations of the northern hemisphere. It is obvious that these countries are not in a position to produce the armaments they use to kill one another. In return, they are practically obliged to give away especially oil and mostly, the objective of these wars is oil control. France provided Mirage aircraft to Libya. The U.S.S.R. provides 99 per cent of military equipment to Egypt, 100 per cent to Syria and 75 per cent to Irak. Great Britain sent 50 Phantom tanks and two war vessels to Libya, 40 per cent of the military hardware to Lebanon and 225 Centurion tanks to Israel. Both countries are provided with arms so they can fight together. If at least we gave armament to one side only. But we sell arms to both so they can kill each other. According to Perspectives dated June 13, 1970, the United States delivered about 12 helicopters and Phantom tanks to Syria as well as 10 F-104 jets to Jordan and 36 M-24 light tanks to Iraq. In La Presse of June 10, 1970, one can read the following:
Military forces of Syria amount to 75,000 men, including 60,000 for land forces with 450 tanks and 500 armoured vehicles, all Russian made. Air forces have 55 Mig-21 and 75 Mig 15 and 17 as well as a number of transport training aircraft.
The Navy has about twenty ships, six of which are patrol vessels armed with missiles. The whole equipment, as we can see, is from the U.S.S.R. and has been delivered in the last few years. I recall, Mr. Speaker, the utterances from a former mayor of Montreal, Mr. Camilien Houde, who said that weapons are not made to decorate Christmas trees. It is quite obvious. Weapons are made to destroy and care has been taken to train the Israelis as well as the Arabs in order that they can use these modern weapons.
As I observe the way in which events develop, I have the impression that strangely enough, it looks like a chess competition where the champions use Jewish and Arab pawns, three million Jews on one side against 100 million Arabs on the other, and they are provided with the necessary weapons to balance forces. When weapons are in short supply, arrangements are made to have more delivered in sufficient quantity for the forces to always keep the balance.
According to the most recent statement by United States President Nixon concerning what he calls a massive shipment of Russian armament to the Arab states, he feels that he himself has to establish an airlift between the United States and Israel in order to balance forces and according to the very words of a spokesman for the American State Department, Robert McCloskey, the American decision was also dictated by the level of Israeli losses in equipment. Not men, equipment!
That is the concern of armament producing nations. Well, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State should on behalf of the Canadian government, intervene with these nations, use all his influence to convince industrialized

October 16, 1973
Arab-Israeli War
nations which supply arms to these countries, not only in the Middle East but in all countries of the Third World, to put an end to that hypocrisy, to that destructive trade and insist that instead of supplying destructive weapons, they would rather supply means of production. That will be much more useful.
We often hear economists or demographers expressing fear that after the year two thousand earth will have difficulty feeding its inhabitants. In reading reports from the technicians and engineers who have worked there, especially in the Mount Sinai region, we see that they were unable to find enough sand to build concrete wells and had to use eastern sand which was brought by Greek boats.
This proves therefore that there is no sand in that desert, only argillaceous silt. With a little water such soil could grow green and produce. Mr. Speaker, instead of teaching these countries how to destroy one another, let us teach them how to produce and feed their people. By increasing food production in these areas, we shall not run the risk of coming up against other food producers since we are being told that inflation happens to be the result of a lack in production. Therefore, let us produce more.
Mr. Speaker, what we hope for tonight is to cease providing these countries with tools of destruction and provide them with the possibilities to live. I am convinced that they will learn quickly how to live in peace. They are seeking peace and are entitled to it. Therefore, let us stop fanning the fire so that peace may exist in the Middle East as it must everywhere else.


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, an ancient philosopher once said: I am human and nothing human fails to move me. Today, we must all endorse this statement, not for reasons of universal culture and humanism, but simply for the purpose of survival, both individual and collective.
Tonight, I should like to take part in this discussion not in my capacity of member of the government or even of member of parliament, because in the face of a conflict such as the one which recently occurred in the Middle East, we must admit that our power and authority is very limited. It is therefore more as a Canadian and as a man that I should like to take part in this discussion and share the feelings of other Canadians and members of parliament.
First of all, I should like to express the feeling of anxiety of all Canadians whatever their origin as concerns the resumption of hostilities in the Middle East. Within 25 years, we have seen four major conflicts in that area, as well as a permanent situation of latent conflict, whether it be terrorism within the boundaries of the countries involved or outside these countries. I think there is no continent which has been spared the effects of this terrorism during the past 25 years.
We are now faced with a new conflict which does not seem about to end. This conflict will perhaps claim more lives than any other of the previous ones, and if it goes on for a long time, we shall certainly witness the disruption, if not the total destruction, of weak economies in most cases, in which the procurement of arms absorbs a considerable share of the budget which could be used for so

many other purposes in the development of those countries.
Our concern grows over the implication of large powers in the present conflict and their inability to agree with one another within the Security Council of the United Nations. We take alarm at the evolution of a situation where, once again, small and middle powers might be used as simple pawns in a game whose rules are dictated by other countries. We take alarm at the possibility of a larger conflict because of the participation of third powers.
That feeling of concern is coupled with a deep sadness at seeing the failure of so many efforts over 25 years. It was with great enthusiasm that 25 years ago, the world welcomed the creation of the Israel State by the United Nations, and Canada participated through its vote in the United Nations. The creation of that new state raised many issues and left a number of unsolved problems in that region of the world, the most well known and difficult being the case of Palestinian refugees, and that problem has never been solved in spite of concerted efforts by the United Nations as well as small and large powers during all that period. Finally, we again failed in spite of all efforts made by the world during that period.
So it is with a feeling of relative helplessness and failure that we are here tonight when another war is raging in the Middle East. There is some danger that this feeling of helplessness causes us not only to become discouraged in the face of this situation, but even worse, to become indifferent.
And yet, even if only for brotherly solidarity with all men who suffer in this dispute, the civilian population, the soldiers who die or are injured, the families who suffer, even if only for brotherly solidarity towards all these people, we cannot remain indifferent. And to refuse to be discouraged does not mean either to indulge in flights of oratory and bombastic statements. It means very simply to humbly accept a role suited to us as a country and to take a position in keeping with the ideals of our foreign policy and worthy of respect at home as well as abroad.
Such has been the position taken by Canada for many years now, and I was happy to hear tonight the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) state clearly and appropriately the position of our country in such a tragic situation. For more than two decades, Canada has supplied military personnel to the United Nations peacekeeping brigade in that area of the Middle East. Moreover, Canada comes third among all the countries of the world who contribute to the United Nations agency for the relief of Palestine refugees, and following the 1967 war, Canada took part in the drafting of Resolution 242 of the Security Council that was passed in November 1967.
Today we reaffirm unreservedly our support of the right of Israel to exist as a sovereign state within secure boundaries recognized by the international community and especially by the neighbours of Israel. This also means that the sovereignty, the territorial integrity and the political independence of every state in the area must be respected and acknowledged and also that their right to live in peace within secure and recognized boundaries, free from threats or acts of force, must be respected as stated in Resolution 242 of the Security Council.
October 16, 1973

In addition to our support for the right of existence of Israel, we underline the necessity of a just and fair solution to the problem of Palestinian refugees.
Third, we appeal to all countries concerned so that they settle their conflicts through negotiation. Experience should prove to everyone that war will only generate a new war. More particularly, we appeal once more to all countries concerned so that they can conform to resolution 242 of the Security Council.
Fourth, we use all the good offices we have in the other countries as well as in the United Nations to bring the belligerent parties to a negotiated solution.
Finally, we state we are ready to give our contribution to a United Nations brigade which would have a guarantee of efficiency.
Mr. Speaker, on November 19, 1969, in this House, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), after a tour he had just made in the Middle East, made a statement which, in many respects, was prophetic. I should like to read parts of it. The Secretary of State for External Affairs declared and I quote:
The situation in the Middle East today is tragic. There is so much to be done in that part of the world and the will and technology are there. The tragedy is that in so many of the countries the resources needed for development are tied up in an arid confrontation which threatens to burst into violent conflict.
I left the Middle East with a profound sense of disquiet. Effective negotiation is not an immediate prospect. Escalation of the conflict is an immediate danger. In these circumstances, perhaps the best role for Canada to play in the foreseeable future is that of an understanding, compassionate, and objective observer, ready to assist if and when there is a specific task for us to undertake at the instance of both sides.
Unfortunately, the tragedy foreseen or felt by the Secretary of State for External Affairs has happened now. The part Canada may have to play is likely to be very humble but however it is encouraging to notice the unanimity of the political parties represented in this House in giving their support to everything the Canadian government can do to bring a negotiated solution to this tragic situation.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I join with many members who have spoken in extending to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) my earnest good wishes and my commitment to assist him in any way he may find to work for good in this situation. I was somewhat appalled yesterday to hear him say that he would welcome a debate on this issue if it could be arranged at a time when it did not interfere with vital business going on in this House.
The Middle-East is aflame. Death and destruction are the order of the day, every day. Animosities deep and dangerous have been given warlike expression. Possible major involvement of the super powers is fearsomely threatening. In short, Sir, I cannot think of any matter, any issue, any human situation much more vital than the matter which, through the leadership of my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), we are discussing tonight.
We would be less than human if we did not regard the Middle-East conflict with feelings of great dread and deep anxiety. The minister who preceded me, the Minister of
Arab-Israeli War
National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde), quoted a philosopher. To my mind come the words of the great poet, John Keats, who in his Hyperien referred to "one to whom the miseries of the world are misery". I think tonight of the many young people on both sides in the Middle East, many of the young military men whom I have met and by whom I was well treated in my visits to those parts of the world, and I wonder how many of them are casualties in the warfare that is gripping their lands.
We would be naive, of course, to believe that the solution is easy or that Canada alone can pluck the flower safety from out the nettle danger. The ingredients comprising the present ominous situation are multitudinous and varied. History, religion, geography, natural resources, competition, great power intrusions-all of these, alas, are eternally present.
The Middle East, the cradle of mankind, has all through the ages, it seems, also been its battlefield. The bodies of those who fought for empires long since gone have mouldered to make the dust over which the modern, sophisticated machines of war move today. Indeed, sometimes I wonder whether the accuracy of the dreary final prophecy of Armageddon, which was in the Middle East, might not be tempted today as the world plays with fire in the most explosive part of our planet. The horrendous possibilities of today's tragedy cry out for the very best thought of the most thoughtful of men, and the wisest actions of the most activist of world citizens. We must cast aside easy prejudice or automatic passion. Canada, its government, its people, can and should be ready to nurture and nourish any glimmer of hope for a solution. We should be prepared to place real sacrifices upon the altar of peace. We begin this, I believe, by making an earnest effort toward objectivity founded on a concern for the aspirations, needs, values and anxieties of both contending groups.
The interpretations of yesterday's statement or, rather, replies to questions by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, were not helpful. In such a long chapter of conflict and assault, how can one say with much value who started a war? Indeed, a careful look at the situation would lead one to ask when the war had ever ceased. Certainly in the Hobbesian sense it had never ceased. We hear of violations, we hear of wholesale intrusions and raids. Was there ever a long period since 1948 when we did not hear of these? I wonder if there is a potent vitality to the allocating of blame as to who started the war this time and who started it last time.
A comparison of the terrorist activities of one group, and the shooting down from the skies of an innocent passenger plane by the other, are equally horrendous, equally reprehensible. None of us would want the war to go on a single minute. Such a potentially explosive situation in fact cannot long endure without grave risk to mankind's future in a world of thermonuclear realities.
One sentence in the minister's speech commends itself to all of us. He said that there are only losers on all sides. If the roar of artillery ceases-and it must-I would like to see Canada play a part in helping to bring a better era to this troubled part of the world. Canada's capacity for meaningful leadership or assistance will not be furthered

October 16, 1973
Arab-Israeli War
by some of the interpretations placed upon the minister's responses of yesterday. This perhaps shows the difficulty and the danger of dealing with complicated matters through the interstices of the question period.
The United Nations Security Council resolution 242 called for secure and recognized boundaries for every state in the region, not for Israel alone. Israel was born in travail, bloodshed and terrorism and as a result of now well known double-dealing by the great powers of a generation ago. If we go back only to 1948 to try to get some of the roots of the present trouble and the dangers, we are not going back nearly far enough. The activity in the first great war by the then great powers is a shameful chapter: promises made to Jews, promises made to Arabs for favours to be received-promises which were mutually and internally contradictory. And yet we recognize today that Israel is a creation of the international community.
A few years ago when addressing a conference on the Middle-East situation in the ancient city of Cairo I said, making it clear at the time I believed that in that at least I was expressing the views of my fellow citizens, that Israel had the right to exist and that this is the Canadian point of view. I said further-this I said later in Tel Aviv-that I did not conceive that Israel has the right to exist on borders of its own choosing. This is an entirely different matter. The acquisition by force of lands of Arab countries is a constant disruptive irritant in the whole Middle-East. If secure boundaries for Israel mean diminished territory for her neighbours, can the world be astonished if those neighbours refuse to tolerate the continuance of such diminution of their sovereign territory?
Would it be likely that that situation could form the bedrock of lasting peace or the foundation of working agreements? We know in our hearts what the answer must be, so the question of space, the question of borders and the question of territory must be solved before peace can descend upon this long troubled region.
More vital than land, because people are always more vital than land, more significant, more precious, morally more compelling is the question of the Palestinian refugees. A million and a half people uprooted from their homes, fleeing in panic, fear and tragedy now residing in squalor, with glum resignation, in refugee camps. Mr. Speaker, I visited many of these concentrations of human deprivation. Having seen them, I shall never be the same again. To have this monumental human tragedy continue for a quarter of a century is a dark blot on the escutcheon and conscience of mankind, not only of the peoples in the area, not only of the combatants but of all of us.
I do not think it is enough, whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare does or not, for us to make grants to UNRWA. We do that; I am glad and proud that we do it, but it is not enough. No solution to the Middle-East crisis is possible without meaningful application and concern by others to the fate of these dispossessed people, thousands upon thousands of whom have never known a home but only a shack, a camp.
No matter what may be done in the peace force-and the signs at the moment are not encouraging, although I am impressed by the British foreign secretary's suggestion of this afternoon-I would hope that whatever Canada did, we would try to galvanize other countries to determine

that this particular irritant, this particular outrage, this particular stimulant to hatred and war must be dealt with with energy, dispatch and compassion.
I am reading the second volume of the autobiography of a great Canadian, Mr. Pearson. I read of the role he performed in 1956. Although the conditions are different today, I would like to see Canada move forward for peace. I would like to see Canada use every ounce of its moral leadership, and it has a good deal, to call upon all of these people. I agree with the spokesman for the Social Credit party that there are people beyond the region who are fishing in troubled waters and the world is suffering from their meddling.
I would hope that Canada would use its moral leadership to have the United Nations act through the Security Council-and there are provisions for bringing the matter before the General Assembly-so that world opinion may be mobilized to put to all these combatants the urgent necessity that they stop the war and begin, at long last, the peace.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, it is no doubt evident to hon. members that, because of my background, I am perhaps more emotionally involved in the tragic events in the Middle-East than some others in this House. But I hope that I can, none the less, try to view the situation objectively and fairly.
International debate has developed a language of its own, a language replete with insincerity, hypocrisy and double-talk. The result is deliberate confusion and obscurantist statements that do not say what they mean, nor mean what they say. This is the kind of thing we hear at the United Nations now from many quarters, but more particularly from the Soviet Union.
I often get the impression that I am witnessing a lynch mob ready to tear Israel apart. This is the central issue. What is at stake is the survival of Israel and perhaps the survival of the 2'/2 million to 3 million men, women and children of Jewish origin in that country. The Hitler holocaust is too clear in the memories of all decent human beings and is particularly too clear in the minds and hearts of Israelis for them not to defend themselves and their country with the passion and determination they have shown in four wars in one generation.
It is important, Sir, to recall that the State of Israel was established by the world community by a solemn resolution of the United Nations adopted unanimously. That resolution followed a report by a special commission on Palestine on which you may remember the distinguished Canadian, the late Mr. Justice Rand, served. It is also relevant to recall-and this is where the tragedy begins- that from the first day the Arab states refused to accept the decision of the United Nations and the first war, the war of 1948, ensued.
Modern Israel was born in conflict and in blood through no intention of the Israelis or the Jews who went there for safety and security. Ever since that day the issue has remained the same. Israel's Arab neighbours have never been willing to recognize or accept the existence of Israel as an independent sovereign state in the Middle-East.
October 16, 1973

There is no evidence, I am unhappy to say, that they are willing to do so even today. Here lies the essential tragedy of the situation.
The other tragedy, of course, is represented by the life of the Palestinian refugees, a condition that exercises the conscience of every civilized person. The war of 1948 produced refugees, whatever may have been the cause, and the 1967 war aggravated that situation. Throughout the period, I suggest to hon. members and I suggest to the people of the world, there have been only two possible solutions to this festering problem of the Palestinian refugees. The one solution was to settle the refugees in the areas available in Egypt and Jordan. This could have been done before now and can still be done.
To such a solution of that problem Israel would have had, and has, a moral duty to contribute immensely in funds and in technical help which its people are eminently qualified to provide. From personal conversations with the Prime Minister of Israel and members of her cabinet, I am convinced that the country was, and is, prepared to undertake its full share of this responsibility as part, and only as part, of a peace settlement in the area.
But this solution has been rejected not only by the Palestinians but by the Arab states and by all Palestinian organizations. Instead, they insist on regaining the lands which they left. I cannot fail to appreciate their desire, the cause of it and their frustrations at being away from what used to be their home. I do appreciate that. But what does their demand mean in simple, true, honest terms? Again, it means a determination to eliminate Israel. That is the only thing. The demand of the Palestinian organizations, no matter how sincere they may be, means the elimination of Israel and a plan to eliminate Israel as a Jewish society. I know they do not use that language. They have learned the language of international debate; they talk instead of ridding Palestine of Zionists. Surely this cannot and does not fool anybody.
Strictly speaking, there are Zionists outside Israel. Inside Israel there are only Israelis. Or, if anyone insists on using the term Zionist, then every one of the 2 Vi million to 3 million Jews within Israel is a Zionist, and when you talk about ridding Israel of Zionists you talk about ridding it of its entire Jewish population. This is the clear meaning of these terms used by some people who attempt to confuse and by others who innocently accept those terms. This, of course, is not acceptable to anybody who believes Israel has a right to exist.
So we come back full circle to the central issue, the right of Israel to exist as a Jewish state, as a Jewish society. It is in this context that the war must be seen and that the attitude of nations to that war must be judged. It is said by some that what the Arab states want now is to regain the territory captured by Israel in the 1967 war, that this justified their breach of the ceasefire agreement of June, 1967, and of the Security Council resolution 242 of November that year.
I hope that the Arab spokesmen are honest in their statements about limited objectives, but I cannot blame the Israelis for doubting them. I, myself doubt the reliability of these statements, first because limited war objectives are invariably abandoned by those who are victorious in them, and second because war was not necessary for
Arab-Israeli War
these limited objectives. Peace negotiations could have achieved them without the agony and destruction of war. Security Council resolution 242 called for such negotiations. It did not call for unilateral withdrawal by Israel from the occupied territories. It called for withdrawal as part of peace negotiations and a peace treaty which gave Israel secure and recognized boundaries, as it gave to the states around Israel equal security and recognized boundaries. Thus, we have the tragedy of 1973 because such negotiations have not taken place. It will continue to be a tragedy there unless both Israel and the Arab states are ready to negotiate a lasting peace.
Some hon. members and some of my colleagues have asked, why is Israel not ready to negotiate without direct negotiation with the Arab states? I say, without using the double-talk of international debate, that you cannot have negotiations unless one of the parties is recognized, unless one of the party's right to exist is recognized. Therefore, a precondition for any negotiations whether direct or indirect, through Mr. Jarring or anyone else, through the United Nations or in any other way, is the acceptance by the Arab states of the existence of Israel and its right to exist in peace and security. Without that recognition, Sir, negotiations are not possible.
I believe that the present tragedy would not be with us, that we would by now have peace in the Middle-East if the big powers were not playing a despicable power game with the hopes and lives of the peoples in that area. At least the United States, Britain and France have made, and are making, efforts to bring peace, to effect peace, to "cool it" in the present situation. But the Soviet Union is doing precisely the opposite. It is not only recklessly rearming the Arab belligerents, forcing Israel to seek armaments from the United States, but it has been directly engaged in encouraging, indeed in bullying, additional Arab states to enter the war, so that Israel is now fighting not merely Egypt and Syria but the armies of six or eight states.
I would not suggest that Israel has been entirely without fault or that the Israeli government may not have made mistakes. The Israelis are human; they are as capable of error and misdeed as are all other human beings. But of one thing I am convinced: the Israelis desperately need peace, and because they desperately need it, they desperately want it. They are a small population of some three million with little expectation of a substantial increase in their population because the sources of migration of Jews to Israel are now almost completely exhausted. They face enemy neighbours and armed forces many times larger than their entire population. Therefore, Israel wants peace because it needs it desperately.
Like others, I have visited Israel. I have admired the progress which the Israelis have made, the way they have made deserts fertile and have built settlements and communities based on principles of co-operation and social justice. I do not enter into old arguments. The fact is that Israel was established by international action, that it has fought wars to defend its existence and has fully earned, I say to you, Mr. Speaker, universal support for its right to live in peace behind secure and recognized boundaries. On this basic issue there surely cannot be any such thing as a neutral attitude.

October 16, 1973
Arab-Israeli War
National pride and national conflict are always destructive of human values. It is doubly so in the Middle-East. When I saw the accomplishment of the Israelis inside their country, I could envisage the immense contribution they could make to the economic and social development of the entire area. What a tragedy for Arabs and Israelis alike that they do not concentrate their energies on advancing the standard of life of people now living in poverty and insecurity.
The war is tragic, the consequences are dangerous, but human history has known tragedies which have produced positive results. I can only hope that this may be the result of the present war. I am as desolate about the loss of Arab blood as I am about the loss of Jewish blood, but I say, Sir, Israel must not be abandoned by the civilized world, particularly in view of the ruthless attitude of the Soviet Union.
My final word is to say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) that his statement tonight was dignified and realistic. He can rely on the support of all members of the House in anything Canada can do to resolve the war. I speak not only as a Jew but as a Canadian who believes in international justice and, above all, in a sense of justice and decency in my fellow Canadians.


Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that Canada can best serve the cause of peace in the Middle East by adopting a completely neutral, objective and unbiased attitude. This is the posture that should be adopted by our country in all of the international situations in which Canada is not directly involved. But I insist that it is singularly important for us to try to understand both sides in this unfortunate conflict in the Middle East, because it is my contention that up to now we have not been as objective as we should be and this kind of attitude will tend to reduce our credibility in world affairs rather than enhance the privileged position we have around the world.
It is difficult to be unbiased at the best of times, but it appears to be particularly difficult to be anything but pro-Israel in Canada because of the various pressures that have been brought to bear. First of all, most Canadians know little or nothing about the Arab point of view, and of course this is not surprising. For years the media in general have taken a pro-Israel stand, and only those Canadians who have been interested enough to find out the facts for themselves have been able to hear more than one side of the story.
Every question, every argument and every conflict in the world has at least two sides. It is up to us to realize this in Canada, and we should be doing everything we can not to be seduced by the one-sided reporting of the press. We cannot all have the privilege of visiting both sides in the Middle East, but it seems to me that at least our government should be objective enough to give the opportunity to members of parliament to be exposed to the whole story rather than to one point of view.
Since my entry into parliament I have made a particular effort not to take sides in any matter. I deplore taking sides in domestic matters for purely partisan reasons, and it is even more distasteful to me to be forced into a biased 
position in international matters. For this reason I made it my business to study both sides of the Nigerian-Biafran conflict and I have made it a point to visit Israel and some Arab countries in order to be appraised of the complete picture.
Similarly, although I find1 discrimination distasteful, unlike many of my confreres I refuse to make an out-ofhand condemnation of apartheid without knowing all of the facts and the points of view that exist in South Africa. I make a point of mentioning these things because I feel very strongly that the only way Canada can maintain its position of prestige in the world is by being open-minded and ready to accept all points of view.
It was in this context that I wrote a letter to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) last spring. My letter was a culmination of the frustration I had experienced as a member of parliament, particularly with respect to objectivity or lack of it in the Middle East situation. I quote as follows the contents of that letter:
My dear Minister:
On several occasions I have expressed my views regarding an apparent one-sided attitude with regards the Middle-East crisis. Even though Canada purports to be completely unbiased, there appears to be much less understanding for the Arab point of view than there is for the Israeli point of view.
The world was shocked and made a great outcry over the tragic events in Munich last year. Rightly so. I suggest to you however that some of the incidents that have taken place recently, not by a group of hot-headed terrorists, but by a government, were far more serious than the Munich tragedy. I refer to the shooting down of the civilian airliner and more recently to the Israeli raid in Beirut which was highly organized by the armed forces of Israel into the heart of Lebanon's capital where people were massacred in their beds. I have heard no outcry, nor has there been a debate in the House of Commons, nor has the committee been seized of this murderous act.
You are aware that I was a member of the external affairs committee for some time but have not been involved on that committee for the past two years. The reason is not because I have lost interest in the international affairs affecting Canada, on the contrary, I am probably more active in this regard than most of my colleagues. The reason is because that committee has done nothing or very little of importance since I have been an M.P. The Middle-East situation and what Canada's posture should be in that regard has never been a subject in that committee even though it is probably the most important international situation in the world today. Several other items of great importance have been ignored or haven't been considered worth bothering about.
With regards the Middle-East, if the population in Canada and the United States are not aware of both points of view it can be attributed to a superior skill at propaganda of one side over the other but surely members of parliament and your department cannot be placed in the same category as those subjected to the ordinary media. Surely the members of this House should be given the opportunity to understand both points of view and one of the best ways would be to have a complete and objective study in the committee. As far as I am concerned personally, you know that I have always insisted on exposing myself to both sides of every controversy. During the Nigerian civil war, I refused to return to Canada before having seen both sides. I have done everything in my power to keep an open mind regarding communist countries and went to Cuba for that reason. In the case of the Middle East, I made sure to visit Israel as well as the Arab countries and in this way I have practised what I believe should be Canada's attitude in maintaining a neutral, non-partisan point of view. I must say however that with the overwhelming evidence of Canadian indulgence regarding several crimes committed by Israel while at the same time condemning every act of even a remote terrorist makes it very tempting for me to take a partisan attitude in favour of the Arabs.
October 16, 1973

When I was in Cairo three years ago, I recommended that the Arabs give official recognition of the State of Israel and thereby show that they were willing to take a positive step toward solving the crisis. I actually believed that this would serve to convince Israel that negotiations could begin and a lasting peace could be agreed upon. Since that time the Arabs have stretched out their hand on many occasions in an effort to make peace with Israel and to have their lands restored but it has never been enough for Israel. It is becoming more and more obvious that Israel has no intention of withdrawing from any of the occupied country and since their aggressive attitude has not met with even a slap on the wrist from Canada or the United States there is no reason for them to change their aggressive attitude. Not only is this situation deplorable but it is made more so by the attitude of this country which seems to want to ignore the poor co-operation on the part of Israel. I suggest it is time our friendship for the Arab world be shown more positively by seeing that at least our elected representatives be given the opportunity to understand the Arab point of view.
That letter was dated April 12, 1973. The minister answered it and stated, among other things, that he did not think Canada was biased in its attitude. He pointed out that he did not find it helpful to comment publicly on every incident of violence related to the Israeli-Arab dispute. He pointed out that Canada remains committed to the Security Council resolution 242 as the best means of achieving peace in the Middle-East. He also stated that Canada supported the mission of Ambassador Jarring.
He suggested that if members of parliament are not sufficiently aware of the Arab point of view, a discussion of the situation should be initiated by means of a request to the chairman of the external affairs committee. Mr. Speaker, my experience with that committee, as quoted in my letter to the minister, would seem to obviate any formal request for discussion of a matter which seems to be the most important problem in the world today.
I found it amazing yesterday during the question period to witness the display in this House of some honourable members, in particular of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), asking the government to term as aggression the action of Syria and Egypt and to try to place the blame upon whom and at what point the first shot was fired. I did not notice the right honourable gentleman being so concerned-and I am sure he is always concerned about human rights-about the shooting down of the Lybian airliner by Israel some months ago. He was not ready to brand Israel as an aggressor when Syrian planes were shot down in international skies far away from Israeli borders a few weeks ago. Nor did he have any remarks to make when another civilian aircraft was forced down in Israel simply because they thought some undesirable people might be aboard.
What the right hon. gentleman does not seem to realize is that what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. He deplores acts of terrorism, as we all do, when they are committed by Palestinians, but the same act committed with the sanction of the Israeli government into the heart of the Lebanese capital seems to be all right with him.
Then we have our friend the leader of the NDP. Yesterday he was very concerned in this House about Canada's position regarding the right of Israel to exist. He repeated this fear again tonight. I want to assure the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) that I believe in Israel's right to exist and I do not have a biased attitude in this regard.
Arab-Israeli War
But I have enough objectivity to want to know if that right to exist on the part of Israel should exclude the right of the Palestinians to their homeland, and indeed if it should mean that we must condone the acquisition by Israel of a piece of Syria, a piece of Jordan and a piece of Egypt, as well as the creation of a racist state throughout all of Palestine where no one but Jews can exist as first-class citizens.
I have said that Canada has taken a one-sided view because it does not know both sides of the story. It is not possible for any of us here to make any kind of judgment unless we understand the problem itself. We cannot go into all the history here, but a knowledge of 50 years of history presents realities that should be remembered by those in this House who are ready to condemn out of hand, without knowing the facts, the results of this long chain of events that have been taking place in the Middle East.
I am sure there is none of us here who does not sympathize with the long suffering of the Jews in Europe. But, I ask, should the Arabs be punished because of it? In this respect a leading Israeli journalist said, "Whatever their subsequent follies and outrages might be, the punishment of the Arabs for the sins of Europe must burden the conscience of Israelis for a long time to come".
What of the great powers? They have continually interfered in the Middle East situation. Before they started their meddling half a century ago, Arabs and Jews lived side by side without serious problems. Since the great powers have created this terrible situation, it is up to them to solve it. But the solution is not in the feeding of arms to both sides of the conflict.
Unfortunately, the United Nations has not been able to do very much. Resolution 242 was passed unanimously. It asked for the withdrawal of the Israelis from lands which were occupied by force during the 1967 war. The resolution has gone unheeded. When Mr. Rogers, the secretary of state of the United States, made an effort to negotiate a settlement, his efforts were turned down completely by Israel. Dr. Jarring made a valiant effort on behalf of the UN and his efforts were turned down by Israel, which in effect suspended his mission. Therefore, it would appear that only the big powers would be able to bring about a settlement. In any case, as long as the Israelis occupy Arab lands which were acquired by force, the Arabs feel they are in no position to negotiate because there is nothing left to bargain with.
Where does Canada stand in all of this? I reiterate that there is only one possible course for us to take and that is one of objectivity. However, we cannot possibly be objective if we continually listen to only one side of the story. For example, how can we receive unbiased reports from Canadian journalists who report the war through information received in Tel Aviv? This one-sided reporting has been typical of what has been available to Canadians for many years. In any case, there is no excuse for the Canadian government to adopt a one-sided attitude. It is up to us to support whatever effort could bring about a just peace.
A few hours ago we heard that the Egyptian president offered a measure of negotiation. I do not know what the details were because I was in this chamber and heard very little about what was said. Obviously, he is now in a position of greater strength and sees a possible way to end

October 16, 1973
Arab-Israeli War
hostilities-hostilities, Mr. Speaker, that in the end can be of benefit to no one. Perhaps Canada could encourage Israel to accept this kind of offer. Certainly, we all want to see an end to bloodshed, but we want everyone to be able to live in dignity and safety. Whatever we do, it is time for Canadians in high places to act as statesmen and not from political considerations which may affect them in their individual constituencies.


John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, in following the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart) may I say that, as always, he spoke clearly and no doubt with a great deal of conviction. Yet throughout his speech he failed to direct his mind to any approach or action that we, as Canadians, should consider in order to end this tragic war. I think I can say on behalf of all hon. members that casting back in history and blaming all the actors on the stage of time will do nothing to stop the fighting. That should be the end to which we ought to direct our minds tonight. My hon. friend said that the only possible course for Canada is one of objectivity. I say no, that is not a course: it is a stance, or attitude, and a commendable one, and from that vantage point a decision must be made and a course of action determined.
All Canadians ought to deplore this war, and I believe the majority do. But in a finite world, living as we do in a community of nations, we cannot be indifferent to the outcome of this war. No matter how objective, detached or neutral we try to be, in one way or another, consciously or unconsciously, Canadians are in their own minds asking three specific questions. I suggest the first is, how did this war start? Second, what are the objectives of the belligerents. Third, how can it be stopped? The answers to these questions must determine the attitude Canada takes toward this conflict and to the parties engaged in it.
I say, and I say it very carefully, in matters as grave as this we cannot indulge in the luxury of having no opinion. As I said, we are a member of the community of nations as established, however imperfectly, in the United Nations. On this issue, with its potential for disaster and its ultimate questions of international morality, we cannot abdicate our responsibility to make our own decisions as to what the parties to the conflict ought to do both in the short-term and in the long-term. I cannot say too strongly that to have no opinion, to try to abstain from any position, is to abdicate completely that responsibility which is ours as a member of the United Nations and as a nation that prides itself on its sovereignty and high purpose in the world.
When we ask, how did this war start, I do not mean what are the causes. For that we must search history, and such a search hardly concludes with an answer that satisfies anybody, let alone the belligerents. However, as to what happened the facts are clear and uncontroverted. They are, on October 6 the armies of Egypt and Syria attacked Israeli forces in the Sinai and the Golan Heights. This ended an uneasy truce that had existed since 1967. Put simply, Egypt and Syria deliberately chose to ignore the provisions of United Nations resolution 242 and decided to forgo a negotiated settlement in favour of a resort to

armed conflict as a means of settling the differences existing between Israel and themselves.
The second question is, what are the objectives of the belligerents? The Israelis are fighting because they have no choice. The enemies of Israel are fighting either to restore the boundaries prior to the 1967 six-day war or to extinguish the state of Israel. I say the Israelis are fighting because they have no choice. If the objective of the Arab states is to restore the old boundaries, those boundaries leave Israel in a hopeless position to defend itself, lacking other guarantees which are presently non-existent. If the objective is the extermination of Israel, the question answers itself.
Out of this, one thing is certain. Only one side in this conflict has the option to withdraw, to cease the immediate hostilities. That, of course, is the stronger side. There is an old saying that it takes two to make a fight. What is often forgotten is the equally true observation that in an unequal contest it only takes one side to end it. That option, as I have said, is only open to the stronger. It ought to be plain that of the belligerents in this case, the Arab states are now the stronger militarily both for the present and no doubt the future, at least with the continuation of present conditions and circumstances. I refer, of course, to the overwhelming numerical superiority of the Arab nations and their ability to acquire supplies of modern weapons.
As other hon. members have pointed out, there is a deadlock. While we would wish that at an early moment both sides could simultaneously agree to a ceasefire, such an event is unlikely. One side must make the first move. That must be the side with the least to lose by such a move. In my view, Israel cannot unilaterally withdraw from engagement, that is, make the first move without risking the elimination of the Israeli state.
But there is such an option open to the Arab countries. Such a move could be made with no risk to their continuation as viable nations and would be greeted around the world with admiration which would redound to their international credit. Such a move would clearly indicate that the Arab nations agree with this country that Israel has a right to exist, not just for the moment but indefinitely into the future.
Mr. Speaker, I believe we should do everything possible to persuade the Arab nations and the other nations of the world, including the Soviet Union, that if the immediate fighting is to stop without further bloodshed, someone must make the first move. And the first move in this case must arise from the magnanimity of those who are immediately and potentially the stronger.
The question of borders, the question of refugees and other questions such as the relations between Israel and its neighbours must be negotiated. If the negotiations are to be successful, both sides will have to compromise or alter present strongly held positions. But the weaker cannot disengage in the absence of some meaningful assurance from the stronger. It is, I believe, this message which Canada must carry to the belligerents so that a new start and, perhaps, a real start can be made to establish peace between nations on both sides of this conflict whose friendship with Canada is to our mutual advantage and is the profound desire of the Canadian people.
October 16, 1973

[ Transla tion]


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the present conflict between Israel and Egypt breaks the heart of the whole world. But this conflict is far from being recent, it is the consequence of actions which have been taking place for several years. I listened to the members of the Progressive Conservative, New Democratic and Liberal parties. Some of them say: We must make a decision. The Progressive Conservatives today opened the debate which is now going on, by saying that we should take a stand.
And having listened to them, I found out that none of them is taking a stand except the member for York South who said that Israel has a right to exist. I also believe that Israel has a right to exist. This is a fact.
But, Mr. Speaker, how can we put an end to the conflict over there? Even if we discussed the matter here for two days, what could we do to solve the problem, except to suggest to the Great Powers to convince Israel and the Arab nations to sit around a table where they could discuss their problems and reach an agreement.
This is what is called diplomacy. Diplomacy has been going on in the Middle East for quite a while. The failure of diplomacy in the Middle East did not start in 1940. In 1916, almost 60 years ago, following the dismemberment of the Ottoman empire after the First World War, Great Britain and France agreed to place Palestine under British mandate.
Everybody agrees on this. One year later, in 1917, Great Britain published the Balfour Declaration advocating the creation of a Jewish national home state in Palestine. In 1919, two years later, an American Commission concluded that the Balfour Declaration could not be enforced without the use of military force against the non-Jewish populations. In 1922, the League of Nations placed the Palestine territory under British mandate. This territory is divided between Palestine and Transjordan. While the Allies of Great Britain supported the Balfour Declaration, the Arab states responded time and again with explosions of violence.
This took place in 1922, that is, 51 years ago. In 1937, the Arab-Jewish conflict convinced Great Britain that the mandate was inapplicable. Palestine had to be divided according to the British. When Great Britain went back on her decision concerning the Balfour Declaration, Zionists reacted with violence.
In 1947, British diplomats recognize their failure and leave it to the United Nations Organization to solve the crisis. Great Britain gives up its mandate in 1948. Israel proclaims its independence with the support of the United States and U.S.S.R. Both powers support the independence of Israel.
The war breaks out in the Middle East and ends in the victory of Israel and the armistice of 1948. In 1956, France and Great Britain join Israelis in attacking Egypt. This was not too long ago. The U.S.S.R. and the United States intervene to stop the war, an U N force is established for the maintenance of peace. Then, peace was maintained.
Arab-Israeli War
In 1967, the Six Day War broke out; Egypt expelled the UN Force, the American and Russian organisation, and closed down the straits of Tiran. During a blitz war, the Israelis get, thanks to their offensive the Sinai Peninsula, the Golan heights as well as the lands on the left side of the Jordan river.
In 1970 the UN representative, Mr. Gunnar Jarring, organized through his mediation the talks between Israel, Egypt and Jordan. Israel took exception and withdraw from the talks. The latest developments date back to 1971. Egypt signed a treaty of friendship for 15 years with Soviet Russia, after, of course, the U.S.S.R. had endorsed the creation of the state of Israel. In 1972, Egypt sent the Soviet advisors back home. In 1973, the precarious peace was shaken up by commando raids and guerrilla attacks. And now, it is war.
Mr. Speaker, if we consider that background we see that there are two sides there that have practically no say in that matter: the Israelis and the Arabs. At a certain point France and England decide for those two countries. At another point it is the United States, the U.S.S.R. and Israel, and the Arabs have nothing to say. And things go back and forth. And here we saw how members rise and say that a decision must be reached. Yesterday, the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) said that the government must take a stand. Earlier I heard the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) make a cautious speech, saying that no government can take a stand. Furthermore, he said it in English so he would not be understood but I did anyway.
Mr. Speaker, it is the same thing with the Liberals. The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) is honest about it. One thing is sure, those who are going to solve the problem out there are not Canadians, Russians or Americans, but Jews and Arabs. It is a matter of offering our mediation to allow them to meet and talk like men. Let the fighting stop. I believe there is enough room in the world for understanding. There never was any formal agreement in that area. If we take position in favour of the Arabs the Jews will hold it against us. If we take position for the Jews, the Arabs will be offended. And when we meet them, they say it is up to them to solve their problems. I do recognize that it us up to them to solve their problems. The financial schemers behind the conflicts who are seeking oil ought to be hunted out. There are some in the United States and some in the Soviet Union. Also there are the arms dealers. Right now, while there is a war going on, France-Long live free France!-as well as England, are selling weapons to the Arabs and to the Jews. That is a paying proposition, for they sell twice as many weapons. So, they make profits. Not one word is heard from either France or England.


Marcel Prud'homme: So that they may have them destroyed and order some more.


David Réal Caouette: Sure enough, more are being destroyed. At least if they were interested in manufacturing tractors to help those people produce wheat in their country. But a tractor would last ten years and this is not good for business. Whereas howitzers may be destroyed immediately. Another one is sold the next day.

October 16, 1973
Arab-Israeli War
The "payoff" is higher. This is the game played behind the scene by America and Russia, as well as by France and England. You hear nothing from them. The Americans say: Israel must be protected: The Russians say: the Arabs must be protected.
I fail to understand why the NDP will from time to time argue for the U.S.S.R. or Czechoslovakia. Those countries are going to finance the Arabs against them, and then they speak in favour of socialism. The Canadian government, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) was right when he said earlier that Canada can suggest a meeting of the states involved. Everyone is anxious to see the end of this conflict but let them not feed it any longer. If weapons were no longer supplied or sold there, these people would have to stop fighting. I think that Canada
can make a contribution by suggesting to the great powers to put an end to the sale of arms, by suggesting to France and England that they do the same so that this war may finally end and so that the Jews may be recognized in their country and the Arabs in their own. If such a right has been given to the Israelis, they are entitled to live in the world, to have their country just as the Arabs are entitled to theirs. But let us put a stop to this fighting done for the sake of countries having only financial interests in such conflicts.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 10.30 o'clock p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 o'clock p.m., pursuant to the special order made this day.
At 10.30 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order made this day.

Wednesday, October 17, 1973