1975-06-17

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that millions of dollars of public funds have been allocated and invested through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to industries in the Slave Lake area of Alberta, and in view of the present situation whereby several of the industries in receipt of substantial DREE funding have been forced to close, resulting in loss of jobs and financial difficulties for other business enterprises in Slave Lake and for the town itself, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski):
That the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion cause extensive inquiries to be made into this situation to determine the exact cause of what appears to be a matter of considerable magnitude affecting the immediate economy of the area in question and to determine whether the officials of his department were properly vigilant in their investigation and supervision of these companies to which substantial federal aid was offered, and also that the minister table, for the benefit of members, the material and data relevant to the situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 and cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to propose a motion under Standing Order 43 arising from Dr. Morton Shulman's very questionable press statement today that he possesses a copy of the RCMP file on Soviet journalist Konstantin Geivandov, and from remarks which can no longer be considered confidential made Thursday to me by Dr. Shulman, that CBC producer Mark Starowicz gave reports on NDP Waffle members to Geivandov. I would
move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
It is the opinion of the House that it is now essential that the Solicitor General forthwith make public details from RCMP files concerning Soviet journalist Konstantin Geivandov and CBC executive producer Mark Starowicz, including names of persons on whom files were compiled for Mr. Geivandov by Mr. Starowicz and, finally, the Secretary of State report to the House on the reasons for the strange and bungling manner in which the CBC has handled this situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The motion is proposed pursuant to Standing Order 43 and cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, under Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and immediate necessity.
Statistics Canada has announced that the homicide rate has increased by 11.8 per cent in 1974 and that, during the same period, no fewer than 475 persons were assassinated in Canada. Since it is urgent to protect law-abiding Canadian citizens against murderers who no longer have to worry about their lives, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Laprise):
That this House study as soon as possible measures that may be taken to protect honest citizens against criminals and that thought be given to re-establishing capital punishment in cases of premeditated murders, so as to ensure the protection of citizens, given the increase in the homicide rate.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion requires unanimous consent of the House under Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent, so the motion cannot be submitted.

June 17, 1975

Oral Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS


MR. HEES-CONGRATULATIONS ON SIXTY-FIFTH BIRTHDAY
Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, before I ask my first question perhaps I might do something I think the Prime Minister would want to do were he here and not engaged in official duties as the Prime Minister in launching Senior Citizens' Week. In the circumstances, I think the Prime Minister would like me to congratulate the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings on achieving his sixty-fifth birthday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the Leader of the Opposition for his very kind remarks, and members of the House for their kind reception of those remarks. I would say that since I arrived here 25 years ago I have seen many things happen, but I have never seen a better House, better members and better friends than there are in this House at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, due to my responsibility for senior citizens' programs I might say that yesterday I presented to two prominent senior citizens, Senator Therese Cas-grain, and Mr. Fred Wright of Calgary, the first identity cards for senior citizens; but I am keeping a special one for the hon. member and will make a special presentation to him very shortly, as soon as I have his application for old age security.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: I might add that if the hon. member wishes to make an application under the New Horizons program, I will certainly give it very careful consideration.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, some of us have particular pleasure in welcoming the hon. member to the club.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, as a manifestation of the friendship to which the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings just alluded, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour who I am sure noticed that the Minister of Finance said recently that Canada's wage and salary increases are

roughly double those in the United States and seriously endanger our competitive position and major economic goals. He added that this is not a myth, that he has the figures to prove it and that they will be published. Can the Minister of Labour tell the House, in the special capacities and responsibilities he assumes, whether he accepts those figures and the analysis of the Minister of Finance?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, in the sense of friendliness which prevails here, I would urge the Leader of the Opposition to read my complete speech. I indicated that there were some outstandingly high settlements in Canada which could be interpreted in many ways as being double those in the United States, and that something had to be done in the sense of urging restraint in this area as in many other areas of the economy. If the hon. member will look at the entire speech, he will find I indicated that it is possible to make very many statistical interpretations concerning what is going on in respect of wages generally. So, despite the issue the Leader of the Opposition wishes to make of it, I do not believe this is fundamental in terms of any disagreement with my colleague the Minister of Finance.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, am I, then, to take it that the Minister of Labour accepts the view and the analysis of the Minister of Finance that Canadian wage and salary increases are roughly double those in the United States and seriously endanger our economic position and economic goals?


John Carr Munro: Along with other factors that are contributing to the general inflationary situation which the Minister of Finance and I identified, I agree.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, in order to remove any possible confusion which might exist, do I take it that the Minister of Labour no longer is asserting that it is a myth that wage and salary settlements in this country are nearly double those in the United States?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not dispute the statistics revealed by the Minister of Finance. I am indicating that there are various interpretations one could place on them, but I am certainly not disputing the figures.


FALL IN LABOUR'S SHARE OF NATIONAL INCOME-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, so that I will not become involved in the squabble between the two ministers, I should like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. As Bank of Canada figures indicate that labour's relative share of national income has fallen from 75 per cent in the first quarter of 1971 to 73.3 per cent in the first quarter of this year, after touching a low of 70 per cent in 1973, can the Acting Prime Minister indicate whether it is the government's policy that labour should not regain the share of national income which it has lost between 1970 and the present?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Acting Prime Minister):: That is not government policy, no.
June 17, 1975


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Again I should like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. With labour's share of national income in Canada now 73.3 per cent, as I have stated, while in the United States labour's share is 76 per cent, would the minister indicate if it is government policy that labour should continue to have 3 per cent less of our national income component compared to their counterparts in the United States, or have the statements made by the Minister of Finance attacking labour wage increases been simply a decoy diverting attention from government spending?


Mitchell William Sharp: That was a long, complicated speech. All I want to say to the hon. member is that we do not have a policy such as he has been advocating.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Does the Acting Prime Minister agree with the Bank of Canada's statistics that I have given today?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think we look upon the Bank of Canada as a very reliable institution. I do not place quite so much reliance upon the interpretation of my hon. friend.


FINANCE
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It arises out of a speech by the Minister of Finance in Montebello on Friday, June 6. In light of the statement of the Minister of Finance on May 15 that the government is reviewing all statutes and policies affecting foreign investment in Canada, and in light of his statement on June 6 that Canadian companies which want to borrow or raise money by selling stocks will have "complete freedom to obtain capital under the best terms and conditions available", I should like to ask the minister whether the review referred to has now been completed. Also, can we assume from the statement of the Minister of Finance on June 6 that the decision has been made to remove all controls on foreign investment in Canada?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: I think the hon. member should address those questions to the Minister of Finance.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Can the Acting Prime Minister say just who is in charge of administering our foreign investment review policy, such as it is? Was the Minister of Finance stating government policy on June 6 when he said there would be no limitation on foreign investment, or has the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce been stating government policy?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I find it difficult to believe that the hon. member is quoting the Minister of Finance accurately. I should say, in answer to his first question, that the matter of dealing with foreign investment is, of course, a responsibility which is spread among many departments. The Minister of
Oral Questions
Industry, Trade and Commerce deals with the Foreign Investment Review Act, the Minister of Finance has policies that affect this matter, and so do many other ministers in this government. I am very happy to say that they are well co-ordinated.


DATE OF IMPLEMENTATION OF PART II OF FOREIGN INVESTMENT REVIEW ACT
Reginald Cyril Symes: I have a final supplementary question which I would like to direct to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the minister's statement two years ago that his target date was January 1, 1975, for the implementation of part II of the Foreign Investment Review Act which deals with direct, new foreign investment and expansion of foreign firms into unrelated fields in Canada's economy, and in light of the statements made by the Minister of Finance whom I believe I have quoted correctly, are we to assume that the government has no intention of introducing part II of the act in 1975?


Alastair William Gillespie: I have indicated on previous occasions recently that this matter is now before my cabinet colleagues and I expect a decision to be taken in the near future.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker. I should like to put a question to the Minister of National Revenue.
It concerns a question I put on June 2, 1975, during the absence of the minister. I trust he will convey it to him. I should like to put it again. I want to ask whether, as a result of the inquiry now under way into organized crime in Quebec with regard to the sale of tainted meat, he will institute the required proceedings against the persons who admitted having made additional income which was not declared to the Department of National Revenue. Does the minister intend to sue those people?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, quite obviously, the department has been following the reports of the inquiry in Quebec, but any action to be taken or prosecutions to be undertaken as a result of infractions of the Income Tax Act will be made public when charges are laid.

June 17, 1975
Oral Questions HOUSING


COMMENT OF PRESIDENT OF CMHC ON DECLINE IN HOUSING STARTS-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In view of the comment by the president of CMHC that even though housing starts should decline to
170.000	there would still be no one sleeping in the streets, is it now the goal of the minister, in housing policy, to see that there will be no one sleeping in the streets in this country, particularly since the president of CMHC went on to say that in these circumstances we are still the best housed nation in the world?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the president of CMHC was not suggesting that it is government policy or his own wish that our housing policy reflect only that people do not live in the streets. I think he was reflecting the reality that we are a well housed nation. We have problems which we consider serious, to which we give high priority and to which we are responding.


Miss MacDonald:: Economists at CMHC estimate that
230.000	housing starts in the third quarter, and 260,000 in the fourth quarter are necessary if the minister's previous commitment of 210,000 starts is to be met. Does the minister believe that the 260,000 figure is realistic for the last quarter of 1975, considering the seasonality of that particular time and that such a goal has never been achieved in any previous fourth quarter?


Barnett Jerome Danson: I think the figures speak for themselves. The difficulty in reaching the target of 210,000 remains a very serious problem in view of current economic conditions and the shortage of mortgage money in private lending markets. I still do not want to lose that figure as a target, but achieving that goal will be difficult this year.


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: The briefing paper prepared by CMHC for the meeting of housing ministers states that private lending under AHOP is not expected to result in a significant net addition as it will be largely funded from money already earmarked for housing, which is a flat contradiction of the minister's previous statements that the indirect AHOP program will attract $1 billion additional funds from private lending institutions. Would the minister indicate to the House how many mortgages have been approved to date under this particular program, to show that it has indeed been a failure to date?


Barnett Jerome Danson: With regard to the first point raised by the hon. member, that this would replace other housing in the housing market, certainly that is a factor, but it is directed to low-income Canadians for low-cost housing, about which this government is especially concerned. With regard to the relationship to the other figure, I do not have the precise figures. It has not been encouraging because of the shortage in the mortgage markets generally and the high interest rates today.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Is he aware of particular problems regarding industries assisted by funds offered by his department in the Slave Lake area of Alberta? These problems have apparently resulted in the closure of these companies, temporarily at least, with the resulting loss of many jobs as well as financial difficulties for the town and surrounding businesses at Slave Lake.


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I would need to have more specific information as to the companies concerned. I am, in a general way, aware that there have been some problems, as there frequently are in special areas particularly those where we are seeking to bring up the standards of the local residents and native people, but I am not specifically aware of any one instance which might have prompted the hon. member's question. Perhaps he could be more specific.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: These circumstances involve several companies in the Slave Lake area and several hundred jobs. I would ask the minister to give an undertaking that he will investigate the matter and in due course table in the House all relevant information secured by his officials with regard to these companies and their operations. I ask him particularly to reassure us that proper supervision and monitoring took place.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will be glad to consult with the hon. member and, to the extent possible, do as he asks. I will certainly be glad to look into all these cases. But as I said, perhaps he would be good enough, either privately or otherwise, to indicate which specific industries he is concerned about. As to the monitoring used, I shall certainly look into that. I am aware that within the last six months or so we have taken a couple of initiatives there in consultation and with the support of the provincial government.


HEALTH SERVICES
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is it now official government policy to work with the provinces as quickly as possible to bring emergency and ambulance services under the jurisdiction of medicare; and when can we expect action in this regard?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, discussions with the provinces have been under way for several weeks already, in fact for months, to see whether it would be possible under the Hospital Insurance and the Medical Care Acts to provide
June 17, 1975

certain services that do not now exist, in exchange for a more efficient use of public funds in the general field of health insurance.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary. Does the minister think that we can expect results very soon?


Marc Lalonde: The goal was to complete consultations around the month of October.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Labour and ask him how the Canadian government voted on the resolution before the International Labour Organization conference on the question of admitting the Palestinian Liberation Organization with observer status to the conference?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that our delegation there participated in the debate under the direction and with the advice of our Department of External Affairs. I think the right hon. gentleman's question would more appropriately be directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I hope the minister was not an automaton over there. He having been there, I asked him how the government of Canada voted. That is a simple question to the minister who knows, not to some other department.


An hon. Member:: He can't remember.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the question of the votes that were polled at the ILO with respect to the PLO were the subject of instructions which I issued to the delegation early last week or maybe a few days before that. There were two major resolutions, one a combined resolution calling for the admission of African liberation movements and the PLO to attend as observers at the ILO. On that resolution Canada abstained. A second resolution was proposed by the workers' groups-Canada, Australia and the United States, I believe-which stipulated that no observer group could attend the deliberations of the ILO unless it recognized the existence of all member states. Canada voted in support of that resolution, which unfortunately was not carried by the organization itself. It was a resolution which was intended to assert Canada's interest in the continued independent and sovereign existence of Israel as a state, and an indication that we expected all who would join the deliberations at the ILO would accept that fact, including the PLO itself.


An hon. Member:: Why did you abstain in the first place?
Oral Questions


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the explanation indicates something of a bad conscience. I simply asked the question as to how the Canad>an delegation voted. The Minister of Labour apparently did not know, although he was there heading the delegation. The Secretary of State for External Affairs said we abstained on that question but voted on another one, which was defeated. As last fall, in the vote at the United Nations concerning the application of Arafat, the PLO, to appear and speak on the rostrum of the United Nations, Canada raised the battle standard of "abstain," I wonder if this abstention had anything to do with the desire on the part of the Canadian government to do nothing which might annoy the PLO or the Arab nations.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think the explanation is clear. In many international bodies, resolutions are presented but they are not prepared on a consensus basis and do not reflect, in many cases, what Canadian policy is, and to vote either for or against those resolutions would be to grossly misrepresent Canadian policy on particular issues. We have always stated that the Canadian government feels that the Palestinian people should be represented, for example, at deliberations which have a bearing on the future settlement in the Middle East. I believe that position would be supported by most hon. members, if not all hon. members, in the House of Commons. But we refuse to take the position that the PLO itself should be one of or the only legitimate representative of the Palestinian people. That is why, on these particular resolutions which involve two aspects, namely, the rights of the Palestinian people and the PLO as an organization, we have consistently abstained. We have been in extremely good company in that abstention.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I never heard a reply more verbose and less clear. Was the representative of the Department of Labour attending the International Labour Organization conference at Geneva giving government policy when he said, as reported, "We don't want to prejudge the right of the Palestinian people to choose for themselves the organization which would represent them"? Was that government policy, was it simply an evasion, an attempt to explain the situation in order to please the people of Israel and the Canadian Jewish people, or does the statement represent a policy which has been determined on the basis of what is best for Canada?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious to me at least that this is a policy which serves Canadian interests and makes for the objective and balanced approach which successive Canadian governments have attempted to follow in connection with the Middle East situation. That is the background to our policy position on this matter. I think it is fully understood by the government of Israel.


John George Diefenbaker: But not by the Jewish people in Canada or elsewhere.

June 17, 1975
Oral Questions IMMIGRATION


ONTARIO GOVERNMENT APPROVAL OF IMMIGRANT PHYSICIANS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Has the government agreed to Ontario's request that all job offers to immigrant physicians should be referred to the Ontario Ministry of Health for approval before their applications can be accepted for immigration to Canada and, if so, does this not mean that the government is delegating to the province of Ontario the making of decisions on the admissibility of some immigrants to that province, something which it has so far-and quite properly-refused to do in spite of requests for this kind of authority from the province of Quebec?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, the assessment of eligibility for the entrance of medical doctors to Canada involves the establishment of the level of occupational demand, either nationally or regionally, for that skill and profession. Only in that way, through consultation on a regional basis or provincially can we determine where and under what circumstances the occupational demand would permit their entry and attachment to the labour force.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister saying that he is automatically accepting the views of the Ontario ministry in this matter and, if so, does this not mean giving the province of Ontario a veto over the admissibility of immigrant physicians to that province?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, in the field of health those kinds of determinations are very much under the jurisdiction of the provinces, but the agreement as to the level of occupational demand and the reaching of that agreement in our assessment of applications is not automatic, and I do not consider this to be an automatic surrender of veto powers to any province.


ALLEGED CONTRADICTORY STATEMENTS BY MINISTER RESPECTING ENTRY OF GENERAL QUANG
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration? I appreciate that he is doing everything he can to clear up the Quang affair. As the minister stated on May 27 that a minister's permit is a very temporary measure allowing him-meaning General Quang-to reside in Canada for a limited period of time and that it is revocable, as on June 4 the minister stated, "As I have said previously, there are many potential legal complexities in this case," and as article 8 of the Immigration Act clearly gives the minister the right to revoke a minister's permit, can the minister explain these apparently contradictory statements?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I do not think they are contradictory.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does, or does not, the minister have the power described in article 8 of the Immigration Act which says that the minister may at any time-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely the hon. member realizes that he is asking the minister to give a legal opinion.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Can the minister tell the House whether progress has been made by the Donohue Company and the Quebec government with regard to the pulp and paper mill promised Saint-Felicien over 12 years ago?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I advised the hon. member previously, I think, of the rate of progress to that point. If he will be indulgent, I will make further inquiries about it and advise him in a day or two.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Could he at the same time tell us when the Quebec government and Donohue Co. made their first request to the federal government?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I will try to find out.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for Canada's national parks. Has his department reached final agreement with the province of Nova Scotia in any discussions which have gone on about the imposition of fees on those seeking to travel through the Cape Breton Highlands National Park?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member is quite right in suggesting that such discussions were held, but the conclusion we collectively reached was that we will stick with the proposed system and make modifications to the entry way, to try to accommodate the concerns of people of Cape Breton Highlands Park region and to the north of the park.
June 17, 1975


Robert Muir: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister's reply was most unfortunate. May I ask if it represents a final decision? Has the door not been left open for further discussions for the elimination of this terrible taxation that is being enforced?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, around here one should never say that the door is totally closed. However, I indicated our present intent.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister report to the House on the progress of the search for a missing helicopter containing two people, one from Abbotsford, B.C., and one from Woodstock, Ontario, which crashed while flying from Fort Nelson, B.C., to Watson Lake, Yukon Territory, on June 1?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I would like to thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his intention to seek this information. A very extensive search has been carried out in British Columbia and the Yukon for Mr. Fred Young and his passenger. More than 58,000 square miles have been covered visually, plus 41,000 square miles electronically, involving a total of 474 flying hours. On June 11, intensive search activity was reduced but all aircraft flying in the area have been advised to stay on the alert and in that way to continue the search.


Alexander Bell Patterson: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the great public concern over this matter, and as previous searches which had been called off were reinstituted with beneficial results, will the minister consider ordering the resumption of full-scale search procedures in that area, in the hope of locating the survivors?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the regional control centre in Victoria has advised that the entire area has been thoroughly searched. Therefore, the intensive search will not be continued unless there is some new evidence. But I can assure the hon. member that any new evidence will be very promptly investigated. As I have indicated, all aircraft, including a British Columbia chartered helicopter that is in the area, have been asked to stay on the alert and to continue the search.


ACTION TAKEN BY MINISTER IN LIGHT OF EVIDENCE BEFORE INQUIRY THAT TAINTED MEAT SOLD IN 1972
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is based on evidence given at the Quebec crime
Oral Questions
inquiry by the former head of the Montreal food inspection service. That gentleman is now employed by the federal government. He testified under oath that he notified the RCMP in 1973, following notice that had already been given to the Quebec Provincial Police, that there were at least ten firms, and he named them, in the province of Quebec that were selling meat unfit for human consumption. In light of that information that was given to the RCMP, why did the minister not take action under the provisions of the Food and Drugs Act?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, I did not have the opportunity to see the statement the hon. member is referring to. All I can say, however, is that this statement confirms exactly what I have always said in this House, which is that our own inspectors who had made an inquiry suspected that there were illegal things going on. Therefore, they called in the police to get all the necessary information and evidence.


James Aloysius McGrath: In his testimony before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs during the passage of his estimates, the minister stated that he had alerted the RCMP in the fall of 1973. According to the sworn statement of the former head of the Montreal food inspection services, he had notified the Quebec Provincial Police a year before. After getting no action from them, he passed the same information on to the RCMP and, to quote him, he got "promises as large as this building, but nothing ever happened." Will the minister please explain?


Marc Lalonde: Again, I have not seen the evidence of the inspector concerned. But once again, this only demonstrates that it was necessary to call on the police to get evidence that could really hold before the courts.


HOUSING
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Did the Minister of Finance indicate to him privately that the upturn reflected in the May housing starts' statistics could mean less money in the budget for housing?


Barnett Jerome Danson: No, Mr. Speaker. Discussions go on in general, but there has been no indication of that nature with regard to the upturn in May. We will look at that in the total context of the picture for the year.


LOANS TO AREAS WITH SEPTIC TANKS ONLY
Stan Darling: Is the minister in a position to reveal more details on the question I asked him two weeks ago with regard to relaxation in

June 17, 1975
Oral Questions
respect of housing loans in areas with septic tanks only, namely, small villages and towns? The minister is well aware that we do not have a long season in the northern part of Canada, and I hope he has something concrete to offer.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I thought I gave a concrete answer the other day. I apologize to the hon. member. I believe I indicated to him in the House at that time that details would be in members' offices within the next day or so. I find that because of the problem of getting the regulations to the regional offices across the country, this information will not be in the hands of members until some time later this week. However, the regulations are being relaxed on a flexible basis, giving more flexibility to the regional managers. We are also co-ordinating, with the provinces, a comprehensive program so that the sometimes arbitrary restrictions, where they do occur, will be removed.


POST OFFICE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Postmaster General. I have here an ad which appeared in the Toronto Men's Press Club publication, Byliner. This ad shows a bare-bottomed woman in a string bikini mailing a letter, with an old man painting the postal code on her rear end. The ad bears the following inscription:
We're not "stringing" you along
Use postal codes-you'll "thing" our "thong"
Don't be cheeky-you've all got 'em Please include them on the bottom
This ad carried the logo and official sponsorship of Canada Post. In view of the blatant sexism of this ad and the insult to Canadian women, indeed to all Canadians, and in view of the fact that it is the Canadian taxpayers who will be called upon to pay for this sexist garbage, will the minister assure the House that those responsible in the Post Office for approving this ad will now also be held responsible for the payment of the cost of the ad and no government payment will be made?


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that I found this ad offensive. I consider it an insult to the women of Canada. I expressed this opinion rather forcibly in the Post Office some months ago. If the hon. member looks at the date of the ad, he will see that it was published some time ago. The ad will be paid for by the Post Office, but I apologize on behalf of those who inserted it in the press club publication in Toronto several months ago.


STATUS OF WOMEN
John R. Rodriguez: My supplementary is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister inform the House whether he has circulated a memo of government policy, with respect to the government's position on sexism and discrimination, to all other government departments, particularly as this is International Women's Year? If not, will he now do so, to prevent ads of this nature in the future?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, the Postmaster General's reply demonstrates very clearly that my colleagues are fully aware of this situation and that they need no memo from me to remind them of the necessity to respect women in Canada.


FINANCE
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will direct my question to his parliamentary secretary. Is the parliamentary secretary aware of the work being done by the minister's inflation consultation secretariat?


Mr. Jack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: No, I am not, Mr. Speaker.


James McPhail Gillies: I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. Is he aware of the work being done by the Minister of Finance's special inflation consultation secretariat?


Mitchell William Sharp: Perhaps the hon. member will ask his supplementary question first and I may be able to answer that.


James McPhail Gillies: Is it true that the minister's special inflation consultation secretariat has been instructed to spend most of their efforts at the present time preparing an anti-inflationary policy to be contained in a fall budget?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am very glad the hon. member asked the second question first. No, Mr. Speaker, I have not heard of any such thing.


DELAYS EXPERIENCED BY ELEVATORS IN RECEIVING BOXCARS FOR DELIVERIES
Mr. Craig Stewart (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. As many grain elevators located on branch
June 17, 1975

lines, particularly in Manitoba, are experiencing long delays in receiving boxcars for grain deliveries, and as it is only seven weeks until the end of the crop year, what guarantee can the minister give the farmers of these areas that these delivery points will receive the necessary cars to fill quotas before July 31?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, no absolute guarantee is possible. The hon. member knows that the Canadian Wheat Board makes every possible effort to program cars to collect grain in such a way as to give delivery opportunities as equitably as possible to all producers. If, of course, the types of grain are not available in certain areas, cars will go to other places. At the present time there is a great deal of space generally in country elevators. As of early June there was space for seven million bushels more than at the same time a year ago. A very, very large volume of grain came in during the last month of the crop year.


Donald Craig Stewart: Many farmers feel the railways are deliberately ignoring these lines, thereby lowering the total yearly deliveries and forcing their closure because of reduced deliveries. What guarantee can the minister give that he will not allow this to happen, and that he will protect these branch lines?


Otto Emil Lang: Essentially, Mr. Speaker, that is one of the myths which a number of people have picked up at the instance, particularly, of hon. members opposite. The placing of cars is very largely the responsibility of the Canadian Wheat Board. Then the individual elevator companies can chose as between elevators within their blocks. The railway essentially responds by placing cars where there is the possibility of moving cars to those positions.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Is the minister aware of the dangerous condition the Hay River airport is presently in, does he realize that the airport is still being used though it is not in very good shape, and what does he plan to do about it?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I did not get the first part of the question; would the hon. member please repeat it?


Walter (Wally) Firth: My question is for the Minister of Transport, of which I have given him notice. May I ask the minister whether he is aware of the fact that the Hay River airport in the Northwest Territories is not in very good shape and is, as a matter of fact, dangerous? What does the minister intend to do about the airport? Is he going to wait for an accident first, or what?
Oral Questions


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I regret very much that I did not receive the notice to which the hon. member is referring.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Solicitor General, if there is one; otherwise, to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the Solicitor General received a telegram from Mr. Robert Eades, a lawyer in Vancouver who is the executor of the estate of Mary Steinhauser, the classification officer recently killed in the British Columbia penitentiary, wherein he requests financial assistance so that the deceased may be represented at the inquiry to be headed by Mr. Justice Farris; and will the government consider this matter so that the financial burden will not fall upon Miss Steinhauser's parents, who are both old age pensioners?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, this communication has not yet been brought to our personal attention, but we will certainly look at the matter.


POSITION OF GOVERNMENT RESPECTING AMENDMENT OF BAIL REFORM ACT
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Water-loo):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice arising from the concern on the part of many Canadians that the government is not acting forcefully to protect them from violent crime. In light of the disclosure today by an officer of the metropolitan Toronto police force that 17 people who have been charged with murder and are awaiting trial are out on bail in metropolitan Toronto alone, is the government satisfied that the Bail Reform Act is working properly, or does the government intend to amend the act to make sure that people awaiting trial on murder charges are not allowed back on to the streets?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we are not satisfied that the bail law is working perfectly in every respect; therefore, I confirm our intention to introduce amendments to the bail provisions in the series of Criminal Code amendments expected before long. However, these are not designed to change the general purpose of the act, which is to ensure that those who are charged but not convicted are not detained unless in a general way it is necessary to assure their presence at trial or to assure the safety of the public. We do propose to make more clear the power of judges, who at this point may have doubted it, to protect the public interest.


Henry Perrin Beatty: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if the minister would be more specific. May I ask him specifically whether the amendments to the act would no longer permit it to be the case that people charged with

June 17, 1975
Oral Questions
having committed a murder would be allowed back on to the streets prior to their trial?


Otto Emil Lang: Not unless there was evidence before a judge or an indication that the public interest or the presence of the accused at trial required that to happen. We do not believe, any more with a person charged with murder than with a person charged with any other offence, that we should treat that person as though he were convicted before he is in fact convicted.


COMMUNICATIONS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Communications.
I feel I am not exaggerating when I say that no agreement was reached during the last federal-provincial conference between the provincial and federal governments with regard to television cable systems. In view of the federal government's decision last week to affix seals on the antennas belonging to Entreprises de cablodistribution de l'Est in Quebec, would the minister advise the House whether this is a final decision on the part of the government, and whether this decision will be maintained, although no agreement was reached between the federal and provincial governments with regard to television cable systems.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member quoted the wrong federal-provincial conference. If he had referred to the 1973 federal-provincial conference, he would have noted that I had then warned the provinces that to negotiate with the provincial representatives, I could not accept as a condition the suspension of a legislation passed by Parliament which moreover the hon. member was called to vote on as I and the other members of the House did. It was clearly established that the legislation would be enforced and if it was deliberately violated, the government would not hesitate to take the necessry steps. I repeated also in the correspondence tabled in the House over a year ago the same warning about the fact that we had no doubt that under the legislation, Quebec has acted ultra vires. I think that it would be ungracious for my Quebec colleague to act as if he was surprised, since he was warned three years ago. I think that everyone will find the delay reasonable.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Central Nova concerning industry at Slave Lake. While the minister is investigating the financial

problems of these companies, three of which I understand have now closed their doors, I wonder whether he would look into the effect these financial difficulties and the general depression of the economy have had, as well, specifically, as the depressed prices of forest products which these companies produce, and also the depressed state of the housing construction market.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to do that. I might advise the hon. member that the hon. member for Central Nova has been good enough, since asking me the question, to provide me with more details, and I will put my officials onto it immediately.


Paul Yewchuk: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister indicate whether he is satisfied that these companies were assured of adequate operating capital once they were enticed into this area by DREE grants, and whether that in fact may be the cause of the difficulty?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Once again, Mr. Speaker, I can answer in a general way by saying that there is a pretty thorough investigation made in all such cases. However, I would want to look into the details before replying specifically.


CLOSING OF INDUSTRIES IN KOOTENAY WEST, B.C.- GOVERNMENT EXAMINATION OF REASONS
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. In view of the concern expressed by the minister with reference to the DREE program and industry failure, and more specifically with respect to the Slave Lake area, would the minister also address the specific attention of his department to two failures within the riding of Kootenay West, both located adjacent to the city of Trail, both in desperate need of additional assistance, both of which are going to create major problems of unemployment? Would the minister undertake to examine those specific areas as well as the Slave Lake area?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, Mr. Speaker.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Marke Raines (Burnaby-Seymour):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege arises from the fact that as a member of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts I am apparently the only member of that standing committee who has not been given a report on the amount of money spent by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the introduction of a corporate identification system, commonly known as a logo.
June 17, 1975

I am in receipt of a letter from a CBC official who appeared before the standing committee recently, and this letter states in part:
It was agreed at the March 18, 1975 hearing of the committee that since Mr. Marke Raines, MP stated that he could not respect the confidentiality of the reply, it would not, following his own wishes in the matter, be sent to him.
The clerk of the standing committee concerned has confirmed, after I placed a telephone call to her, that other members of the standing committee have received the report of the CBC expenditure in so far as the logo is concerned. I must add that my own wishes on the matter, despite the quotation, clearly stated during the committee meeting, were that I insisted and was most anxious to receive the amount with no strings whatsoever attached. I stated during that session that I would not accept the information with strings attached.
I submit that my efficiency as a member of parliament and as a member of the standing committee on broadcasting is being impaired because I have not been given access to the information which I submit is essential before I can properly approve or not, or deal with the expenditures and, therefore, policies of the corporation.
Sir, I appreciate that it is not within your jurisdiction to order an organization such as the CBC to provide information to a member. At the same time I am not sure that it is proper for any member of parliament to accept reports dealing with public expenditures on the condition that the recipient of such a report promises not to make the report public, particularly in view of the fact that these are public expenditures.
Not having that information, while my colleagues do have it, I am left in a somewhat awkward position. I submit that somehow I will not be as efficient, not knowing exactly where the money is being spent. I must point out as well that at this stage I can only assume the CBC spent so much money on the identity symbol it is either ashamed or afraid to let the public know. I must confess that I was given other information on part of the logo cost, and that was in reference to a cocktail party given by the CBC when introducing the logo, and it was somewhere in the neighbourhood of $3,400. I would still like to know the total cost in respect of this logo.
With a view to gaining this information, and also with a view to ensuring that this type of incident does not recur, I would ask at this time that the entire matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Burna-by-Seymour (Mr. Raines) gave the Chair notice of his intention to raise this question of privilege. It deals with the proceedings of a standing committee, and I feel the Chair has already taken every possible opportunity of declaring that the Chair does not sit at the proceedings which take place in standing committees.
Whether or not all the remedies available to the hon. member as a member of that committee have been exhausted is something this House is really not in a position to examine. The hon. member has the remedy of seeking the assistance of the chairman informally; he has
Business of the House
the remedy of posing a formal motion in order to determine the question; and there is the matter of an order of the committee to determine whether in fact it is the committee that is in possession of the information, in which case it would be in the possession of the committee without restriction, regardless of any restriction that might have been put on by the corporation in the first instance. These are only some of the questions that might arise which this Chair is not competent to analyze.
In the event that these remedies do not satisfy the hon. member there is always, of course, the route of an oral or written question to the minister here in the House, who is responsible for that information, in order to determine whether the information ought to be put on the record in a public way here. Finally, a motion for the production of documents could be made, if such documents exist, outlining the total of the amount in question. These are some of the remedies the hon. member might exhaust.
It seems to me that, the matter having originated in the standing committee and, in addition, the hon. member having exposed the fact that he was somehow in negotiation, contact, or discussion about whether he would respect the confidentiality of the document, he has singled himself out for somewhat unique treatment in this regard. Therefore the Chair feels this does not touch upon a general question of privilege concerning an hon. member's privileges.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very brief point of order. For the record I should like to support strongly the hon. member fo Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Raines) as I also sought a similar type of information in the way of a question on the order paper regarding the costs associated with the new CBC logo, but I was absolutely denied that information.


OLYMPIC (1976) ACT AMENDMENT COVERING ISSUE OF GOLD COINS
Hon. Jean Chretien (President of Treasury Board) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-63, intituled An Act to amend the Olympic (1976) Act.


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

Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I have two matters to raise, and the first relates to the business for tomorrow. After consultation through the usual channels, I should like to inform the House that tomorrow will not be an allotted day pursuant to Standing Order 58, and I would ask that it be made an order that there be six allotted days in the supply period ending December 10, 1975. That is my proposal, Mr. Speaker, and I might add that the business for tomorrow will be Bills C-53 and C-50.
6830

June 17, 1975
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Baldwin:: Mr. Speaker, we have had discussions on this matter. It would normally have been our day, but I have some sympathy for the hon. gentleman, having in mind his problems with his colleagues in respect of the legislative program, so I think it may be to the benefit of the House to permit this to be done.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the proposal put forward by the President of the Privy Council agreed to?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It is so ordered.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the second matter relates to a motion that has been under discussion for some time the reference of certain matters to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. There has been some uncertainty as to when this motion should be introduced, but I understand that in light of the fact that my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), is going to be dealing with his estimates this afternoon, it is agreed that I should ask if there is unanimous consent to the following motion being put now and approved:
That the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence be empowered to examine and report upon the full range of policies in the field of international development with particular reference to the economic relations between developed and developing countries.


Mr. Speaker:: It has been suggested by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) that with the unanimous consent of the House the motion be put and passed at the present time. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mitchell William Sharp: I would so move, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. John M. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 554 (Supplementary),

2,105, 2,198, 2,256, 2,259, 2,299, 2,356, 2,397, 2,417, 2,559, 2,568, 2,581, 2,591 and 2,619.
Mr. Speaker, if questions No. 958, 1,903 and 2,412 could be made orders for return, these returns would be tabled immediately.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 554-Mr. Symes: (Supplementary)
1.	What was the total amount of money spent in each of the fiscal years 1972-73 and 1973-74 by the Department of Manpower and Immigration on contracts to outside persons and organizations for research, development and other consulting services?
2.	What are the names and addresses of these outside persons and organizations and what amounts of money were involved in each contract?
3.	What was the purpose of each contract and title of each report submitted?
Robert Knight Andras: Amendment to Parliamentary Question 554-Mr. Symes-October 24.
Name and
Address	Amount

Byard, Howard W. 3,744.00 Sunnyville, N.S.
Desmond, Everett S. 3,744.00 Upper Big Tracadie,

Jones, David J.	3,744.00
Guysborough, N.S.
La Soe iote I nter-	fi, 500.00
Rationale d'fiquipe-ment et de Conseil Inc. Montreal,
Quebec
Purpose	Title
Under the general direction None of the Branch CMC Manager, arranges to bring to the people of the area assigned to him the full range of Department programs and services.
Under the general direction None of the Branch CMC Manager, arranges to bring to the people of the area assigned to him the full range of Department programs and services.
Under the general direction None of the Branch CMC Manager, arranges to bring to the people of the area assigned to him the full range of Department programs and services.
To write a course for	None
supervisors on method of communication in public function.
June 17, 1975


Mr. Beaudoin: 1.	How many benefit control officers in each district or regional office in Quebec (a) are there at the present time (b) were there in 1974?
2.	How many claimants were seen by benefit control officers for the financial years (a) 1971-72 (b) 1972-73 (c) 1973-74?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. (a) One hundred and forty-five benefit control officers are presently working in the Quebec Region, (b) In 1974, the average number of regional benefit control officers working in all of the Quebec regional or district offices was 129.
Average per office-Description
Establishment	Office	Number of BCO's 1974	Number of BCO's 1975401	Regional	G	4409	Montreal South-West	8	5419	Valley field	1	1443	Ch&teauguay	1	1459	Lachine	1	1404	Montreal South-East	8	9475	Montreal North-East	5	7481	Montreal South-Centre	5	7420	Repentigny	1	1407	Montreal North-West	5	6478	Montreal North-Centre	5	7458	Pointe-Claire	1	1457	St-Laurent	1	1400	Laval	4	5407	St-Jerome	4	4408	Joliette	1	1471	Ste-Therese	1	2402	Longueuil	10	8411	St-Hyacinthe	l	2412	Sorel	1	2413	St-Jean	1	2425	Chicoutimi	G	4431	Alma	1	2423	Baie-Comeau	1	1424	Sept-Iles	1	1454	Rimouski	6	6464	Riviere-du-Loup	1	2448	Chandler	1	1408	Quebec-East	G	8440	Quebec-West	G	7417	L6vis	4	7421	Thetford Mines	1	1428	Trois-Rivieres	6	6438	Shawinigan	2	3427	Sherbrooke	6	8434	Drummondville	1	2435	Victoriaville	1	1430	Hull	5	5492	Rouyn	2	2493	Val d'Or	1	1T otal:	129	145
Order Paper Questions
2.	(a) April 1, 1970 to March 31, 1971, 96,585, (fiscal year); *April 1, 1971 to December 31, 1971, 53,906 (9 mo), (calendar year); (b) January 1, 1972 to December 31, 1972, 92,309, (calendar year); January 1, 1973 to December 31, 1973, 142,235, (calendar year); (c) January 1, 1974 to December 31, 1974, 162,049, (calendar year).
*Change in compiling of figures from fiscal to calendar year.


Mr. Stevens: 1.	At the time of commencement of construction on the project, what were the estimated total costs, of whatever kind or nature, of the CN Tower in Toronto?
2.	To date, what have been the total construction expenditures?
3.	To date, what are the estimated total costs?
4.	To what factors is any change between the estimated cost figures of Part 1 and Part 3 attributable?


Jean Marchand: The
management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows; 1.	$24,000,000.
2.	$31,000,000.
3.	$52,000,000.
4.	(a) Revenue producing additions to the original structure design, such as an additional observation level, an additional floor to accommodate broadcasters' equipment and an expanded base area, for merchandising and other attractions, (b) General inflation of costs greater than expected, particularly for materials. For example, reinforcing steel in place doubled in price from early 1973 and 1974. Labour cost in most trades also rose more them originally anticipated, (c) Many "firsts" were encountered in the construction program and the complexity of certain aspects of the Tower construction were underestimated, (d) Strikes and bad weather in late 1973 forced completion of the slipform concrete construction of the main shaft of the Tower into the winter of 1973-74. This delayed the schedule over two months and required added construction facilities to complete this critical phase at that time. Although the cost has increased, the total estimated revenues including new revenues not originally envisaged, have also increased. As a result, the original expected return on investment of from 10 per cent to 12 per cent is unchanged.


Mr. Korchinski: Do any provinces have agreements for construction of roads to resources or forest access roads and, if so, what is the amount of federal and provincial involvement in each case?


Mr. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The
answer for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: Yes, see following table.
6832

June 17, 1975
Order Paper Questions
Provincial
Province	Agreement	DREE Contribution Contribution	Purpose

Newfoundland	Newfoundland Special Areas Agreement	143,500	143,500	Construction and upgrading of forest access roads.Newfoundland	Canada-Newfoundland Subsidiary Agreement on Forestry	17,502,660	1,944,740	Construction and upgrading of forest access roads.New Brunswick	Canada-New Brunswick Subsidiary Agreement on Forestry	5,540,000	1,385,000	Development of a forest arterial road systemNew Brunswick	Northeast New Brunswick Federal-Provincial Rural Development Agreement	3,869,000	2,639,000	Construction of roads to resourcesQuebec	Canada-Quebec Subsidiary Agreement on Forestry	14,500,000	9,700,000	Construction and upgrading of forest access roads in Northwest Quebec, Saguenay, Lake St-Jean, Chibouga-mau and the North ShoreOntario	Canada-Ontario Subsidiary Agreement for Northwestern Ontario	2,117,500	2,117,500	Construction of resource access roads.Manitoba	Manitoba Northlands Interim Subsidiary Agreement	2,015,500**	2,689,000	Upgrading some portions of highways and access roads for purposes of community de-isolation. Some of these roads are used for resource access. These are provincial roads Nos. 391 , 392, 304 and 283 plus new link from Thompson to Gillam.Saskatchewan	Canada-Saskatchewan ARDA III Agreement (LAST OAK PARK)	450,000	Will maintain and repair road following completion	Improvement and paving of 14 miles of road linking Highway No. 1 with provincial Highway No. 247.Alberta	Canada-Alberta Interim Agreement	2,500,000*	Construction of transportation facilities in Northern Alberta. Some of the road construction under this agreement could be described resources or forest access roads.British Columbia	Interim Highways Agreement	2,500,000*	-	Survey and design of seven road projects in Northern British
Columbia.
'"Shared on a 50-50 basis between MOT and DREE ($2.5 million each) **Shared on a 50-50 basis between MOT and DREE ($2,015,500 each)


Mr. Schumacher: 1.	With reference to the announcement made by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in a press release dated April 4, 1975, what steps were taken by the Department to ensure that every possible effort was made to find Canadian unemployed workers for the Ontario vacancies offered to 25 Columbian textile workers brought over to fill temporary jobs in Louiseville, Quebec?
2.	What are the (a) names of the companies offering steady employment to the Columbians (b) number of people to be hired by each company?
3.	What was the cost involved originally in respect of the Columbian textile workers filling temporary positions in Louiseville, Quebec for (a) transportation (b) accommodation (c) meals (d) other expenses

during their stay in Canada, and by whom were these costs met in each case?
4.	What is the projected amount of assisted passage loans to enable each one of the workers to return to Canada to take up permanent residence and, by whom will such cost be met?
5.	What further assistance will be given to the immigrants and/or their families for (a) transportation (b) accommodation (c) meals (d) other expenses to enable them to take up their positions and get settled and, by whom will such costs be met?
6.	What special skills do the workers have and what will be their salary rates?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. Whenever a position is offered to a
June 17, 1975

foreign worker, the Canada Manpower Centre carries out an extensive search for qualified Canadian citizens or permanent residents. This search includes consultation with trade unions and with other agencies such as the U.I.C. etc. Where there are no qualified candidates available, we will then endeavour to fill the vacancy by training Canadians or permanent residents of this country. This was the procedure eventually followed at the Smiths Falls, Ontario textile plant, which was reported to be offering employment to 25 of the Columbians. The company has entered into a contract under the Canada Man-pawer Training Program to train Canadians for the work in question and all of the positions will thus be filled by Canadians.
2.	(a) See statement following Part 6. (b) See statement following Part 6.
3.	The Immigration Division has no knowledge of the cost involved originally in respect of the Colombian textile workers filling temporary positions in Louiseville, Quebec, since these costs were met by the workers themselves or their employers.
4.	Since the amount of each assisted passage loan is determined by the length of the voyage and the number of people (i.e. family size) covered by the loan it is not possible to estimate the total amount involved. These loans are interest bearing and repayable in monthly installments by the borrower.
5.	Since the Columbian textile workers will be returning to Canada to accept pre-arranged employment it is not anticipated that they will need further assistance of any sort. Should circumtances change after their arrival, they will be entitled to the full range of Departmental services that are available to any permanent resident of Canada.
6.	See statement following.
As of June 5-75 Firm	Occupation	Salary	No. of workersWabasso Ltd., Welland, Ont. Wabasso Ltd., Welland, Ont.	Loom Fixer Weaver	4.24/H 3.19/H	3 11Consolidated Textile Ltd. St. Hyacinthe, Que.	Drawer-In, Loom	3.14/H	11Scottwell Industries Ltd. La Tuque, Que.	Loom Fixer	4.00/H	3Cordonnerie Binet, Trois-Rivieres, Que.	Shoe Maker	2.60/H	2Claude Arbour Inc. Trois-Rivieres, Que.	Office machine repairman	3.00/H	1fib^nisterie Leclerc Inc. Trois-Rivieres, Que.	Cabinet Maker	2.60/H	1E.B.M. Caisse Enregistreuse Inc. Trois-Rivieres, Que.	Cash register repairman	3.12/H	1Cave A Vin Trois-Rivieres, Que.	Cook's helper	2.60/H	1Total	34
Order Paper Questions WORK PERMITS


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Is the Minister of Manpower and Immigration aware of a recent statement by Quebec Immigration Minister Jean Bienvenue that he was studying the issuance of work permits to protect Quebec workers?
2.	Is the Minister concerned that any such action could negate or hinder the work and objectives of his own Department?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. Yes.
2. Senior officials of the Department of Manpower an. Immigration have met with their counterparts in the Government of the Province of Quebec to express our views and to explore the interests and intentions of the Government of Quebec.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Did the National Harbours Board determine that the Jacques Cartier terminal facility in Montreal was necessary and, if so, on what grounds?
2.	Was justification to support the Jacques Cartier facility made on the basis of (a) outside consultant reports (b) other reports?
3.	What has been the dollar level of expenditures from any and all sources in the construction of the facility to March 31, 1975?
4.	On what date does the National Harbours Board intend to recoup the board resources referred to in the answer to Question No. 1,898 and under what terms, if any?
5.	Was any other agency or body party to the approval given by NHB to the facility?
6.	What is the dollar level of NHB resources for the Port of Montreal as of March 31, 1975?


Jean Marchand: The
National Harbours Board advises as follows: 1. The National Harbours Board considered that the Jacques Cartier Terminal was necessary to meet the anticipated traffic requirements.
2.	The justification to support the Jacques Cartier Terminal was a feasibility study completed by the Financial Planning and Control Branch of the National Harbours Board.
3.	The expenditures related to this facility to March 31, 1975 were $678,765.
4.	The discounted cash flow statement prepared for the project showed full return of the investment in 1994.
5.	The National Harbours Board obtained specific approval for the project from the Canadian Ports and Harbours Planning Committee and Treasury Board. The project was also included in the National Harbours Board's Capital Budget which is approved by the Governor in Council on the recommendation of the Minister of Transport, the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance.

June 17, 1975
Order Paper Questions
6.	As at March 31, 1975, the current working capital and the market value of investments of the National Harbours Board with respect to the Port of Montreal was $41,276,550.


Mr. Cossitt: Did the Unemployment Insurance Commission office in Kingston, Ontario recently conduct surveys or inquiries with recipients of unemployment insurance benefits to determine possible improvements that could be made in service and, specifically, were certain checks made on such things as the time taken for cheques to reach recipients in the mail from the cheque issuing office in Belleville and, if so (a) did the survey find evidence that some cheques take as long as two weeks to reach recipients serviced by the UIC office in Kingston from the issuing office in Belleville (b) what representations has the UIC office made or will it make to the Post Office Department about this type of service?


Robert Knight Andras: The survey was undertaken by the Kingston office of its own volition with the view of improving service in the area, (a) In only one case did a cheque take two weeks to reach a recipient, (b) Discussions were held with Mr. Roy Wainwright, the Postmaster in Belleville, concerning the situation and remedial action has been taken.


Mr. Hogan: Was Irving Oil recently awarded a contract to supply fuel oil to Air Canada in the Atlantic Region and, if so (a) were tenders called (b) what companies tendered for the contract?


Jean Marchand: The
management of Air Canada advises as follows: Irving Oil Limited was awarded an Air Canada contract on April 7, 1975 for the supply of aviation turbine fuel in the airline's Atlantic Region, (a) Yes; (b) Imperial Oil Limited and Irving Oil Limited.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What are the total costs included in the 1975-76 Estimates of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs for language training?
2.	How are such costs divided between (a) salaries of personnel receiving instruction (b) salaries of instructional staff (c) additional or supplementary services to be purchased from the Public Service Commission (d) other costs?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1. The total cost included in the 1975-76 Estimates for Consumer and Corporate Affairs for language training is $550,400.00.
2. (a) Because of the different types of training involved, the number of people involved and the variations in salaries and length of time on training, it was not possible to estimate the cost of salaries of personnel receiving instruction. However, the figure of $179,400.00 was approved by Treasury Board for salaries of personnel replacing those on continuous language training, (b) Sal-

aries of instructional staff is $371,000.00 Parts (c) and (d) of the question are included in (b).


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What are the total costs included in the 1975-76 Estimates of the Department of Manpower and Immigration for language training?
2.	How are such costs divided between (a) salaries of personnel receiving instruction (b) salaries of instructional staff (c) additional or supplementary services to be purchased from the Public Service Commission (d) other costs?


Robert Knight Andras: In so far as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned, the reply is: 1. Nil.
2. Not applicable.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What are the total costs included in the 1975-76 Estimates of the Department of Transport for language training?
2.	How are such costs divided between (a) salaries of personnel receiving instruction (b) salaries of instructional staff (c) additional or supplementary services to be purchased from the Public Service Commission (d) other costs?


Jean Marchand: 1. $2,728,000.
2. (a) Salaries of personnel receiving instruction, $2,502,000; (b) Salaries of instructional staff, $117,000; (c) Additional or supplementary services, nil; (d) Other costs, $109,000.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	In the Province of British Columbia, how many members are on the Board of Pension Advocates (a) who are they (b) in what location are sittings held for the review of veterans' pensions and applications (c) how often do they sit?
2.	To whom is the Board responsible and to whom does it report?


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: 1. The Bureau of Pensions Advocates is an agency established under Part II of the Pension Act to provide a counselling service, to assist veterans and their dependants in the preparation and submission of pension claims and to represent them at hearings before Entitlement Boards of the Canadian Pension Commission. In British Columbia there are six Pensions Advocates on the staff of the Bureau, (a) Vancouver Office: J. T. Bourke, LL.B., H. D. Colbourne, LL.B., S. M. Adams, C.D., B. Com., LL.B., W. G. Barker, B. Com., LL.B.; Victoria Office: R. N. Gourlie, D.F.C., B.A., LL.B., D. H. Harrison, C.D., LL.B. (b) During 1974-75 Entitlement Board sessions were held in British Columbia, at Vancouver, Victoria, Nanaimo and Kelowna, (c) Entitlement Board hearings of one to two weeks duration are held periodically. In 1974-75 there were sixteen sessions. The Board members are Commissioners of the Canadian Pension Commission who travel from Head Office in Ottawa for this purpose. Cases are normal-
June 17, 1975

ly presented to the Board by Pensions Advocates or a representative of a veterans organization.
2. The Bureau of Pensions Advocates reports to Parliament through the Minister of Veterans Affairs.


Mr. Forrestall: What, if any, has been the change in policy of the National Harbours Board respecting the charging of 10 per cent a month on overdue wharfage accounts in the past three months?


Jean Marchand: The
National Harbours Board advises as follows: The National Harbours Board permits goods subject to wharfage charges to be delivered before the actual amounts which are due and payable are collected as a convenience to vessel operations. The penalty for failure to remit within the prescribed period continues to be at the rate of 10 per cent as a deterrent to abuse of this privilege.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Hnatyshyn: What is the total dollar value of purchases of goods and services made by the government in each province for (a) 1972 (b) 1973 (c) 1974 to November 15?
Return tabled.



IMMIGRATION APPLICATIONS, 1971-74

Mr. Paproski: For each year 1971 to 1974, by country, what was the number of immigration applications (a) rejected (b) accepted?
Return tabled.



CANADIAN FILM DEVELOPMENT CORPORATIONUNDERWRITING OF FILMS

Mr. Friesen: 1.	What films completed or currently in production, were financially underwritten in whole or in part by the Canadian Film Development Corporation since its inception?
2.	What are the names and addresses of the producers of each film?
3.	How much money was (a) invested in each film (b) returned to the government?
Return tabled.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, the first part of which is that this is now the fifth time I have drawn to the attention of the parliamentary secretary that the first five questions on the Order Paper dated September 30 of last year, and which had appeared on the Order Paper in the previous parliament for a period of a year, have not been answered. I feel justified in asking the
Business of Supply
parliamentary secretary for a definite answer concerning when the information will be forthcoming about certain trips made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
I should also like to refer to questions 1686 and 1687 which have now been on the Order Paper for four months as of today. These questions concern the participation of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation in the matter of the construction of a swimming pool at 24 Sussex Drive. They ask for information concerning the activities in respect of this pool of William Teron, President of CMHC. Mr. Teron admitted publicly in an interview that he was in some way connected with that project. I do not understand why the government should continually withhold this information.
Would the parliamentary secretary tell this House whether the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) and the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) responsible for these two questions have been instructed by the Prime Minister or by the Prime Minister's office to not answer deliberately these questions because there is a desperate effort to cover up something that is going on at 24 Sussex Drive in this regard?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Pursuant to Standing Order 54 I do now leave the Chair for the House to go into committee of the whole.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
House in committee of supply to consider a certain item for the year ending March 31, 1976, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 58(9)-Mr. Laniel in the chair. DEPARTMENT OF EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Vote 1-Canadian Interests Abroad-Operating expenditures, including the payment of remuneration and other expenditures subject to the approval of the Governor in Council in connection with the assignment by the Canadian Government of Canadians to the staffs of international organizations, and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding the amounts of the shares of such organizations of such expenses; authority for the appointment and fixing of salaries by the Governor in Council of High Commissioners, Ambassadors, Ministers Plenipotentiary, Consuls, Representatives on International Commissions, the staff of such officials and other persons to represent Canada in another country; and recoverable assistance in the repatriation of distressed Canadian citizens and persons of Canadian domicile abroad, including their dependents; cultural relations and academic exchange programs with other countries-134,791,334.
Mr. Brewirt:: Mr. Chairman, I make no apologies for introducing on one of the days designated to the opposition the question of our international policies by calling for the review of the estimates of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. This will enable the House to have a discussion of our external policy and individual members to speak in the debate and introduce their suggestions in

June 17, 1975
Business of Supply
this area of international affairs, as well as enabling them to question representatives of the government.
It is true this House is most often and very appropriately concerned with strictly Canadian or internal affairs which fall directly under our jurisdiction. It is important, however, that from time to time we take a look at the position of Canada in the world. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the welfare of all Canadians depends more and more on world conditions. We have been assailed by a series of gloomy prophecies, mostly by scientists and other learned writers. We have had discussion of crisis piled upon crisis. I believe the insecurity and fear that dominate the lives of many people throughout the world, including people in Canada, are to a very real extent the result of external forces and instability in the world.
The problem with regard to food, starvation, and malnutrition, population, threatened nuclear destruction, energy, the environment, and the growing gap between the relative affluence of the developed world and the growing destitution of the rest of the world all demand action on a global scale. They cannot be solved by individual nations. They cannot be solved except by a process of international planning and the use of international agencies such as those around and associated with the United Nations. All these things demand a radical approach to international affairs.
International affairs once were largely a matter of individual relations between separate sovereign states. But if disaster is to be averted there is a need for interdependent international action. Sometimes we in the western world, and particularly in North America, take a complacent view. For example, I shall quote a gentleman probably not often quoted nowadays, former president Nixon, who in 1973 said in his international economic report that by any quantitative measure the post World War II era has been the most successful in economic history. I suggest that he should have consulted his former colleague, World Bank President McNamara, who said that the poor remain entrapped in conditions of deprivation which fall below any rational definition of human decency.
Mr. McNamara went on to say that two thirds of the people of the undeveloped world, 1.3 billion, are farmers, but that some 90 million of them earn less than $100 per year. He concluded by saying that we are talking about hundreds of millions of desperately poor people throughout the whole developing world. We are talking about 40 per cent of the entire population. Development simply is not reaching these people in any decisive degree.
My colleague, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, will deal with one threat to the peace and security of the world in which Canada is particularly involved. I refer to the danger of nuclear proliferation through the sale of reactors, ostensibly for peaceful purposes, which could be diverted to the production of nuclear bombs. I wish to deal primarily with the demands and needs in respect of world development and Canada's part in this development. I also wish to refer to one or two other incidental subjects.
The Pearson Commission report known as "Partners in Development", which commission was headed by a former prime minister of Canada, referred to the widening gap

between developed and developing countries as a central issue of our times. Pope Paul put the matter more succinctly. He said that development is the new name for peace.
Canada has long proclaimed social justice as one of its main objectives. Indeed the Canadian aid program administered by CIDA has grown from the one-quarter billion dollar mark to half a billion dollars within the five years following 1968. Aid has become a major element in Canada's foreign policy. In 1970 the Department of External Affairs issued a paper on international affairs and foreign policy for Canada. This paper said that development assistance is an important and integral part of Canada's external relations particularly with the developing countries. I would like to say that despite this general commitment it would be quite wrong to assume that all is well with Canada's program of development.
I for one do not wish to undermine the many valuable aid projects financed or administered by CIDA, with some of which I have been personally familiar. In particular I support the programs that have been built up in co-operation with what are called non-governmental organizations which are experienced in the problems of the developing nations.
There is, however, a grave lack of adequate supervision by parliament, and a consequent lack of understanding of Canada's aid programs in the public mind. In addition, there are some aspects of our aid program that are inadequate and urgently require review, and there are other aspects of the whole problem that are even more important than aid. I refer to the question of trade with the developing world. This surpasses in its importance to the developing countries all questions of aid, and Canada's record in this field is not very satisfactory.
Our percentage of exports and imports to and from the developing world is in the area of 8 per cent. The American percentages are 33 per cent for export and 26 per cent for imports. Over-all, the proportions for the developed countries are 23 per cent and 22 per cent. So Canada lags far behind the other developed countries in the extent of its trade with the developing world.
There are very grave questions within the program as to whether the tied aid, which comprises a great part of our bilateral aid program, is not more adjusted to the benefit of Canadian business than to meet the needs of the developing countries. Every bit of aid that is tied is less beneficial to the countries it is supposed to develop. There are very grave issues as to whether the loans which are extended to developing countries as part of the aid program and are required to be paid back-sometimes with interest, sometimes with easy terms-do not nevertheless impose an intolerable burden on these countries so that their debt service eats up the foreign exchange which they so urgently need for their development.
There are questions as to whether or not aid is reinforcing the power structures in developing countries rather than reaching those in need. An example of this is the Dominican Development Foundation, a subject which I cannot go into at length at present and which I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to look into.
June 17, 1975

There are questions in some instances as to whether there is adequate planning and supervision. One of the scourges of the third world is rural unemployment and the concentration of people in vast slums in metropolitan areas. Aid, therefore, should be extended to employment-creating, labour intensive projects, not for the enrichment of an already rich minority. The urgent need for increased food production in the developing countries was recognized by the World Food Conference in Rome, and it was recommended that aid be extended so that small rural farmers will have a chance to develop their own self-reliant economies. Parliament in all these matters has a serious responsibility which it is not fulfilling at present.
The occasional examination of CIDA's estimates in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence is no substitute for a continuing review by the parliamentary committee or a subcommittee. I was delighted when the hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona made a motion in the committee on May 29 that the committee be empowered by the House to study and report on Canada's role in international development and cooperation, including Canada's economic and social relations with developing countries.
The resolution went on to say that:
The committee believes that the subject of Canada's aid program must be viewed in relationship to the interlocking nature of pressing global problems of mass poverty, food shortages, mass unemployment, population growth, capitalization needs and development itself.
I was pleased that today, in what I think was a tremendous move forward, the reference of this matter to the committee was approved unanimously by the House, and indeed the longer resolution which I quoted was approved by every member of that Committee.
I have already mentioned that Canadian policies in the field of international economic relations are by no means limited to CIDA and to external aid, and I am glad to say that the motion which we passed in the House relates to wider spheres of international development and co-operation with the developing nations and our economic and social relations with them. This, of course, involves the Minister of Finance and his department because the various monetary funds such as the World Bank, and development funds such as the International Monetary Fund and so on, are concerned with that department and are an arm of the Canadian external foreign policy. Their policy should be co-ordinated with the external policies of the government. I wonder, for example, why that branch of our government is encouraging the rescheduling of the debts of the Chilean junta, notwithstanding opposition by many European countries, including Great Britain, and in the face of the condemnation by the United Nations of the repressive nature of that particular regime.
There is one message that I got from the food conference in Rome above all, and that is that the basic objective of the third world is not so much aid as it is the expansion of trade, and indeed the reconstruction of world trade structures so as to provide for an equitable distribution of the world's resources.
Of utmost importance to developing countries in their plans for self-reliance is that they should be able to .earn through trade the means of developing their own countries in their own way, and that is what they are asking from
Business of Supply
the rest of the world. So not only at the World Food Conference in Rome but at other conferences, the third world has insisted-sometimes to the point of irritating some of the members of the developed world-on the need for a new economic order.
One of the questions I would ask the minister or other spokesmen of the government to discuss on this motion would be what plans the government has to put forward constructive proposals at the special General Assembly of the United Nations to be held in September to discuss this whole question of world trade and a new economic order. It will not be good enough for Canada to follow the line of some of the developed countries and turn a deaf ear to the pleas of the third world.
There are two other questions that I want to raise briefly because I think my time is nearly up. The first one is the urgency of need for Indochina. Viet Nam is at peace for the first time in more than 30 years, but the ravages of war were immense. Some representatives of the PRG in Toronto gave a detailed list of their needs to volunteer agencies. They include food, medical supplies, building materials, tools, seeds, and fertilizers.
The government already has said that it will assume obligation for a $6.75 million emergency relief which would be routed in the direction of South Viet Nam and Cambodia. I understand this aid is being extended through voluntary agencies and the UN High Commission for Refugees which, from my point of view, is excellent. But the government itself described this aid for Indochina as the first phase of dealing with the problem. I would like the minister to say what is the second stage and where it is planned.
I would further like to ask whether the other suspended Canadian aid projects covering water supply and health projects are to be renewed. Since we have recognized the authorities now in control in South Viet Nam, has the government yet established effective means of communication so that reconstruction and emergency aid can be discussed? As Mr. Charles Taylor, in his excellent article of June 12 in the Globe and Mail, said, "Canada has a particular moral obligation."
The Pentagon reported that in 1972-74 Canada exported $50 million in Canadian arms sales to the United States specifically listed as being for the support of Southeast Asia. That is our contribution to war. I hope our contribution to peace and reconstruction in that country will be at least as great. There is need for a real sense of urgency in this field. I am not much of a cold war warrior, but I have read that the seas of Indochina are full of Soviet vessels taking food and other things into Indochina. I do not think we should accord them any monopoly in that field.
There is one other point I wish to raise. What is Canada doing about the situation in Namibia? The United Nations has frequently, in pursuance of decisions of the World Court, ruled that South African occupation of Namibia is illegal and has demanded that it get out and relinquish control by the end of March. This has not been done. The United Nations has appointed as sole present authority, pending elections, UN Commissioner Sean MacBride.
6838

June 17, 1975
Business of Supply
I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs a few weeks ago about this matter. He said he was waiting to see what the Security Council would decide as to the action to be followed. I suggest that the whole prestige of the world community, the United Nations in particular, is at stake. In clear pronouncements it has been defied, and it is up to the United Nations, if it is to have any credibility, to take effective action to vindicate the pronouncements which have been repeatedly made by the world community, and which Canada has supported.
Canada has a special responsibility in Namibia because a Canadian firm, known as Falconbridge-some of my hon. friends know of this company more intimately than I do-has been taking mineral resources out of Namibia under a licence from South Africa without the consent of the legal authorities in that area. I do not have the time to go into the conditions which exist there, the wage rates paid, and the exploitation, about which Mr. Hugh Mangle wrote in the Ottawa Citizen some time ago. He reported that of all the Canadian companies with subsidiaries in South Africa, Falconbridge has the most unenviable and depressing record. What does the Canadian government propose to do, by legal steps or otherwise, to discourage a subsidiary of a Canadian corporation from pursuing its course of illegality and exploitation?
I have mentioned grave problems facing the world, but I have concentrated on basic human needs and human rights. By the acceptance of moral obligations, difficult and vast though the problems are, they could be overcome.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Proliferation Time
The summing up of commercial nuclear agreements discussed since 1973 is impressive. To wit:
The United States offered a 600-megawatt nuclear power plant to Egypt, another to Israel; the Soviet Union, a 460-megawatt plant to Egypt. France and the Federal Republic of Germany are attempting to sell each of them two 900-megawatt plants, and one of 1300-megawatt to Iran. France is negotiating the sale of a 500-megawatt unit to Iraq, and has promised Iran to install a nuclear research plant with three small reactors. Canada sells a 600-megawatt plant to Argentina and another to South Korea. Egypt tries to purchase a plant from France; Lybia, a research plant with a small reactor from the United States, but, up against the guarantees demanded by the Americans, finally reaches an agreement with the Soviet Union. For its part, Brazil, for lack of having managed to reach an agreement with the United States, endeavours to negotiate one with the Federal Republic of Germany for the purchase of recycling facilities including several 1300-megawatt reactors and an enrichment plant.. .
That is not all.. .

And so the article continues. I read this just to give a resume of some of the measures and deals that are being discussed. We in Canada, of course, signed a non-proliferation treaty but a lot of countries, including Argentina, have not signed it. Yet we are apparently trying to sell a reactor to Argentina. South Korea signed the non-proliferation treaty but I understand has not yet ratified it.
June 17, 1975

The non-proliferation treaty requires inspection on quite a wide scale, but I believe it has nothing to say in connection with facilities for recycling the uranium with the plutonium and rods in connection with reactors. If that is the case-and the Secretary of State for External Affairs will correct me if I am wrong-this is very serious. Why would a country want installations that can reprocess the rods that have been used? It is said that Brazil wants such a plant, and that France and Germany are prepared to supply such plants to countries that want them.
An editorial in the New York Times of Wednesday, June 11, said:
The only significant use for plutonium now is for nuclear weapons or other explosive devices indistinguishable from weapons. Commercial use of plutonium as a power reactor fuel depends essentially on perfection of the breeder reactor which is not expected for 15 to 20 years.
No commercial plutonium separation plant is now operating in the United States. The 52 American power reactors store their spent fuel rods for possible future use. It would take a $500 million chemical reprocessing plant serving 30 giant nuclear power reactors to achieve the economies of scale that might make plutonium recycling commercially feasible.
If that is right then one has to ask for what possible reason, other than getting itself into a position to make a bomb, would any country want to acquire facilities for recycling these rods used in reactors like the CANDU reactor? As I understand it, our own CANDU reactor does generate plutonium. It is now alleged that because of the way it operates, whatever its great advantages may be- and I have no doubt they are great-the CANDU reactor generates twice as much plutonium as it operates, as does the United States type of reactor. That places a particular burden upon Canada to see that our inspections and safeguards are adequate.
There are half a dozen countries trying to export installations, reactors, or technology-the United States, France, Germany, Canada, U.S.S.R. and, I believe, Great Britain. France seems to take the attitude, according to Le Monde, that proliferation is inevitable and will sell plants to recycle the fuel to reactors. West Germany is also reported to be willing to supply such fuels even to countries which have not signed the non-proliferation agreement.
I believe the United States has become much stricter and passed a law in 1974 requiring approval by Congress before a deal can be made involving the sale of reactors or technology by the United States.
I suggest there can be no question about the dangers- reactors do generate a lot of plutonium. Some people have made estimates of how much plutonium would be generated by the reactors by 1980, 1985 or 1990.
In addition to what a government of a country may want to do improperly with such plutonium, there is also the danger in connection with terrorists. What steps do we take, for example, when dealing with a country like South Korea or Argentina where, from my limited reading, one could not say the governments are exactly secure or permanent?
What safeguards are we insisting on, for example, with regard to the safety of such plutonium, the safety of such fuel, the safety of such technology from terrorists in those countries? What safeguards are we insisting upon with
Business of Supply
regard to the transportation of fuel to those reactors that we are trying to sell?
There are about half a dozen suppliers of nuclear technology and reactors and that sort of thing, although a great many countries in the world have not signed the non-proliferation treaty. As an interim arrangement, is it possible to get some satisfactory restraints agreed upon and debated by those half dozen countries? The minister might indicate whether Canada is exploring that. I have heard the United States has been pushing that kind of arrangement, in other words attempting to control the situation and get some firm guidelines and commitments adopted by the countries which have the technology and are exporters of the technology.
Is this not an approach which offers more promise of keeping the situation under control in the short run than some attempt to achieve a world-wide agreement involving all countries? Some senators in the United States have called for a moratorium. We should consider the idea seriously. A moratorium on the sale of reactors and nuclear technology would give us breathing space, and allow us to bring the current situation under control. We should work to this end.
I read a list of deals already under way. It looks to me as if the situation is already out of hand; I am not speaking of what Canada is doing, but of what is happening in the world. The situation is getting out of hand. At present half a dozen countries of the world can bring it under control, if they want to. I ask, why not have a moratorium? Why does Canada not push for a moratorium, a moratorium associated with the effort to get other countries possessing nuclear technology to enter into a firm agreement? We want countries possessing nuclear technology to adopt firm controls.
I hear that Canada is promoting a model bilateral agreement which it hopes other countries will adopt. That may be Canada's approach to bringing this problem under control. If it is, why are we not told about it? Why are we not told in detail how strict the safeguards are to be? The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources told us about the guidelines other countries had to accept in connection with the purchase of the CANDU reactor. Those guidelines may be strict and reasonably satisfactory for the CANDU, but they do not seem to involve the regulation of the total nuclear activities of the countries buying the reactor.
Are the guidelines we are demanding strict enough? How broad are they? Do they really deal with the problem of recycling plants? Do they deal adequately with the question of technology? Supposing that the guidelines control the technology used in the CANDU reactor and its fuel, do they really prevent the country with which we make a deal from taking our technology and going on from there? Those are the questions we are asking, particularly in view of the kinds of deals the government has been making.
I do not want to look down my nose at the government of South Korea or the government of Argentina; nevertheless those governments, because of conditions in those countries-I will put it as tactfully as I can-are not the most stable in the world. They are also, as I said before,
29576-20%

June 17, 1975
Business of Supply
subject to terrorist activities. So let us discuss today the possibility of a moratorium, the possibility of imposing some interim control. This can only come about if there is some form of agreement involving the half dozen countries which presently export nuclear technology.
Why should we not do what they do in the United States? Why should the government not come to this chamber, or a committee of this House, and ask for approval of any deal involving the export of a CANDU reactor? This sort of thing is done in the United States. These sorts of deals must now come before Congress. This House has an interest in seeing this sort of thing done in this country. Let us ask the government to come to the House, or to a committee, and let it obtain approval for a deal. It is not unfair to suggest that the government, to a certain extent, is involved in a conflict of interest. It wants to act safely, but I suspect it also wants to sell. It wants to see the CANDU reactor, the triumph of Canadian technology, used. It wants to do business. It would be best if some body, a committee of this House for example, if not the whole House, were to pass judgment on the adequacy of safeguards associated with any deal. I suggest this earnestly.
Let me repeat some of the suggestions which have been made in this area. No nuclear material, equipment, or technology should be supplied to any country, whether or not it is party to the non-proliferation treaty, unless that country agrees to place all its nuclear material in all its peaceful nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards. This condition should apply both to nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states. It has also been suggested that no nuclear material, equipment, or technology should be supplied to any non-nuclear country that has or is acquiring a nuclear reprocessing plant. I suggested this afternoon that reprocessing or recycling plants should not be exported. It has also been suggested that all spent fuel should be returned to the supplier country for reprocessing, or storage if reprocessing is not needed.


The Chairman:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition, but his time has expired. He may continue if he has the unanimous consent of the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Chairman, I shall take only a couple of sentences to finish.


Gérald Laniel: Does the committee agree that the Leader of the Opposition may finish his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The suggestions of a technical nature are important but, fundamentally, the question is can we, by adopting a moratorium, devise some means for bringing about technical safeguards? Can we get the half dozen exporting countries to adopt them? Also there is this fundamental question to consider: should not this House, or a committee of this House, pass on or judge every deal which the government makes for the export of nuclear material, nuclear technology, or a nuclear reactor? I put these suggestions before the committee, Mr. Chairman,

because of the immense, unbelievable horror which could confront the world if nuclear proliferation becomes the reality which it is well on the way to becoming.


Mr. Lapointe:: Mr. Chairman, the issues discussed by the previous speakers, the representative of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), are extremely important at the present time and more especially for the assessment of our foreign policy which we must now develop. The aid programs to the third world have been widely discussed in the Committee on External Affairs and almost all members of the committee have come out of those sittings with numerous questions which had remained unanswered. In the field of nuclear proliferation, it is agreed that all hon. members share the concern voiced by the Leader of the Official Opposition.
However there is another matter in our foreign policy which is also extremely significant and that is the contractual relations which the government is now establishing with the European Economic Community. I think that with the two previous issues, this third component of our foreign policy is highly momentous. The acknowledged or unacknowledged referral to Washington remains the main feature of our foreign policy. However, it can be stated that the wish of Canada to have freer play from our American neighbour is also a guideline of that policy and it is in that context that we are trying to establish relations with the European Economic Community.
Going back to 1970, when the white paper was published, one realizes when reading booklets on that white paper that the key word in each of those studies is diversification. At that time, a very special dimension was given to the French-speaking world in our foreign relations while restating our links with the Commonwealth, our relationship with NATO and, of course, our particular ties with the United States of America. On the other hand, that White Paper uncovered a new concept or a concept expressed as clearly for the first time, that of economic nationalism in our external relationships. And that economic nationalism necessarily requires a diversification of our sales of raw materials and finished products. And during the years that followed the release of the White Paper it is in the direction of China, the U.S.S.R., Japan and Latin America that we made constant and new efforts, seeking markets for our raw materials.
Finally, in order to complete that 1970 White Paper, in October 1972, the then Secretary of State for External Affairs considered the over-all problem of our relationships with the United States. The three possible courses of action submitted to him at that time for decision included the possibility of maintaining the status quo with everything which that implies from the standpoint of American investments and influence over this country. There was another alternative: that of further integration with the United States under the continentalism we are experiencing. And finally, there was a third alternative, the one which was accepted, that is asserting our identity while excluding any anti-Americanism.
June 17, 1975

There are several forces within this country, Mr. Chairman, that ensure the respect of contingencies inherent in that continental determinism which seems to represent the true guarantee of prosperity for this country. It is obvious that our ties with the United States are very close and they cannot and must not be weakened. However, we must reconcile the fact of belonging to North America and of wanting independence. It is in that context that Europe has an important role to play in Canada's evolution.
Perhaps it would be a good thing to take a closer look at that enlarged European Economic Community now totaling nine countries of Western Europe. Taking a quick look at the statistics concerning the European economy, one realizes that it now regroups 256 million people, 20 per cent more than the United States, and a little more than the total population of the U.S.S.R. It also represents the largest trading entity in the world. The European Community now transacts 40 per cent of world trade while, for example, the participation of the United States in world trade is around 20 per cent and that of Japan around 7 per cent.
On the other hand, the European community is the largest importer in the world. In 1973, its imports totalled $100 billion, 25 per cent more than those of the United States.
Where do we stand relative to that commercial and demographic unit? Though our total trade with the community totalled $7 billion in absolute figures for 1974, this in terms of percentage was only 11 per cent of our international trade. Our finished product exports are minimal, accounting for only 10 per cent of exports to the EEC.
The same imbalance exists in the area of investments. The European bloc, the biggest trade partner in the world, is our second largest source of investment capital. But in actual figures investments in Canada are 80 per cent of American investments, while the community share is only 15 per cent.
The same dichotomy exists in Canadian foreign investments, with 52 per cent of our foreign investments going to the United States, while 14 per cent only involve the European community.
Considering the importance of that trade bloc, now a growing concern, we must make every possible effort to establish ever closer links. We already made significant steps in that direction, with our participation for example on a somewhat larger scale than the EEC's at the Conference on European Security and Co-operation. We also are a party to the Vienna talks, aimed at a mutual and balanced reduction of forces in central Europe. Further, we have been since 1973 full members of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, and in 1974 we became members of UNESCO's European regional group. In addition to all those multilateral relations, we enjoy excellent bilateral relations with everyone of the member countries.
We must therefore ask ourselves, in the face of all those achievements and participation with Europeans in multilateral bodies: What is our first objective, what is the basic reason for most of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) European trips this year?
Business of Supply
For some time Canada has been conducting negotiations with the European community for a more formal relationship. This is one of the direct consequences of our foreign policy, which aims at diversifying our external relations and especially our trade relations. We wish to establish an agreed link with the EEC. We wish to develop industrial and economic co-operation, in order to obtain for Canada a more effective penetration into that large unified market, such as we are now lacking because of our small 23 million population.
Better relations with Europe, relations better established and better defined are the major component of the objective of our present external policy. The Canadian government has implemented this policy of diversification with the European Community through various approaches in these last years. The most recent approach was to hold a series of preliminary discussions between Canadian and European officials to define the possible content of an agreement to be negotiated between Canada and the community. This approach was the result or the direct consequence of the discussions between the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the President of the Community, Mr. Ortoli, in Brussels last October.
The opening of those negotiations points to promising progress toward the establishment of contractual relations with the community.
During the preliminary talks, according to the press releases and the various statements of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) and the right hon. Prime Minister, it seems that a large range of common interests have been indentified in very general terms. Apparently, Canadian and European officials have recognized that a possible agreement could contain three main points: trade relationships, economic and industrial cooperation and consultations.
Such an agreement would open new perspectives for a multidisciplinary framework to ensure economic cooperation, trade, investment and technology. Furthermore, this agreement would establish a parallel on a community basis to the undertakings we already have in the field of industrial cooperation with each member of the European community. This approach allows also to study on a sectorial basis the opportunities for industrial cooperation.
The commission has conveyed to the Council of Ministers of the Community a formal proposal requesting the authority to negotiate a framework for economic and trade cooperation with Canada. The ministers' council will study this proposal on next June 24 and maybe again during summer or in early fall, at which time we hope a decision will have been made.
I hope that the support for a contractual tie given to the right hon. Prime Minister during his visit in various European capitals will soon be concretely expressed through approval of the commission's proposal by the Ministers' Council of the Community, and that negotiations for an agreement between Canada and the community can begin shortly.
At the various press conferences given by the Prime Minister either on his return from his European visits or in Europe, the reporters kept asking one question, which seemed also to have caused some concern in Europe and

June 17, 1975
Business of Supply
Canada, that is how to reconcile our bilateral relations with member countries of the community and this contractual tie with the community.
I would like to quote the answer given by the Prime Minister to this question during his press conference of last May 31 in Luxemburg. The prime minister stated, and I quote:
We see absolutely no exclusion, but as you know, as concerns commercial issues, or negotiations, that is to say commercial agreements with member countries of the community, we can no longer act simply on a bilateral basis. In the past, we could sign a commercial treaty with France, England, Germany, Luxemburg, Belgium, etc., but this is no longer possible since these countries have relinquished to the community part of their commercial powers and their tariff and customs authority. Therefore, we are adjusting to these realities, and when a country wants to conduct business on a bilateral basis with Canada, we are happy to do so. However, as far as the community receives more legal powers, we shall do business with the community and, once again-and I have to make this as clear as possible-Canada is not trying to interfere with the community or to impede its movement towards greater political existence and unity. We simply want to be present at all levels.
It therefore seems, Mr. Chairman, that the greatest concern of the government towards the community is now a business and industrial concern for contractual ties in these two areas. And, when we realize the emphasis placed on these two subjects, we may wonder what is happening to the more social, cultural or civilization oriented nature of all international relations.
And I do hope that the government's policy will always be to insist on our bilateral relations with different countries of Europe with which we have historical ties that would almost be useless for me to recall, such as, for instance, France and England. More precisely, as regards France, Mr. Chairman, one may read the following in the annual report of the Department of External Affairs, under the heading "Western Europe":
In its relations with France, Canada has kept the top priority aspect as was the case in recent years.
As a francophone member of this House from the province of Quebec, I must say that relations between Canada and France seem to be of extreme importance. I do hope that the Department of External Affairs, as well as all other departments involved in international relations, will consult the provincial governments, and more specifically the government of Quebec, which also has some interest in these fields of special jurisdiction and on the international scene, and that these same departments will succeed in seeking and finding with passion and aggressiveness new means to further improve the very special relations we have with France, because, in my opinion, therein lies one of the cornerstones to preserve our national unity, such unity being one of the objectives, if not the main objective of our government.
So I do hope that last week's visit of France's External Commerce Minister Segard will be followed by something concrete in bilateral relations and that we shall seek, within our own Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, as well as within our Department of External Affairs, to establish efficient economic co-operation with France, and possibly see to it that both countries work

hand in hand towards other markets and for the benefit of the third world countries.
Such, Mr. Chairman, were the questions I had in mind in the course of the debate on our foreign policy.


Mr. Wagner:: Mr. Chairman, like the hon. member for Charlevoix (Mr. Lapointe), I would like to wonder publicly about the direction that must be followed by the Department of External Affairs, and the image given by the government of Canada throughout the world.
Before going any further, Mr. Chairman, quite personally since the Minister is now a few steps from me, I would like to express to him our deepest sympathy for the mourning which afflicted him in recent days and let him know that our friendship will be such that perhaps it will enable him to go through that ordeal with courage.
Mr. Chairman, the editorialist Guy Cormier, from La Presse, wrote on June, 3:
Canada's colours are vague to many.
An "American" power in as far as we belong to the North American continent and as our economy and that of Washington are closely linked, a "British" power by our institutions, the monarchy and a part of our history, we must understand, Mr. Chairman, without being paralysed for that matter, the hesitations of Europeans towards us, when we attempt to set up ties with the common market. Incidentally, maybe we would have had more brilliant success in our contacts with EEC till now had we better asked for and if necessary negotiated the patronage of France which, in the opinion of many, would be our most attentive interlocutor.
It is therefore important for Canada, dedicated to a policy of diversification that would be profitable, to better define its directions on the different markets, American, European and Asian, if we do not want to be perceived here and there as contract hunters without any industrial and commercial strategy. That is all the more important and opportune, indeed even urgent, because there are only a few days left before the Canadian-Japanese ministerial conference which will be held in Tokyo on June 23 and 24, 1975, and only a few weeks left, I imagine, before an already promised visit in Ottawa by Mr. Henry Kissinger to whom it will be necessary to set forth-and I repeat the comments of Georges Vigny in Le Devoir of last April 2:
... the general outline of an original Canadian way, which will not be a track always parallel with the American freeway.
On another subject, if, as the Prime Minister has stated, the NATO challenge vis-a-vis the Warsaw Pact is not warlike, since we are and must be committed to contribute to the reduction of military forces in Europe and to the success of the European conference on security and cooperation, we should not become taken in by our pacifism nor by our inclination to independence vis-a-vis the United States, particularly at a time when the communist forces of the Warsaw Pact nations, stationed in Europe, appear to be superior in strength to those of the west, and particularly not at a time when Portugal, alas, seems to be swinging toward communism.
Mr. Chairman, when one looks at the image Canada is presenting outside, one realizes that there are inconsistencies in our external policy. Last May 15, the Canadian
June 17, 1975

government formally recognized the provisional revolutionary government of the Republic of South Vietnam. And yet at the same time, by another error the minister might call a false move, the Canadian Department of Immigration, pleading its ignorance of the record, allowed in with impunity some South Vietnamese people like former General Dang Van Quang and other well known exploiters of the Vietnamese people. This might harm our reputation abroad, more particularly in South East Asia, and this contributes to delay unduly the resumption of diplomatic relations between Canada and the new government in South Vietnam, and consequently, that of CIDA's activities which were interrupted in mid-April last, some time before the temporary withdrawal of our personnel from the Canadian embassy in Saigon.
Will all this not hamper Canada in the eventual task of contributing to the rebuilding of Vietnam? The question must be put. The incoherence of our policies, the incoherence between the two departments internally, and consequently the projection abroad of an incoherent image. Another source of incoherence in the field of external policies is the attitude of our government towards the status, if any, of the PLO on the international scene.
Before the Canadian-Israeli committee, on April 30 last, and again in the House today, in reply to the questions of an hon. member of the opposition, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) stated specifically that:
Canada recognizes the right of the Palestinian people to make itself heard and to participate in the negotiations which will seal its fate.
But then, I ask you, Mr. Chairman, why does Canada put up with, or put off denouncing the presence of the PLO at international conferences such as those soon to be held in Canada, under the aegis of the UN, first in Toronto, then in Vancouver in 1976, or at the Labour Conference now under way in Geneva, where the attendance of the PLO led to the withdrawal of the American and Israeli delegations. All those conferences, that I know, contribute in no way to "sealing the fate" of the Palestinians.
For the time being-we know, from having heard it from the Prime Minister himself-that we will have to take a stand with regard to the UN conferences. Hansard reports that:
The whole matter will be brought to the attention of the cabinet.
As a matter of principle our party stands unequivocally against terrorism, whether it be international or national, whether it be the FLQ, the PLO, or the IRA. Specifically, as far as the PLO is concerned, we blamed the government for its wishy-washiness at the United Nations. We condemned the government for abstaining when a procedural vote was taken prior to the invitation extended to Arafat, and now that the United Nations fifth congress on crime prevention is to take place in Toronto, reflecting a majority opinion held by Canadians we should consider it to be an affront to our standards of decency and justice if we were to support this presence of the PLO in Toronto.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Business of Supply


Claude Wagner: The government of Ontario has also indicated that it is reconsidering sponsoring certain social events if the PLO is admitted.
I repeat what I have recently stated in the presence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that while Canada must seek friendship and discussion with Arabs and Israelis, we have no cause, no justification, and no rationale for opening doors, or standing back while doors are opened for terrorists and those who support terrorists.
The issue is no longer that of whether we support the state of Israel. The issue is not that we want to see peace. The issue is where we as Canadians and our government stand on international lawlessness. There is nothing any terrorist wants to say that Canadians should want to hear. There is nothing any terrorist should be able to do to win a world audience in a body committed to the peaceful resolution of international difficulties.

Mr. Chairman, our international policy is not firm enough. This day, June 17, when the civil court in Paris will pass judgment on the Canadian sailing ship Green Peace III, we should recall the words of the Green Peace owner, Mr. David McTaggart from Vancouver, and I quote:
The Canadian government waited until my case had been before the French court for 17 days before extending me any support.
So, Canada will not have shown character or quickness towards France.
There is still another issue where Canada is lacking in firmness, that is when Soviet Jews want to emigrate to Israel. How many Dina Podriachik will have to campaign in Canada or elsewhere to get their sons or other relatives out of the USSR? We are not satisfied that Canada exerted enough pressure on Soviet Russia to have a reasonable immigration program for Jews. Therefore, Canada appears to be lacking of firmness in some fields.
Finally, too often our external policies are characterized by ambivalence. As recently as yesterday, answering a question put by my friend the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), the Acting Secretary of State for External Affairs stated:
Canada has always followed a one-China policy. We believe the government of China is the government at Peking. The question of Taiwan is one to be decided by the Chinese people and not by us.
That, Mr. Chairman, was a very clear and also a very ruthless answer. First because we could question the statement that "Canada has always followed a one-China policy." Particularly because we wonder whether Canada does not have commercial bilateral relations with Taiwan and her friendly countries. And if in a more or less distant future Taiwan were to insist on self-determination and become completely independent, we wonder what would be the position of this government. Did not Canada slam the door by such a clear-cut decision?
The ambivalence of our position is especially obvious when Canada is canvassing foreign countries to buy CANDU reactors. The Leader of the Opposition described the situation exactly and he suggested to the government some middle or long-term solutions that they should endorse and I hope that later this evening the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) will reply to the suggestions of the Leader of the Opposition.

June 17, 1975
Business of Supply
South Korea President Park Chee Hung has just placed Canada in a very embarrassing position. On June 12 he announced that his country:
... although it has signed the nuclear arms non-proliferation treaty may change its policy and manufacture atomic weapons if the United States, after its rout in South East Asia, decides against protecting it under its atomic umbrella.
In spite of that, Mr. Chairman, we would sell CANDU to South Korea? What concerns us in this matter is the attitude of Canada.

When a minister of the government can travel throughout the Arab world seeking to sell our reactors to nations that have been involved in belligerent activity for the last 25 years, I am forced to ask myself whether our minister can speak happily of introducing a nuclear component into, of all places, South Asia. I have to ask myself whether we have lost control of all our senses. When our minister can speak highly of introducing nuclear weapons into an area of renowned political instability such as South America where, by the way, the more typical form of government is a ruling military junta, I have to ask myself whether we have lost all control of our senses.
Surely we can establish some criteria for the sharing of this technology that is in line with our sense of conscience and the financial means of our own country. Surely we can develop criteria with reference to the stability of governments, the democracy of governments, the degree to which government activity is a matter for public discussion in the country involved, and the degree to which that country is or is not involved in potential belligerent situations before we embark holus-bolus upon wide scale proliferation of our nuclear technology.
Clearly a nation which is involved repeatedly in belligerent activities, either as a result of its own posture or the posture of its neighbours, should not be a nation with whom we are prepared to share nuclear technology. A nation with less than a stable tradition of democratic government should not be one of those with which we are prepared to share our nuclear technology. A nation whose posture with reference to the free world is not friendly should not be one with which we are prepared to share our nuclear technology. I do not believe these to be particularly difficult criteria. I do not believe them to be unreasonable or unfair. Above all, Madam Chairman, they are responsible, and that must be the ultimate criterion for the sharing of nuclear technology.
The government's irresponsibility, lack of co-ordination, and lack of any firm position of principle on the CANDU is very sad. It is sad because it sells short the many first rate public servants in External Affairs, in Industry, Trade and Commerce, and in National Defence, who have been expressing concern with reference to the CANDU for some time. It is sad because it represents and indeed must appear to represent to the world the desperate efforts of a nation facing economic difficulty to gain short-term economic yardage at some very real long-term prices. [Translation]
Another aspect of the ambiguous attitude of the federal government regarding CANDU is the joint France-Quebec 
project for an enriched uranium plant which, according to some viewers, would make a suitable addition to CANDU, and according to others would compete dangerously with our present industry of natural uranium to the point of threatening it with bankruptcy.
Whilst the Canadian government has not yet worked out a policy in this respect nor even given any reliable indication of what it intends to do to reconcile the interests of Canadians at large with those of Quebecers, it plans-in cooperation with Quebec-to initiate new "feasibility" studies to quote a term used by Mr. Segard. However, Mr. Segard, the French Minister for Exterior Trade, when he visited Ottawa on June 9, stated:
To undertake such a study, we have to be aware of the political will of the federal government, to know if this can and must be done.
Let us just try to fathom the political will of this government! This is another mystery, to use a word dear to Mr. Segard.
Ambivalence also is the attitude taken by our government in matters of international development, of international help. On the one hand, as Laurent Laplante pointed out, the attitude of the Canadian government in the face, for instance, of the Haitian problem, of those who are about to be deported, has shown clearly that Canada was making too obvious a difference between the rules of hospitality and its conception of the economic interest.
On the other hand, and on the whole, either the bilateral program of CIDA aim at the sole development and must then be maintained or they aim also at helping undertakings here and, it must be recognized, not only in front of businessmen but also in front of hon. members, in front of citizens and in front of recipient countries.
So many questions concerning CIDA, its orientation, its management, have been raised since February 20, mostly in this House, in committee, in the various media across the country, that at least one thing has been evidenced, namely the ambivalence of Canada in matters of international development. And I refer here in particular to the questions raised by my colleague from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Mackenzie).
In conclusion, Madam Chairman, if there is an area where the sayings and doings of Canada, where its reputation should not be tainted with epithets such as "vague", "inconsistent", "soft" or "ambivalent", it is certainly the development area which, on account of its object, must sublimate all the other political and economic surveys.
Therefore, we on this side of the House, eargerly wish that a government member will take advantage of this day to enlighten us on Canada's position at the special United Nations conference on development which is due to meet in September. It is perhaps the last opportunity we shall have during this session before the adjournment to get acquainted with the position and to examine it.
In the same breath, we finally reiterate our request for a department of State for External Affairs for CIDA, or rather for the institution of CIDA as a Department of International Development. Such a department would first allow Canada to intensify its presence on the international scene, improve its image abroad, and another thing equally important, it would enable Canadians and Parlia-
June 17, 1975

ment, to exert continuing control over CIDA's activities and expenditures.
Madam Chairman, with your permission, I have one more sentence-


The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: Order, please. The hon. member cannot continue without the consent of the House.
Does the House agree to let the hon. member conclude his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


B. Keith Penner: Agreed.


Claude Wagner: Thank you, Madam Chairman. I just want to finish my speech and I am grateful to my colleagues for their agreement.
I wanted to point out that a $900 million budget cannot and must not any longer escape as easily the daily scrutiny of members of the House.


Mr. Fleming:: Madam Chairman, because I had the privilege of joining the Prime Minister at the recent Commonwealth Conference held at Jamaica only a few weeks ago I should like to take this opportunity, when the House is debating Vote 1 of the Department of External Affairs, to discuss the particular experience I gained during that trip. I hope also to place on the record some points perhaps to enlighten some of my colleagues who have not had the opportunity I have had concerning Canada's particular role in the Commonwealth or to learn of the high regard other members of that organization have for Canada.
Before going into the detail of what I wish to say, perhaps I should mention that during my brief time on that trip I had the privilege of having access to briefing sessions with the Prime Minister and our officials. I also had the opportunity on one occasion, when the Prime Minister had other obligations, to sit in on the private sessions with the heads of state. In this way I had an opportunity to see not only how well the Prime Minister is able to represent our country in such a situation but how outstanding our officials are. The officials, albeit from External Affairs, CIDA, Industry, Trade and Commerce, or Finance, in their dedication and devotion worked day and night-and they did work day and night-in an effort to keep on stream the discussions and to make sure that the talks were productive, that candour was maintained, and that in fact the Commonwealth representatives went away as a useful group still intact, with positive exchanges of thought, and goals to accomplish in the months ahead.
I might say that having been given this opportunity by the Prime Minister this was the first time I have seen him in that particular office on a day-to-day basis from the time one gets up in the morning until one retires in the evening. The day I returned from the conference there was a special program on the CBC about the conference. The reporter, who generally did an excellent rundown of what took place at the conference, again as we so often experience in the press, threw a barb at the Prime Minister in this particular instance suggesting that he preferred sun-
Business of Supply
shine and beaches to the conference table. There are many faults we all have as human beings for which we could be hanged, but I certainly found that very inappropriate. He was at work certainly before I was in the morning, and I was up early. He dealt with his aides while he tried to eat his breakfast. He worked throughout the day and in the evening. I think it is terribly unfair that due respect is not paid to the job he tries do to.
I simply want to put that on the record because I was able to see him as many backbenchers cannot, in the role of Prime Minister representing our country before a body as important as is the Commonwealth. A great deal of effort was made on his part, and nothing could be more unfair than to accuse him of spending time on the beaches and in the sunshine, because nobody spent less time there than the leader of our country.
Some one opposite ask what he thinks about royalty. As a matter of fact, the one time I had an opportunity of sitting in at a private meeting of heads of government was when the Prime Minister was having an audience with Her Majesty the Queen. I think he has a great deal of respect for that lady and for the institution that she represents, and he recognizes its role within our constitution and parliamentary system.
I believe that the Canadian policy toward the Commonwealth continues to be predicated on our commitment to strengthen the association and encourage a more active participation in it by the members, and to support its development and that of its non-governmental organizations as instruments for greater practical co-operation.
If I could sum up-and I believe I am echoing the government's view which I support-the twin value of discussion in a Commonwealth forum lies in its candour and informality, and in the dispassionate assessment of the different questions under consideration.
With regard to the candour and informality of Commonwealth conferences, let me say that every time a Commonwealth meeting is about to take place, people from the media, who have not had an active involvement or background knowledge of the Commonwealth, and a great many people from the public ask, what good is it? It is not a treaty, no definite things happen, it does not impose any obligation on any state. When we hear reports on the meetings, it seems there is a crisis every time there is a conference, and it is a miracle that the Commonwealth is still together at the end of the conference. In fact it seems to me that the outstanding value of the Commonwealth and Canada's participation in it is just that, namely, the candour and informality of leaders of governments from around the world sitting down, both in private and in public, and exchanging views.
At that meeting in Jamaica there were some 28 heads of states from around the world, and some 33 countries represented. Where else, including the United Nations, can you sit down without a political stance and talk person to person? Where else can you get the developed, the developing, and the less developing nations together, where all the races in the world are represented? There is a great diversity in the development of the democratic process in
June 17, 1975

Business of Supply
each of those countries, but they all sit down and frankly discuss their problems.


An hon. Member:: When did they do so?


James Sydney Clark Fleming: The fourth goal was to discuss colonialism and racialism in South Africa. That was very frankly discussed, and, if I may say with great pride, Canada took a very important and forthright stance in support of our African brothers on that continent with regard to the problems they are facing with South Africa and also Rhodesia.
Perhaps the most significant short term development of that meeting was that the heads of government pledged themselves to promote a new and equitable international economic order, and they agreed to invite a small group of experts, to be selected on the basis of their personal capacities and knowledge, to draw up a comprehensive and interrelated program of practical measures directed toward closing the gap between rich and poor countries.
That particular group includes such outstanding people as Alister McIntyre, Secretary-General of the Caribbean Community; Professor Nurul Islam, Deputy Chairman of the Bangladesh Planning Commission; Mr. Amir Jamal, Minister for Commerce and Industries, Government of Tanzania; Sir Donald Maitland, Deputy Undersecretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of Britain; and our own Mr. Larry Smith, Canadian High Commissioner to Barbados and High Commissioner to Canada. This group of ten men will sit down here in Ottawa and struggle over the several months ahead to do what everyone is publicly saying is impossible, to try to reach understanding between the developed and undeveloped, the advanced nations and those who need assistance.
We need some appreciation of the most practical way to move toward this so-called new economic order so that the nations which have will appropriately share with those which have not, and it will be begun in a way which is practical and useful to those which have not, and not simply be window dressing which is costly to us and not truly beneficial to them. That group will then report to the meeting of finance ministers of the Commonwealth which is to be held in Guyana in the fall.
Those are the principal points I wished to make, except to conclude by saying that when people have doubts about the Commonwealth, I ask what other association of states affords the opportunity to bring together more than a quarter of the nations of the world, with the heads of state sitting face to face discussing their problems and their aspirations in an effort to promote understanding? That group, and the special role it has, will assist in dealing with associations such as the European Economic Community and the United Nations. It will help us deal with the United States as well. Aside from the understanding we will be afforded, I must say with all sincerity how moved I was by the special respect Canada has earned within that group.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


B. Keith Penner: Before proceeding further, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Okanagan Kootenay (Mr. Johnston)-National parks-Entrance fees-Complaints from Radium and Invermere regarding reduced business revenue; the hon.
Business of Supply
member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan)- Regional economic expansion-Possibility of task force to study wage policy in Atlantic region; the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway)-Indian Affairs-Lack of natives in senior positions in department-Government action.


Mr. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Madam Chairman, the Department of External Affairs has the final authority in determining to what nations Canada will sell nuclear reactors, uranium, and nuclear technology. In the limited time at my disposal I want to examine how effectively the Department of External Affairs has discharged its responsibility in this matter.
Let me begin by reminding the committee that in 1945, when the first atomic bombs were dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, a new age was born, the nuclear age. Prior to that time mankind had the capacity to destroy cities and to lay waste countries, but in the nuclear age mankind now has the power to destroy himself and to obliterate all life on this planet. We are nothing quite so much like children out in the backyard playing catch with sticks of dynamite, totally unaware of the dangers involved.
Since 1945 the nuclear club throughout the world has grown. Nuclear weapons are in the hands of more nations, and the capacity to produce the nuclear bomb has spread at an alarming rate.
Canada is one of the nations which has an awesome responsibility in this nuclear era. We possess large deposits of uranium. Successive governments and successive parliaments in the early stages very wisely determined that the production, marketing, and sale of uranium and reactors should be placed under the control of the federal government, and that has saved us from proliferation of unsafe reactors, something which has taken place in some other countries.
Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has produced the CANDU reactor, which is one of the most efficient in the world and one of the safest, insofar as any nuclear reactor can be considered safe. I agree with Mr. Maurice Strong who said that we are in danger of becoming a prisoner to reliance on nuclear energy before we understand the risks. As Atomic Energy of Canada Limited has developed the nuclear reactor, it has become a super-salesman, sending its emissaries to all parts of the world in an endeavour to sell this reactor.
On June 5, as reported at page 6456 of Hansard, the Prime Minister said:
I think there is a very serious moral problem which is raised by the Leader of the Opposition but there are two sides to it. The other side is whether we can sit on this technology and not share it with the developing countries who have no energy-


Mr. Fairweather:: South Korea?


Mr. Trudeau:: -and who have an extremely low standard of living. No, I am not talking about South Korea;-
The Prime Minister may not have been talking about South Korea, but the fact is that it is to South Korea the government is planning to sell a CANDU reactor. We also plan to sell one to Argentina, which could hardly be described as a developing country with a very low standard of living. We have been carrying on negotiations to sell a CANDU reactor to Iran, which could not be

June 17, 1975
Business of Supply
described as having no energy in view of the fact that it is swimming in oil.
It is true that we have a responsibility to share our good fortune with our less well endowed fellow nations, but I suggest there are other ways to help these nations which would be far less dangerous. Truly, our first responsibility is to prevent, as far as we can, the destruction which would follow a nuclear holocaust. As far as the developing countries are concerned, it is true that a lack of energy resources might entail some hardship, but a nuclear bomb could involve annihilation. After all, we are not deciding whether we shall share our nuclear technology-we are already doing it-under what conditions we should share it is what we ought to be giving our attention to at this time.
Since last September the Government of Canada has sold almost 40,000 tons of uranium concentrate, U308, to countries such as Japan, Spain, Germany, Italy, and the United Kingdom. On December 20, 1974, as reported at page 2429 of Hansard, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that the government had authorized Atomic Energy of Canada to negotiate sales of the CANDU reactor to Argentina, Iran, South Korea, Denmark, Roumania, the United Kingdom, and Italy.
There is a growing fear in many parts of Canada that Atomic Energy of Canada is pushing sales of the CANDU reactor with much more vigor than the Department of External Affairs is showing in providing for adequate safeguards. Our salesmanship is rapidly outstripping our statesmanship.
Three agencies are involved: Atomic Energy of Canada which wants to sell reactors, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce which wants to increase our exports, and the Department of External Affairs which is supposed to make sure that we do not sell these reactors to the wrong people.
On June 10 this year as reported at page 6600 of Hansard I put this question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs:
... I am asking the minister if we are interested primarily in promoting peace rather than in selling nuclear reactors?
The minister's reply is interesting. He said:
... we are primarily interested in both ...
That is a shocking statement. How can we be "primarily interested in both"? Surely safeguarding the peace of the world should be our primary objection, and selling nuclear reactors should be a secondary consideration. I submit that the government has been shamefully lax in its dealings with this whole question of exporting CANDU reactors and nuclear technology.
We sold the CANDU reactor to India with the result that they produced an explosive device. In answer to a question I asked the other day, the President of the Privy Council said that of course there was no bilateral treaty with India. That is true, but there was an exchange of letters which we were assured at the time would absolutely guarantee that CANDU reactors sent to India would be used only for peaceful purposes.

When we came to deal with Italy the government insisted that Italy must ratify the non-proliferation treaty. According to the Globe and Mail of March 10 the Italian ambassador to Canada said his government had agreed to ratify the non-proliferation treaty and therefore the exports of uranium would be permitted.
When we came to South Korea the story was different. On January 23 this year the Globe and Mail reported South Korean ambassador Young Chou Kim as saying that his country considered the proposal that they ratify the nonproliferation treaty as being an interference in the affairs of South Korea. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in the same issue of the paper was quick to say that of course the signing of a non-proliferation treaty was not a condition but "just a proposal we put out."
As recorded in Hansard for June 12, at page 6678, I asked the President of the Privy Council about the requirement for countries receiving a CANDU reactor to sign a nonproliferation treaty. He replied:
The signing of the NPT is not an essential requirement.
To top it all off I find in the Toronto Star for June 13 a statement by President Park of South Korea as follows:
If the U.S. nuclear umbrella were to be removed, we would have to start developing our own nuclear capability to defend ourselves.
This is the country to which the Canadian government not only intends to sell a nuclear reactor, but the Export Development Corporation is putting up $300 million as a loan for the purpose, another $30 million is coming from the Royal Bank of Canada, and $50 million from a consortium of British banks.
We are also proposing to sell a nuclear reactor to Argentina, whose ambassador was quoted in the press the other day as saying that all states have the same right, including the possibility of producing nuclear weapons. When I asked about that, the President of the Privy Council said that the ambassador's words had been distorted but he did not quote what the ambassador allegedly said. It is significant that Argentina is one of the countries which has so far neither signed not ratified the non-proliferation treaty.
What the government is proposing instead is that it will draft a bilateral treaty which will provide for periodic inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency. But that inspection system is not foolproof by any means. It would allow the inspectors to keep track of the amount of plutonium, the byproduct from the reactor, which can be used to make nuclear bombs, but the possibility of cooking the books is very real. There is no recourse whatsoever and no sanctions whatsoever if the government in question fails to live up to the terms of a bilateral treaty.
We have not seen the proposed treaty so far but I would submit that if it is not any different from the draft of the proposed agreement with Iran, a copy of which I have here, then it is not going to provide a very satisfactory set of safeguards.
What measures can Canada take to reduce the danger of nuclear proliferation? I think it is not enough for us to criticize the government's lack of policy or constant changing of policy. We have to make concrete suggestions.
There is no doubt in my mind that the government has to have a new priority. It has to say that not sales but the
June 17, 1975

safety of mankind is the primary consideration. I agree with the Leader of the Opposition when he suggests that we ought to stop all sales of CANDU reactors and nuclear technology until such time as the government has brought down a clear cut policy setting out the terms and conditions under which we will export this very dangerous nuclear know-how and these nuclear reactors.
I should like to see the government formulate a fourfold program with respect to the safeguards it will impose before nuclear reactors and fissionable material can be sold to other countries.
First of all, there should be no sales in world trouble spots, certainly not in the Middle East, certainly not in the Southeast Asia area, certainly not in any areas where it is perfectly clear war could break out on the slightest provocation. We should avoid these areas.
Second, there should be no sales where there is an unstable political situation. The government to which we sell a nuclear reactor today may not be in office two years or five years from now. The danger is not just that some government may decide on its own to make a nuclear bomb; the danger is also that it may make plutonium available to terrorist groups for activities in other countries. Eleven pounds of plutonium will make a bomb with the explosive equivalent of 20,000 tons of dynamite. You can put 11 pounds of plutonium in a suitcase. We are playing with dangerous weapons. We are playing with the survival of mankind. We ought to make sure that no fissionable material or reactor is sold to any military dictatorship, to any of the little sawdust caesars who are endangering the peace of mankind.
Third, I suggest that in order to be a recipient of a CANDU reactor and uranium, a country ought to have signed and ratified the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. A country which refuses to do this is saying openly that it intends eventually to become a member of the nuclear club.
Fourth, we ought to insist on a bilateral treaty which will provide for inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency, and stipulate that Canada will be the sole supplier and owner of the uranium rods which are provided, and that the spent rods will be recovered by Canada to prevent plutonium from being diverted for the purpose of making explosive devices. If any country says these conditions are too severe, I say that country wants to use the plutonium for other than peaceful purposes. If we want to give developing countries the possibilities for nuclear energy, but there is no reason why such countries must own and control the uranium rods. They will get the benefit of the power, but Canada must retain sole control of the rods. Canada should also retain control of the plutonium, the by-product of the reactor.
Some will say that if we impose such severe restrictions our customers will go elsewhere. That may be true, but every country has to live with its own conscience. If some nations cannot get reactors from us and turn to other countries unwise enough to sell to them, without investigating properly what is to be done with them; that is their responsibility. We, in this parliament, particularly the government and more particularly the Secretary of State
Business of Supply
for External Affairs, have the responsibility of making sure we do not join the merchants of death club, that we do not have on our consciences for decades to come any part we may have played in provoking a nuclear war in some part of the world. We are on the verge of a precipice. It will not take much to push the world over the edge, into the abyss. I say that this House, this government, should insist on our stopping this madness before it is too late.


James McPhail Gillies: Madam Chairman, may I congratulate the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands for giving an outstanding summary of some of the more serious problems facing the world.
I am delighted to have this opportunity to discuss some aspects of our external affairs in a systematic and significant way. I was interested to hear what the hon. member for York West had to say about the work of the Commonwealth. He gave a fine report, although I would not agree entirely with it, even though I know he came to his conclusions after attending the Commonwealth meeting. I suggest that Canadian prestige in the world is declining, something which I, as a Canadian, along with other Canadians, regret. What is the reason for this decline? Fundamentally it seems to me that the reason is that the government has a great deal to say about the important issues on the international scene, but little courage to follow up its statements with specific action.
I know that in foreign affairs the traditional wisdom says that you must move cautiously. I agree. In certain things you should exercise caution. But if we are to be respected in international affairs we must take a firm stand on the issues of the day. I do not need to reiterate Canada's position vis-a-vis the PLO, and the votes which Canada has or has not cast at various international gatherings.
The general tone of the foreign press, as I understand it, is that Canada now, unlike three decades ago when Canada was a leading moral force in the world, is a declining force. The foreign press says that we are declining rapidly. We are declining because the government will not take a strong stand on the great issues of our times.
One of the greatest issues confronting the world is the expansion of nuclear weaponry, the growth in the numbers of nuclear reactors, and the probability and possibility that other countries will explode atomic bombs. Canada faces a dilemma. What should our position be on this issue?
It was fairly easy to decide, say five or ten years ago, whether Canada should provide technological knowledge, and even material which would be used to explode nuclear bombs, and so on. It was fairly easy to decide such questions, because five or ten years ago the answer was clearly no, that Canada should not make it possible for other countries to make nuclear bombs. But the world has changed dramatically in the last few years. It changed drastically in September, 1973, when the OPEC countries decided to raise the price of oil. The OPEC cartel proved that there is now no security of oil supplies and that oil prices could be raised dramatically.
At that time in the world's history the technical use of nuclear power became an economic reality. Before then nuclear power had not been too important. Countries were

June 17, 1975
Business of Supply
not going to use nuclear energy for peaceful purposes because it was too expensive. Now it is not; it is today a feasible alternative and, as the Prime Minister and others have said, we face a moral dilemma. Are we to make nuclear technology available to other countries, or are we not, for we know that once we make nuclear technology available to others they can develop nuclear bombs and other nuclear weapons, as we learned to our cost in the case of India? I have heard it suggested that India is making available to countries with which Canada will not deal the by-products of its nuclear program.
Now that nuclear reactors are an alternative to conventional forms of energy, there are 221 nuclear power plants operational or on order in the United States. Twenty six reactors are operating or planned in Canada, and there are 274 reactors operating or planned in 25 other countries. That shows how widespread the use of nuclear power has become. But the frightening thing is that by 1980 all those reactors could produce, as a by-product, more than 40,000 pounds of plutonium, and that plutonium, when extracted from the spent fuel rods, could produce enough fissionable material for more than 2,000 Hiroshima-sized nuclear bombs.
In addition to this dilemma, the Canadian situation is more complicated by the fact that countries are now finding that the CANDU reactor is probably going to be the most effective of all reactors now available on the market. We are in competition with West Germany, but particularly with the United States in the sale of our reactors. At last all the investment and work that have taken place in Canada over the past 25 years in this field seem to be coming to fruition.
The heavy water reactor system is apparently much better than the fuel reinforcement system developed in the United States. Therefore it is only natural that the atomic energy people in this country have been joyfully travelling the world trying to sell our reactors to anybody who wants to buy them.
It is not unusual there has been an enormous sales push on these reactors. Originally the competition was severe. Now it is becoming less tough. Our system is effective and we want to capitalize on it. Therefore we are trying to sell as many reactors as we possibly can.
Since we have developed in Ontario the most highly successful nuclear power plant for the generation of electricity of any place in the world, we can confidently expect that other countries will come to Canada to try to buy a system which at long last seems to be reaching fulfillment.
So here we are and this is the problem. Countries need to have energy. They can no longer depend on the conventional sources and at prices which were traditional for 20 or 25 years. We have a system in Canada that is working well. It can be applied in many countries. However, we know that if we make it available to them, out of that decision can come atomic weapons. What do we do?
I believe the government has put the emphasis on the wrong side of the issue, as suggested by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. It has been concerned about technological development. It has been concerned

about sales, and I would argue that it has been less concerned about the use of these nuclear reactors in a way that could lead to the development of weapons.
I know we insist on bilateral arrangements, the nonproliferation treaty. We put a lot of emphasis on the latter, but we have not insisted that every country which deals with Canada should sign it. The Secretary of State for External Affairs pointed out that he was the only External Affairs minister from any country to attend the Nuclear conference in Europe, so the government must be placing great confidence in it.
It should be pointed out, however, that there are probably more unresolved problems with the non-proliferation treaty at the present time than there are solved ones. There is the question of the great political inequity between the demand for inspection on the part of nonnuclear countries and nuclear countries. Certainly there is the argument that the non-proliferation treaty perpetuates the industrial advantages of the nuclear powers against the non-nuclear powers. Moreover, the non-nuclear powers argue very strenuously that the obligations put on them are greater than those put on the nuclear powers and that this is totally unfair. Of couse there is always the fear of the non-nuclear states that no one will protect them if they themselves are not able to develop nuclear weapons.
There is no question in the minds of many that India's decision to go into the area of nuclear development, related to the question of military protection against the situation that might have been developing vis-a-vis Pakistan. Consequently when the government says it is depending on the non-proliferation treaty we should not be confused into thinking that there is really any stability in that treaty at the present time. There is not. There are more unresolved problems in the non-proliferation discussion than there are ones resolved.
The government argues, however, that it will have bilateral arrangements. How strange it is that when we consider the sale of a reactor to Korea we find that the sale is in a sense consummated in terms of the financial arrangements. Indeed, I have been told that lunches are held, with champagne being served, to celebrate the fact that this has taken place, only to discover that the bilateral arrangements have not been worked out and signed. Surely one could expect that before there is any talk of financing or arranging for payments, the safeguard side would be agreed on, but that has not been the case.
It has become clear in this debate that everyone in the House of Commons of Canada is deeply and totally concerned about this problem. We are deeply concerned that the government is putting so much emphasis on the sales side and so little on the safeguard side. I, therefore, concur in what was said by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, and with the Leader of the Opposition, that we need a new approach in dealing with the sale of our nuclear reactors.
As the first step it should be agreed by the government that it will not make a sale of a reactor to any power in the world without first bringing that proposed sale to the parliament of Canada for approval. There would be nothing very unusual about doing so. That now happens to be the situation in the United States Congress. Every sale has to be approved by Congress. Surely when we in this
June 17, 1975

country consider the sale of a nuclear reactor which could possibly be used for the spread of weapons, it should be subject to the approval of parliament.
Second, we should stop the rhetoric and get down to the facts in terms of whether we are concerned about making nuclear reactors available to countries to meet their energy needs. I have the very strong feeling that this idea has become a rationalization for the policy that Canada is following, because when you examine the countries with which Canada is having dealings, you really cannot see that they have a serious energy problem.
A classic example is Iran. Canada considered making nuclear reactors available to Iran, one of the most energy rich countries in the world. I was fascinated by the minister's reply to a question on the state of the negotiations that we are not dealing with Iran because that country broke off the arrangements. Canada did not break off the arrangements. Iran did. How can we take seriously protestations that we are making these reactors available for energy purposes when we are dealing with countries like Iran? It makes the whole thing seem totally unreal.
In addition to a requirement that parliament's approval be obtained before the sale of a reactor, the government should table in parliament, before any decision about the sale of a reactor, a report by Canadian officials on the energy needs of the country to which the sale will be made. For example, there are reports that Argentina has an immense capability for developing energy from conventional hydroelectric sources, yet we talk about selling a reactor to that country. If the government really means what it says, there should be tabled in the House of Commons an energy study on every country to which a sale is planned. And it should be made by Canadians. In that way we will really know what we are doing, or whether it is just a cover-up for the government's policy of making reactors available to anybody who will buy them.
Third, I agree with the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands that we should have an assessment of the political stability in any country in which we are planning to put reactors into place. Obviously, once again it is like the Korean situation.
Finally, we should require that Canada should own the fuel rods, as has been suggested, and that they be returned to this country when they are used. That is the ultimate control. The fact of the matter is that Canada cannot stand back and not make its technology and resources in the field of energy available to those parts of the world that need them. At the same time, Canada would be committing a sin on the people of the world certainly, and on the people of Canada, to blithely go ahead, as the government has been going ahead, and sell reactors under present circumstances.
I hope that a product of this day's discussion will be that the government reconsider the conditions under which reactors will be sold. It is clear that to date the objective has been to sell, sell, sell. This objective has to be changed. The objective must be safety and security. I trust that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will take the comments made in this debate today very seriously. This is a debate that is not a general political debate in the sense of
Business of Supply
the debates that take place so often in this House, but rather a cry or a plea from people who are enormously concerned about this atomic proliferation and Canada's role in it. The suggestions that have been made have been positive ones, and I hope the minister will accept them.


Mr. Roberts:: Madam Chairman, much of the debate this afternoon has centred around the question of the sale of nuclear reactors. I wish to discuss for a few moments another question equally important and urgent, one that has been touched on briefly by hon. members this afternoon. I refer to the question of whether or not Canada should permit the entry into this country of representatives of the PLO, the Palestine Liberation Organization, to participate in the conference that is proposed to take place this autumn in Toronto on the subject of law and order. I urge on this House and on the minister responsible that in no circumstances should these representatives be allowed to enter our country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John (Moody) Roberts: I want to discuss some of the complications or implications of this issue, but I want to make it absolutely clear at the beginning of my remarks that I condemn the PLO. I believe that it is not an organization that Canadians would wish to see enter this country. Its objectives and tactics are repugnant to the moral spirit of our country. It is, at root, a moral issue. The Palestine Liberation Organization has taken as its objective the destruction of Israel, a state that we recognize and with which we are on the most friendly terms. The Palestine Liberation Organization is an organization that espouses the use of terror as a practical tactic to achieve its objectives. On both these grounds, it seems to me clear that Canada morally cannot allow these representatives to enter our country.
It is clear according to Canadian law that the Palestine Liberation Organization is a prohibited organization. For its members or representatives to enter this country would require a ministerial permit, the exercise by the minister of immigration of his permission to allow these representatives to enter Canada in face of what would otherwise be a conflict with the Canadian law. It requires the positive act of the Canadian government to allow these representatives to come into our land.
I suggest that this would be an immoral act. There is no evidence whatever, in spite of the olive branch so profusely shaken by Mr. Arafat, that this organization has abandoned its tactics of terrorism or its ultimate objective. Until it does so, I see no reason why the Canadian government should permit the entry of these people into the country, particularly in opposition to the stand that the Canadian government took at the United Nations, when it did not abstain but voted against the seating of the PLO as an observer at the United Nations. Canada objected to that seating because it found that the PLO did not meet the qualifications for membership of the United Nations; that its objectives and policies were not compatible with UN membership. That being the case, it seems to me difficult to agree that our government should now accept their entry into this country.

June 17, 1975
Business of Supply
There are, perhaps, complications or implications behind such a decision which we should raise and discuss. It has been suggested that Canada, looking at the realities of the international context, must concern itself with the reaction of other countries to such a decision on our part and with the hostility they might manifest toward this country if such a decision were taken-if we reneged, on our agreement to have the United Nations hold this conference in this country with the PLO as participants.
What that argument is basically, Madam Chairman, is an argument that we should accede to the wishes of other countries if they are opposed to our own because we fear the consequences. It is the classic argument of blackmail. It is the argument that we should allow ourselves to be bluffed and intimidated because of what other countries might do if they disagree with our policy. It suggests that Canada cannot risk taking a stand of independence, based on principles that other countries such as Denmark and The Netherlands have been able to take in the past. If the argument were presented clearly to Canadians, it is one that they would reject.
We have had some experience in Canada-in 1970 and over the past week-of groups, of organizations, of people who have attempted to blackmail the Canadian government. To this point we have resisted that blackmail and its implications on our actions. I cannot see the government doing otherwise but rejecting blackmail when it is applied in the international context.
The second argument which is sometimes presented as an argument for admission of the PLO representatives is that, after all, Canada does want to be a good member of the United Nations. We accept the implications of membership in the United Nations. We should not, like a naughty little boy, pick up our marbles and go home simply because the United Nations has not accepted our view of the status of the PLO.
It would be easy to suggest that, after all, conditions have greatly changed since we first asked the United Nations to hold this conference in Toronto. At that time the PLO was not an observer member of the United Nations. We certainly could say that, given the changed situation, the changed membership, the difficulty of security arrangements and so on, we can no longer hold the conference, secure in the knowledge that there would be other places that were prepared to hold it. But I suggest, Madam Chairman, that we not follow that argument; that we rather state forthrightly what our policy is and why it is that we do not find it acceptable to have these people enter our country. I suggest we be prepared, if I may use a colloquialism, to put our action where our mouth is.
I think it was Theodore Roosevelt who said that his foreign policy was to walk softly and carry a big stick. Canada in its dealings with the United Nations seems to have adopted a rather different policy, and that is to talk loudly and carry no stick at all. We have developed the reputation of being "the great abstainer" in United Nations' decisions. I suggest that that position does no service to us, no service to the principles that we espouse in our foreign policy, and no service at all to the United Nations. For other countries will not greatly respect a country that is prepared to preach, that is prepared to say what it thinks ought to be done, but does not have the

courage to render effective in action the principles upon which it says it stands.
We should take the United Nations for what it is. It is not an international court whose decisions are binding upon us. It is not an international government in which we have agreed to participate. And it is not a polite debating society. The United Nations is an international political forum where the politics of states operate. That is what it is and no doubt that is what it should be. It is not a forum where the Canadian government can get by with moral righteousness or by simple nitpicking of position, saying on the one hand there are parts of the resolution that we agree with but that, on the other hand, there are parts of the resolution that we do not agree with, and that therefore in view of the complexity of the issue we are unable to take a position. Neutrality carried to that stage is a declaration of impotence, a declaration of spiritual bankruptcy in the face of important political problems with which this country should attempt to deal, not simply through words, but through action in votes and action taken in other ways. We should be prepared to back up our opinion with whatever degree of power we can utilize, and power does not consist of saying; "We are terribly sorry but we cannot make up our minds where we stand on this issue."
There are those who say that the Palestinian Liberation Organization is a fact of life and that in international politics one must meet the facts of life, and that the appropriate course is to attempt to civilize the Palestinian Liberation Organization by giving it responsibility and credibility. The argument is that if it is given responsibility it may moderate its possible objective of the destruction of Israel or may moderate its use of terrorism, which goes on unabated.
There are those who made the same argument in the 30's, when they believed it was possible to civilize Hitler by giving him more responsibility and credibility and engaging him in the game of international politics. I would say to those who have argued that the PLO should be civilized by giving it responsibility and credibility, that there is no concrete achievement to which they can point. The giving of credibility and responsibility has not led the PLO to moderate its objective to destroy Israel, or led it to abandon its tactics of terrorism, or led it to abandon any of its purposes. Why should it when that organization has been so successful now in receiving international recognition, when it is receiving the acceptance of many states in the United Nations, and when it may be that the United Nations and Canada are prepared to allow it to enter Canada to participate in this conference? Why should it abate its demands or moderate its objectives when it is so successful in maintaining them without moderation? What incentive does it have to pursue reasonable induct if we are prepared to welcome it when it is unreasonable? There may be something to be said in international politics for successful pragmatism. This is not an argument I would like to make, but there may be something to be said for successful pragmatism. However, there is no argument to be made for unsuccessful pragmatism. That seems to me to be the policy we risk pursuing.
June 17, 1975

I would suggest, rather, that the basis of our policy in relation to recognition of the Palestinian Liberation Organization should rest on a strong foundation of moral view, one which reflects, I believe, the moral view of this government, and one that certainly reflects the moral view of the Canadian public. I urge the minister and the government in coming to a decision on this matter in the next few days to reassert our determination not to have representatives of the Palestinian Liberation Organization attend this conference.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Haidasz:: Madam Chairman, I appreciate very much this opportunity of making a few remarks during the study by the committee of the whole of the estimates of the Department of External Affairs, and to speak on this occasion on the timely and important topic of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe, now in the final stages of negotiations in Geneva.
You may recall that the Warsaw Pact countries issued at a Budapest meeting in March, 1969, a proposal to hold a conference on European security and co-operation. In June of 1970, the Warsaw Pact foreign ministers issued an invitation to the United States and Canada to take part in such a conference. In doing so, they no doubt recognized as futile any efforts to divide the western European countries from their allies across the Atlantic.
The Canadian government, as a member of NATO, is vitally concerned about the nature and outcome of this conference, as it should be. There are also many Canadians, including those who emigrated from Europe and those who have some kin or other connections or interests in Europe, who are also equally concerned about the nature and the outcome of this important conference.
To demonstrate their concern, several organizations have sent communiques and declarations to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I have in mind particularly representations made by the Canadian Polish Congress, the proclamation on detente submitted by the Czechoslovak National Association of Canada, and the general letter signed by the national presidents of the Estonian, Latvian, Lithuanian, Polish and Ukrainian Central Organizations.
Not only do these Canadians want to know from the government the progress being made at the negotiating table in Geneva, but also the Canadian government's stand on specific issues. They seek this information because there is a lack of information in the Canadian media about this conference. There appears to be a deplorable lack of adequate interest, even by the CBC. Canadians are interested in this conference and many are really concerned by the lack of up-to-date news on what is going on behind a closed door in Geneva.
As a result, these Canadian organizations have even sent, at their own expense, representatives to Geneva and to Helsinki to contact Canadian officials and find out from them what is really being negotiated. They also want to know whether this conference will end in a declaration, an agreement, a treaty or whatever else, and whether this conference will legalize the post World War II status in Europe, including the present boundaries. They want to know whether there will be any guarantees or enforce-
Business of Supply
ment of any agreements that will be reached in Geneva and how these will be carried out. They also want to know whether this conference is a worthwhile exercise, because we are spending a lot of money there, whether it is a success and whether Canada's views are being accepted.
I believe we in this House also want to get answers to these questions, and especially about the role of the Department of External Affairs in this long, tedious and costly conference. We ask whether this conference will be concluded at the summit with the heads of government attending and, if so, when and where. We also want to know why this conference was not more closely linked with the one on mutually balanced force reduction.
These are only a few of the questions posed by many Canadians, and this is why they want their views known to the government and why they have taken the trouble to send several briefs to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I hope it is not too late to take the views of the Canadian people into account before the Canadian signature is affixed to the final document. Madam Chairman, I am pleased that Canadian parliamentarians played a useful and constructive role at the Helsinki and Belgrade interparliamentary union meetings on the Conference of Security and Co-operation in Europe.
Last February I had the privilege of participating, with two of my colleagues in this House, in the Belgrade meeting which produced unanimously a final act or document which I hope is being taken into account by our diplomats in Geneva. This document stressed the importance of the Geneva conference to ensure a just and lasting peace in Europe and the role of parliaments in achieving this goal.
The Canadian delegation at the Belgrade conference was very active in four committees, namely, security, economic relations, science-culture and exchanges of persons and information, as well as further activities such as follow-up in the field of co-operation and security in Europe.
At this meeting we submitted, in particular, two draft resolutions; one on human contacts and the other on a preamble to the final act stressing the need for an adequate follow-up mechanism. The resolution on human contacts emphasized the need for prompt and significant action to promote human contacts and to solve problems of humanitarian concern, including the freer movement of people.
In the discussions we brought to the attention of the delegates the concern of many Canadians for concrete co-operation in areas of culture, religious freedom, freer movement of persons and information. We also stressed the need to strive to achieve more human justice by expediting the reunification of families. Another point we stressed was one of considerable interest to many people, namely, the need to recognize human rights and the selfdetermination of peoples. We also stressed at the Belgrade meeting the need to provide a workable follow-up mechanism to monitor and assess the progress of the final agreement on co-operation and security in Europe.
I believe Canada must do everything possible to ensure the success of this conference. We all know that the road to achieving a true system of European security and co-

June 17, 1975
Business of Supply
operation, based on mutuality of interests, will not be easy. We hear that some progress has already been made in Geneva, but we want an up-to-date report. We want to know where we are heading and what to expect. As this conference will have a great effect on the future conduct of our commerce, culture, defence, and international relations, we need to be fully informed, encouraged to state our views and reassured.


Mr. Kaplan:: Madam Chairman, I should like to use a very few minutes, with the indulgence of the Committee, to ask the minister some questions touching on Canada's role at the United Nations. They are loaded questions in the sense that they amount to representations in respect of what I think ought to be a change in Canada's policy and a change in Canada's behavior at the United Nations. One solid starting point is that Canadians always have had tremendous respect and fondness for the United Nations. We have always been prepared to give it the benefit of every doubt when we assess its performance on international activities. Canada had a very important role in founding the United Nations. We were one of the important allies responsible for the victory in World War II and looked as a nation with very considerable hope to an international structure that would prevent wars and conflicts ever occurring again. That kind of idealism and enthusiasm was reflected in the activities of leading Canadian statesmen such as Lester Pearson, Paul Martin and distinguished members of the Department of External Affairs in establishing the United Nations as something of which the world could be very proud.
The United Nations, at the beginning and even today I would say, has very much appreciated the role Canada has taken. One of the signs of our popularity at the United Nations has been our participation in the work of the security council. We have had more years of service on the security council than any other non-permanent member. By right and by priority a country would serve on the security council once in every 100 years or once in every 150 years, but Canada has served on the security council already four full terms I believe.
A favourite subject at the United Nations which has never mattered to us very much until recently is what is now popularly being called the automatic majority. The fact of the matter is there always has been an automatic majority at the United Nations. In the early years there was an automatic majority which automatically supported the positions of the United States. The United States had tremendous ascendency over most members of the United Nations and it asserted its ascendency very emphatically. Then, there was a shift from automatic support of the United States and its positions in international affairs to automatic support of the Soviet Union, the second world, to coin a phrase, and its positions. That lasted for a brief period during which Canadians and the people of the United States had their first shock when they learned the United Nations did not always see things our way. We saw the beginning of much disagreement with the automatic majority and the positions it took. One thing that could be said for the automatic majority when it supported the Soviet Union was that it reflected in some respect the real world and international affairs. It corresponded, at least 
partially, with the power structure that existed in the world.
The third shift which we are currently living with at the United Nations is that the automatic majority has come into the hands of the third world, but not so much the third world as a very large number of mini-states which are legal states but which are creatures of the United Nations in the sense they are very much dependent for their existence and survival on the United Nations. It is this group of states, very large in number, encompassing perhaps over half the members of the United Nations, which now, so far as the General Assembly is concerned, really calls the shots.
If I may call it six o'clock, Madam Chairman, I should like at eight o'clock to explain in more detail the manner in which the automatic majority is operating and how I think Canada should respond to it.


B. Keith Penner: It being six o'clock I now leave the chair until eight o'clock tonight.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The Committee resumed at 8 p.m.
Gérald Laniel: Order, please. When the committee rose at six o'clock, it was debating vote 1 of the Department of External Affairs and the hon. member for York Centre had the floor.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Chairman, when you called us to order at six o'clock, I was about to solve most of the serious problems facing the world today, and I intend to continue along those lines. I was talking about the developments which have taken place in the composition of the United Nations and in the thrust of its main concerns. I tried to make the point that there is an automatic majority at the United Nations and there has always been one, but that it has shifted in three phases since the United Nations was formed in a spirit of hopefulness and an earnest desire to establish lasting peace.
In the first phase the majority went to the support of the United States and its initiatives. In the second phase, which was a short one, the automatic majority was available to the communist countries. Now, we are facing the third phase in which the automatic majority is swollen by the inclusion of large numbers of very weak countries which have equal rights in the General Assembly with the largest countries. Their present interests are very difficult to define and to describe, but one thing that can be said about them is that the automatic majority does not really correspond to any kind of power system in world affairs. It is entirely the creation of the United Nations, and to that extent it is a block without particular vested interest. It is a block whose support cannot be predicted and which cannot be counted on.
So, what are the interests of the automatic majority? First, they have a number of their own axes to grind. They spend a great deal of their time stabbing the nineteenth century in the back, attacking the beliefs of the nine-
June 17, 1975

teenth century, and so on. In another area of activity, there is a certain exchange of ideas which one finds in the United Nations, as is normal in international affairs. One country will support you in your initiative and you will support that country in its initiative. If you see a country voting in a way that seems strange in terms of its national interest, very often the explanation simply lies in the fact that a vote in support of some interest was traded for a vote in another area.
But an important third element in explaining the way in which the automatic majority in the United Nations works is simply corruption, and that is a fact on which more and more attention, I believe, should be focused. There are more than a few countries represented at the UN whose votes are simply up for grabs. Sometimes it is a matter of making a bank deposit in the bank account of a head of state. When a delegate is sent at large with no instructions from his country, it is simply a matter, for a state which wishes to do so, of finding that man, discovering his price, and buying his country's vote. To a deplorable extent this is happening more and more at the UN, and Canada, which, as I said, looked first to the United Nations with hopefulness, must be discouraged by these developments at the United Nations.
I want to ask the minister whether he is discouraged by it, if he accepts my reading of it and, in that perspective, how does he think Canada should be behaving at present at the United Nations? It is easy to say that we go to the UN to try to make a contribution to world peace, to try to work out solutions that will lead to international stability, to contribute to economic development, to the emergence of countries from colonialism to independence and to fight racial discrimination. But what is happening at the UN now in the General Assembly is that it is a less and less balanced forum. We find it difficult to speak for the things the Canadian people want us to speak. We find it hard to stand for principles at the United Nations.
Some countries are very cynical about their position in the world. France is said to brag that it has no friends, it just has interests. That may well be true for France but it is certainly not the kind of foreign policy the Canadian people want. If you have listened to the debate in the House today, Mr. Chairman, what will strike you most of all is the altruism-in some cases quite wrong-headed, I would say-that motivates those who represent Canadians as we think about foreign policy. As I listened to my friends across the floor I was struck that the last thing they think about are Canada's national interests.
I hope the minister will take up the nuclear issue, I do not want to take my time to do it. The issue as the opposition members raised it is not a valid one. The posture of the opposition reflected the way in which the majority of Canadians think on foreign policy in general. I think Canadians want their foreign policy to put selfinterest behind a national sense of purpose. They want us to express the way Canadians feel about international affairs, not only narrow economic interests or narrow interests of one kind or another. I suggest that when we go to the UN, we should not abstain on issues on which there is a tremendous amount of feeling on the part of the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Business of Supply


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Canada's foreign policy has a lot of bipartisan support. For example, Canadians are against torture. When you say that in Canada, you sound as if you were referring to the nineteenth century, but torture is very real now in this world. At the United Nations we should not abstain on a lot of the resolutions dealing with torture as we do. We should condemn torture, whether it is practised in Brazil, Uganda or France. That is the way Canadians feel about these things. We are against terrorism, whether it is done by self-styled movements of national liberation or by fringe pirates who are exploiting international situations. We should speak out against it; we should vote against it.
We are against racial discrimination on a totally bipartisan basis, and we are not just against it on paper. We are one of the countries against it in practice, and we should say so at the United Nations. We should condemn not only racial prejudice against blacks, but we should also condemn racial prejudice against whites in countries where that takes place, and there are a number. We should condemn it against all races.
What are we for? I am not going to give a long list, but we are in favour of advancing the rights of women, free speech within countries and free expression of minorities. When we go to the United Nations, we ought to let the world know that, not only in what we say, but in the way we vote.
I want to make two observations about what I would call the bipartisan principles of the Canadian attitude to international affairs. The first is that if we followed the policy of talking the way Canadians want us to, and voting the way Canadians want us to, we would be following a policy which is quite different from the policy we are following today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Regrettably at the UN, ours is a policy of concern for our credibility, of wanting to keep our powder dry for the eventual day two or three years from now when the crunch may come and we can then call upon the support which we will have earned by current compromise.
I want to ask the minister whether he feels that we gain credibility or lose credibility by standing for something in the world. I hope he takes the position that we gain credibility. With our policy outside the United Nations I am rather content. I think that all the points we have made on a bilateral basis and in multilateral forums show that we do stand for principle. We have a policy of which Canadians can be proud, but in the UN General Assembly, where the air is polluted and where unbalanced resolutions are brought forward in the hope of catching countries off guard and in the hope of forcing them to abstain, I would say we should stop being conned. We ought to look UN issues in the face. We ought to analyze their thrust and we ought to take positions which express the way Canadians feel about these things.
I know that a great many issues have been raised in this debate, and I will not be disappointed if the minister, in the brief time he will have, will be unable to reply to the

June 17, 1975
Business of Supply
points I have raised. But I hope that on some occasion he will have an opportunity to consider the changing role of the United Nations, the present reality of the General Assembly and what kind of change is called for by a country like Canada, which is seriously willing and seriously prepared to let the politics of interest serve the politics of idealism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lawrence:: Mr. Chairman, after hearing the hon. member for St. Paul's this afternoon, I am sorely tempted to have him come over to our side and agree with us in relation to the PLO and the mealy-mouthed attitude of this government in respect of the whole issue of the PLO and the observers at the United Nations. I am also tempted, when I hear the ambitious member for York Centre, to talk about the wishy-washy attitude of this minister and this government at the United Nations and to continue in that vein, but I think there will be opportunities to discuss the PLO and the United Nations on other occasions.
I want to add my few remarks to the general thrust of the remarks which were made this afternoon by my hon. friends on this side of the House with respect to the general issue of nuclear arms and the role this government has played in the proliferation of nuclear arms in the world today. I wish to begin my remarks by making reference to two occurrences, 20 years apart, in a country which is far from here. Both of these occurrences impressed me very deeply, and I am sure they impressed a great many Canadians. In 1945 Prime Minister Nehru of India, in the tradition of Gandhi before him, proposed an end to the testing by anyone anywhere of any type of nuclear device. On May 18, 1974, just last year, at a site in the Rajasthan Desert east of New Delhi, the Indian department of atomic energy exploded a nuclear bomb-it cannot be called anything else-the yield of which was between 15 and 20 kilotons, which is approximately the same force as the bomb which was exploded over Hiroshima.
What has this to do with Canada, this department, this minister or even this government, apart altogether from what I think is a general Canadian abhorrence of nuclear weapons as instruments of mass destruction? What has it to do with us? I think it has everything to do with us because Canada supplied the original materials, the original financing, the original knowledge and the original technology. These contributions, inescapably and inevitably, led to the Indian development in that desert just over a year ago.
I do not criticize, and I do not think we on this side of the House criticize the government for assisting the nations of the world in establishing nuclear electric power generating plants. I do, however, criticize the government for a weak-kneed policing, not only of a known danger and a known potential put into the hands of those who have nuclear power plants, but also for deceiving other nations and the Canadian people into believing that adequate safeguards and inspection were utilized which would prevent this spread of nuclear arms.
In the beginning, 1956, Canada assisted in the establishment of the Canada-Indian research reactor at Trombay, India. This is a research reactor only. It produces no

power. It was, however, designed to produce approximately 10 kilograms of weapons grade plutonium. That plutonium, with Canada's knowledge, could be treated at the nearby Indian plutonium plant which was established later, in 1964. That plutonium plant in India could also process fuel rods from a nuclear power reactor. At first they had no nuclear power reactor. On November 14, 1963, Canada signed a further agreement with India for the installation of a 210 megawatt power reactor near the Rajasthan Desert. They now had, in large measure, all the necessary ingredients for a nuclear bomb. The agreement of 1963 provided for reciprocal inspection by Canada of that power reactor and, curiously, the inspection of India of the Douglas Point reactor in Ontario, here in Canada, even though India obviously had no part in the development of our Douglas Point reactor.
I do not necessarily blame India for what has happened because on October 16, 1964, China exploded a nuclear bomb. The reaction of India was swift, open, public and predictable. Before 1964 was over the then Prime Minister Shastri was calling for a guarantee to non-nuclear countries against nuclear attack.
In May of 1965 in the United Nations and in July, 1965 in Geneva, Indian representatives warned of the need for meaningful disarmament and hinted even then that India's alternative was to build the bomb herself.
In April, 1967 the Indian external affairs minister Mr. Chagla came out into the open and said that if India was not to explode its own bomb it must have, in his words, a "credible guarantee" of its own security. Of course, to this day, no such guarantee has been given.
And what of Canada during all this time? Canada, safe, snug and, I regret to say, smug under the U.S. nuclear umbrella was continuing to make great breast beating noises about the need for measures designed to limit the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the world. Canada was continually warned by Pakistan, for instance, that its Indian safeguards were no good and its inspection and control were virtually non-existent.
In October 1965, Pakistan specifically and openly stated that India was using the accumulation of plutonium from the Canadian research reactor to start an atomic arsenal some time in the future. General Burns, as Canada's representative, received many warnings and I am convinced that other Canadian government representatives also received warnings. The only move that the Canadian government made was to attempt to allay the fears of all nations by stating that India had given solemn assurances to Canada that the product of those reactors, and nuclear energy in general in India, would be used for only peaceful purposes.
These warnings woke up somebody over there and bore some fruit, because in 1971 when the present Canadian Prime Minister visited New Delhi, further assurances were sought by him on this particular matter but these assurances were never given by India. It was then too late for India to turn back. But it was not too late for Canada to turn back, Mr. Chairman. For almost ten years Canada has supplied the means, the material and the men, which directly led to that explosion in the Indian desert 13
June 17, 1975

months ago. This is a dereliction of duty and responsibility that I, for one, find very hard to swallow. With all its fine talk and public posturing the Canadian government continued with its assistance for almost a full decade after it knew for sure what India was doing. This government is as responsible for India being a nuclear weapons state today as the Indian government itself.
And what of today, Mr. Chairman? We still talk bravely about the non-proliferation of nuclear arms, but we still assist others and we plan to assist even more nations in the future by the same antiquated and ineffective means. The other day the minister talked about bilateral agreements. We had a bilateral agreement for inspection with India. I want the minister to tell us about Canadian inspection of India's power plant and India's nuclear research reactor. When did those inspections take place? It was the responsibility of Canada, not of the agency, not of the UN, not of any other international force but of Canada to inspect the nuclear power plant in India and to inspect the nuclear research reactor in India. Who did the inspection? When did they inspect? What did they inspect? What were their terms of reference? What did they do when they found that plutonium was disappearing into a research plant for obviously explosive purposes? I hope the minister is going to give us a full accounting tonight of what I hope I am incorrectly calling "ten years of Canadian failure".
The minister talked of international inspection the other day. We supposedly have international inspection now with other Canadian reactors in other places. Outside Karachi in Pakistan I along with some other members of the House, saw a CANDU reactor. I talked to Canadian and to Pakistani engineers and, on the promise not to divulge names, they told me-and I suspect they told other members-that right now international inspection is a joke among them. There is no meaningful international inspection. This is not ten years ago; this is now, one year after India exploded its bomb using Canadian technology.
If the minister is going to rely on stricter international inspection I hope that tonight he-or perhaps the Prime Minister who is talking to the Nuclear Association tonight-will detail exactly what changes are being made on the ground, and in regard to inspection of personnel, their standards, their powers, their terms of reference and most of all, what the remedy or corrective measures will be for infractions of the rules. Is this academic? Is this hypothetical? I do not think so.
Pakistan has already said-and quite frankly, why not in the face of Canada continually ignoring her problem with India-that she, too, will now be forced to acquire a nuclear capability equal to that of India. And Pakistan's only present source of plutonium is a Canadian nuclear reactor!
Some of the changes in policies which I hope the minister will announce tonight were outlined by my leader in the debate this afternoon. It is no good for Canada to try to lock the barn door after it has been blown off its hinges. It was an empty gesture last year for Canada to cut off further nuclear co-operation with India. In the face of private and public warnings we are justified in asking the minister why it was not done ten years ago and not after an explosion has taken place.
Business of Supply
Why have inspection methods and remedies for infractions of rules which have not been changed before now? If they are being changed now, what are the changes? Finally what does the minister have to report to the House on the persistent and consistent rumours that the capability of producing nuclear explosions is speading in the Far East-to India, Pakistan, Taiwan and South Korea, for instance? What about the rumour that India has traded or sold Canadian know-how to one of the Arab states?
It does not take much imagination to conjure up visions of what might happen in the present Israeli-Arab conflict if either side gained an advantage due to the acquisition of nuclear weapons. If that happens, through the Canada-India route that is rumoured, then this government is going to have a great deal more to account for to future generations.
These are matters that I hope the minister will explain tonight, Mr. Chairman. This country, and I suggest to you the whole world, Mr. Chairman, deserve some answers.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, a number of questions have been asked and a number of very important statements made in debate this afternoon and evening. I certainly welcome the comments of hon. members who have participated in debate and, in particular, those who have focused attention upon the question of non-proliferation and Canada's policies and efforts in that direction.
I must say that I welcomed the subject matter of some of the comments if not the substance of them, on a number of items. The hon. member who just took his seat raised the question of our relations with India in the field of nuclear energy. Since becoming Secretary of State for External Affairs, I have been waiting to hear comments on that important incident and development, an incident important in the nuclear field and important in our bilateral relations with India. It may not be profitable to cover all the past history of the matter, but I understand that in the days before any international inspection was properly established it was understood, certainly by Canada, that India would use nuclear materials solely for peaceful purposes. Canada restated that understanding over the years and it was restated in the correspondence to which my hon. friend referred a moment or so ago.
It was not understood-indeed, we do not accept today- that there could be a nuclear explosion for peaceful purposes. We have taken that position as a country all through the years and we restated that position at the recent conference to do with the non-proliferation treaty review. Indeed, we do not think that the technology or environmental safeguards have been developed which would provide for a peaceful nuclear explosion. So, it may be that the Indian explosion was a breach of good faith, went against the understanding we had developed in good faith. Of course, the Indians will claim vigorously that they acted within the parameters of their understanding.
At the last General Assembly I had a detailed discussion in this point with the Indian foreign minister. But, an explosion took place. It shocked our consciences in Canada, particularly as it had been made possible by a research reactor of the early days with material which had

June 17, 1975
Business of Supply
been provided by Canada. We suspended nuclear co-operation with India; it is still dead in its tracks. We have uncompleted assignments with the Indian government. We have suspended our aid program to India, with the exception of food and agriculture, and our bilateral relations with that country which had been so satisfactory over the years are now not in a normal state. But we are attempting to work out with the Indian government, through negotiations, how to get over these difficulties in our relations and achieve some mutually beneficial objectives.
Maybe it was the Indian experience or the growing feeling on the part of the people of Canada about the dangers of nuclear proliferation which prompted the government of Canada last year to undertake the extensive review of its nuclear sales policy and led to the establishment of guidelines which would be stipulated in any bilateral safeguards agreements.
In the agreements that we are presently negotiating, we are seeking to impose the strictest safeguards possible. The safeguards, first, consist of a legal commitment by the recipient country-it is a commitment made to Canada and also to the international community-that it will not divert any of the material, equipment or technology to non-peaceful purposes. Second, the safeguards consist of an inspection system or a system of accounting for fissile material, to make sure that the legal commitment is met. If it is not met, the international community would be alerted to the potential dangers of that situation. When I attended the non-proliferation treaty review conference in Geneva, the officials of that organization showed me a variety of devices and systems which could be used by the international agency and make possible the strictest inspection system that can be devised by modern technicians.
I should like to deal with some suggestions the Leader of the Opposition made time and again in his speech. Time and again he spoke about spent fuel and what Canada is doing to ensure that Canada retains a hold on spent fuel, so that its reprocessing can be prevented. Indeed, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands suggested that one of the essential elements of any system of safeguards ought to be that Canada should retain control and ownership of spent fuel which could be reprocessed and made into plutonium.
The Leader of the Opposition also said "What are you doing with other suppliers to bring about more thorough safeguards?" Canada is working vigorously. We have been one of the most active countries in bringing exporters together. Indeed, our consultations with officials of the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, the United States, France, Japan and Germany have been intensified and are laying the groundwork for future exporter co-ordination. Of course one of the objectives of such exporter consultation will probably be a system for safeguarding the conditions under which reprocessing is to take place.
The Leader of the Opposition also asked about the transfer of technology. We are negotiating with those countries with which we wish to enter into proposed sales bilateral agreements. These will cover the Canadian ownership of spent fuel, the transfer of technology and, hopefully, the retransfer of transferred technology.
[Mr. MacEachen.)
As a country, we have been active in the development of the Zanger list which involves, upon the inclusion of any item, the application of international atomic energy safeguards. We certainly have been urging other suppliers to impose NPT standards on purchasing countries over the materials and equipment they sell. We have been working actively with the exporters. We have been insisting upon the strictest possible bilateral safeguards and we have been supporting as strongly as possible the work that was conducted recently at the non-proliferation review conference.
Canada is in the vanguard of nuclear supplying countries in the development of strict bilateral safeguards and in the support of multilateral arrangements in the same direction. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition recognize the dilemma that faces a country like Canada and, indeed, the international community. At the recent non-proliferation conference, it was strongly urged, certainly by the developing countries, that nuclear technology be made available to them for the benefit of their people. That was strongly supported at the NPT conference. Likewise, it was urged that even stronger safeguards be exacted by the exporting countries.
The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands mentioned my expression that we were primarily interested in both. What I was trying to put across was that we were interested in benefitting mankind and we were interested as well in attempting to prevent proliferation of nuclear technology. It would, of course, be hypocritical for me or any other Canadian not to mention the fact that Canada has a big investment in nuclear development; we have a Canadian reactor and it is in our interests to have it used. However, I hope the primary principles will be those that have been widely espoused by the House of Commons today.
I will conclude this part of my comments by saying that with respect to South Korea, we were confronted with a dilemma. That country requires electricity desperately. It is a developing country that has experienced a fourfold increase in the price of oil. It needs sources of electrical energy. We are working on a bilateral agreement which we hope will include the items I have mentioned. It has not been concluded. Since we have begun our discussions with Korea, it has ratified the NPT treaty. I was concerned about the comments that were attributed to the president of that country. They were mentioned earlier in this debate. When I go to that country next week, I hope to seek some clarification on that statement; whether it was accurate and, if so, exactly what is the meaning.
Before I conclude, I wish to turn to one other major issue.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Chairman, before the minister leaves the nuclear arms question, I wonder whether he will permit a question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Chairman.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: As I understand it, Mr. Chairman, there are two main points in the new scheme of the minister. Number one, for the first time there will be some sort of
June 17, 1975

legally binding agreement with the recipient that he will not divert the materials or technology to non-peaceful purposes. I point out that Canada thought it had that legally binding agreement in every case in which a reactor has been granted. It has never prevented anything.
The other point is the inspection system. I hope I am not misconstruing the minister's words, but I believe he said that if the conditions laid down by Canada are not met, the remedy is that the international community will be alerted. Is there any remedy? Is there any other better inspection method? Who is going to do the inspection? Will it be the agency? Will it be Canadian people? Surely, there ought to be a better remedy than merely alerting the international community. In the case of India, the international community was alerted to what India was doing.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, a full reply to that point would take a little more time than I have at my disposal. May I say that the inspection is conducted internationally. If any country under inspection is reported to have some violation, the international community can act through the security council. The board of governors of the international agency report to the security council. The security council can consider the matter and propose whatever action it wishes. Further to that, the international community can act to withdraw the supply of materials that are required where that is appropriate or it can act to withdraw the supply of spare parts. These are the sanctions that are available, short of war, to the international community.
When discussing this question, I have never concealed that there are strong pressures and strong international sanctions that can be used. For example, in our case with Pakistan, we are the sole supplier of uranium. That is a very powerful sanction, if we wanted to use it. In other cases, a sanction may not be applied by Canada, but it could be by other suppliers. This is the only way, short of armed occupation, that you can be totally satisfied that there is no risk whatsoever. I have never suggested, and I do not think even the officers of the International Atomic Agency would suggest, and I have questioned them very closely on this, that there is a total annihilation of the risk under any system that has been devised to date.
In our own bilateral arrangements, we are extracting, under international inspection, the best safeguards. We think they are completely tight. The NPT and the exporters are moving in that direction. In the present circumstances, the best that Canada can do is to ensure that the materials which it provides are properly safeguarded and that its materials, equipment and technology will not be diverted for non-peaceful purposes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, would the minister permit a question? I do not want to take his time, but I am sure the committee would give the minister all the time he requires.


Gérald Laniel: I was about the bring to the attention of hon. members the fact that any question asked of the minister is asked in his time. His time has just expired, unless the committee wishes to give him extra time to
Business of Supply
answer questions. Is there consent to allow the minister to resume his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Chairman, I have a question regarding the suggestion I made this afternoon. I have talked to some of the scientists who worked with the International Atomic Energy Agency, and they say that the problem is not uranium but the plutonium that is in the spent uranium rods after the nuclear power has been generated. The ones I talked to think that the most effective control would be if the bilateral treaty required, first, that Canada be the sole supplier of uranium, and that Canada have control of the spent uranium rods and be able to recover the plutonium. The danger, of course, is that some countries may be lax about the disposition that is made of that plutonium. It might even be the case that a government was using it wisely but it got into the hands of terrorist groups. Has the government looked into this possibility, and if it has not, would it do so?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Chairman, I mentioned earlier the comments that the hon. gentleman had made and referred to his suggestion that Canada, in this case the supplier, should have sole ownership and control of the spent fuel, or the fuel rods, or whatever the technical expression is. We are presently negotiating to have included within our bilateral agreements a veto of control over the use of any spent fuel. We think that is an extremely important item in the agreement and we are working in that direction. It is not precisely the same idea as the hon. member's, but I think it has the same effect. If that can be achieved-and it is certainly our objective-we hope to do this not only bilaterally but multilaterally among other exporters.
I wanted to say a word about a number of the matters the hon. member for Greenwood and others raised, especially his reference to international economic development.
I think it would be unfortunate in this particular year if we failed to refer, at least in some brief words, to this whole question of international development. It is certainly a matter of gratification to me that all members of the House are now extending their interest in international development beyond the operations of the Canadian International Development Agency to cover some of the wider policy issues now under consideration throughout the world.
As hon. members may be aware, the government of Canada has undertaken, through an interdepartmental committee under the chairmanship of the undersecretary of state for external affairs, a comprehensive study of the economic relations between the developing and the developed world. I think it is a good thing that the House approved today the reference inviting the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence to examine the whole field of policy relating to international development, but particularly to focus attention upon economic relations.
This is a big question. It occupied the Commonwealth Prime Ministers to a great extent at their meeting. It occupied to a great extent the meetings of OECD and the

June 17, 1975
Business of Supply
International Energy Agency recently. The big question is: How are the industrialized or developed countries going to respond to what has been described by the developing countries, or the Third World, as the new economic order which they wish to create?
If the hon. member for York West, who spoke about the United Nations, wants my opinion as to what confidence I have in the future of the United Nations, I would simply say that the United Nations at present is more deeply influenced by this question than by any other single global issue, unless it be the conflict in the Middle East. If we want to continue constructive work at the United Nations, then the industrialized countries will have to enter into a dialogue with the developing countries on this very question.
We as a government have not accepted without reservation the analysis of the world economy which has almost become the conventional wisdom in the Third World. Neither have we accepted all of the demands and remedies put forward by developing countries, some of which, in our view, would be detrimental to international development in the long run. However, the Canadian attitude toward some rearrangement of the world economy to accelerate the economic and social transformation of the Third World has been generally sympathetic, and I hope will continue to be forthcoming.
There are some tough questions that have to be faced. The interdepartmental committee, and now the standing committee of this House, that will be conducting the review will have to deal with such questions as commercial policy, both the ways in which we participate in international trade, and the instrumentalities of our bilateral trade with developing countries. It will have to take into account also our approach to international commodity agreements, the ways and means by which Canadian technology is made available to developing countries and the framework within which Canadian enterprise can participate in the industrialization of the Third World. I am sure that it will be easier for the government to develop policies in these areas if, in conjunction with the committee's examination, members of the House of Commons also study the question.
Members of the House must be aware that most rearrangements of the economic policies which would be of benefit to developing countries will also involve some cost to the Canadian economy and the Canadian people. The question really is what costs would be considered appropriate and bearable by Canadians. I leave this question on that point. Because if we do seriously want to participate in this dialogue we have to give here and there and be ready to make some compromises and sacrifices so as to make this whole dialogue meaningful.
The hon. member for St. Paul's who spoke about the United Nations should be reassured that the dialogue is beginning, and that the special session of the United Nations General Assembly to be convened in September will give us the first real opportunity to begin that dialogue in a meaningful way. At the last general assembly it was apparent to me that while the so-called automatic majority was able to carry resolutions, and the majority did carry resolutions on the subject of the new economic order. The resolutions were not concurred in by the

minority made up of industrial countries, which, if the resolutions were to get anywhere, would in the long run have to bring about their implementation.
My hon. friend has spoken about the European conference on security and co-operation, and I am also pleased that he has focused attention on this particular subject matter. He has asked some specific questions and I am able to tell him that, since the end of May there has been a perceptible quickening in the pace of the conference, and the goal of concluding at least the negotiation stage by the end of July now seems realistic. We, as a country, have been particularly interested in making progress on the so-called "basket three" which includes a range of humanitarian questions, the reunification of families and so on. In any event, the progress has been encouraging and the human contacts and education sub-committees have almost finished their work. That is the situation at the present time. The prospects for the conference seem very good and we are hopeful that progress will continue and that there will be a balance of substantial result to this important phase of the process of detente.
The hon. member for Greenwood also raised the question of whether we intended to participate in any way in the reconstruction of Indo-China. I am happy to advise my hon. friend that I have approved just recently, within the last day or so, the contribution of $1 million to the international Red Cross, which will use that money for humanitarian purposes. In addition to that, the balance of $9 million in the form of $4 million untied grants and $5 million in food aid will be approved when the United Nations appeal is launched. We will provide this money for humanitarian reconstruction purposes under the aegis of international organizations.
On the question of the Palestinian Liberation Organization and its possible attendance at the United Nations conference in Toronto this fall, as has been stated by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration and by the Acting Prime Minister, the President of the Privy Council, this is a complicated and difficult question. Canada is not the invitee to this conference. The inviting party is the United Nations itself. When Canada undertook, sought indeed, to host this conference, it undertook the obligation of receiving those invited by the United Nations.
The question of the admissibility of any particular individuals is still a matter to be decided, but I want to assure my hon. friend, whom I thank for his words of sympathy at the beginning of his speech, that international terrorists and international terrorism is as abhorrent to me as it is to him. If he wants to refresh his memory on the speeches made at the General Assembly of the United Nations last fall, I think he will find that the strongest denunciation made against international terrorism and terrorists was made by myself when I spoke at that assembly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Canada is not opening its doors to terrorism or terrorists, and I believe the record of this government in dealing with terrorism justifies my confidence in making that statement.
June 17, 1975


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Daniel Joseph MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have listened with interest to the response of the minister to the concerns expressed by a number of members today about the dangers involved in nuclear proliferation, for it is a subject of vital concern not only to Canadians but to every person in this global village.
Our party has expressed its reservations on many occasions about the effectiveness of the government's safeguards regarding the export of nuclear materials and technology. In listening to the minister tonight and, indeed, in listening to the Prime Minister on past occasions, trying to reassure the House and the people of Canada that the government's safeguards program announced in December 1974 was sufficiently stringent to offset the dangers in the export of nuclear technology, I am reminded of the statement of Hannes Alfven, the 1970 Nobel Laureate in physics, when he said:
Fission energy advocates claim to have taken all reasonable precautions to eliminate risks-This may very well be true, but it is irrelevant. If a problem is too difficult to solve, one cannot claim that it is solved by referring to all the efforts to solve it.
The Leader of the Opposition in calling for a moratorium on the export of nuclear reactors until stricter controls have been agreed to by the six exporting nations expressed for all of us the concerns about Canada's role in increasing the danger of proliferation of nuclear power for military purposes, and, regardless of all the minister's protestations to the contrary, it does not seem to me that we have been reassured on this subject tonight. It was not until last December that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announced we would seek safeguards, but he made no mention at that time of the non-proliferation treaty, and he did not specify how complete the inspections which would be required would be.
In that statement of December 20, 1974, regarding the safeguards in respect of the sale abroad of Canadian nuclear technology, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources referred only peripherally to his earlier guidelines on uranium enrichment. While there have been many comments today about the fact that the safeguard statement was inadequate and ineffective, the government has been woefully silent as to a policy regarding the processing and export of enriched uranium, and this at a time when the processing of enriched uranium, a highly fissionable substance, a substance which cannot be used in Canada and which if processed can only be used for export, is under serious consideration in this country.
We find that uranium can be enriched from about 2 per cent up to 92 per cent. The purpose of enriching it slightly is to make it useful as a fuel for light-water nuclear reactors of the type used to supply power in the United States and many other parts of the world. When enriched above 20 per cent, however, uranium becomes a substitute for plutonium as the key component of a nuclear bomb and an extremely dangerous substance both to the environment and to human beings that come into contact with it. It is safe to say that any country with nuclear ambitions prefers the acquisition of enrichment facilities, for example, of enriched uranium with its easier adaptability to that of the CANDU reactor which uses natural uranium. Reprocessing and enrichment plants are the most logical
Business of Supply
target for attempts to divert fissionable fuels either by a government bent on joining the nuclear club or by terrorist factions. For this reason the United States government has discouraged U.S. companies from exporting reprocessing technology and has only recently been willing to share enrichment technology, and then under only closely controlled circumstances.
Germany, on the other hand, proposes to provide to Brazil the technology for a fuel fabrication plant, a chemical reprocessing plant for extracting plutonium from spent fuel and a uranium enrichment plant for concentrating the fissionable isotope uranium 235. The last two items in the German package worry arms control analysts more than anything else. And one has to ask how Brazil, given this access to enriched uranium and all the dangers inherent in its possession, will view the acquisition of a CANDU reactor by Argentina.
Concern has been expressed here today, and rightly so, about the export of our CANDU reactors to countries with little or no record of political stability. But equally, perhaps more, dangerous is the contemplation of the sale of a far more facile fissionable substance, enriched uranium, to countries which will not sign the non-proliferation treaty.
I would like to refer to the comments by my colleague, the member for Regina East, when in replying to the minister's statement on safeguards on December 20, 1974, he made this reference to enriched uranium as recorded at page 2430 of Hansard:
The reference in the minister's statement today to the policy guidelines on uranium enrichment announced August 1, 1973 is totally inadequate to meet this situation. The minister's failure to detail specifically the safeguards to be applied to the export of enriched uranium leads to the conclusion that Canada should not involve itself in the export of enriched uranium until specific policies to meet the situation have been worked out and have received the approval of parliament. That, we submit, should be the government's position. But if it is not, and if the government is prepared to go ahead and export enriched uranium from the James Bay area to a country like France-and we have heard this discussed-then it is time the Canadian people were told far more about this project than they have to date.
As the minister knows, the more uranium is enriched, the more easily it is converted into nuclear explosive. Fully enriched uranium is as dangerous and fissile as plutonium itself, the key component of a nuclear bomb. Are we going to export such a substance to a country like France which has an active program of nuclear testing and has never signed the non-proliferation treaty? In 1965, the then prime minister, Mr. Pearson, specifically refused to export natural uranium to France. How much more important is it today not to export a far more dangerous form of enriched uranium to that country without absolutely stringent guarantees that it will in no way facilitate or free up their own resources for their military program?
That is the statement that has never been answered in this House. These are the questions which were raised last December and never replied to. Neither the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources nor the Prime Minister, in response to many questions in this House, have taken the opportunity to outline clearly and succinctly the government position with regard to the export of enriched uranium. Yet such an undertaking which is being seriously considered would involve loss of scarce energy resources and diversion of our badly needed economic resources.
But these pale in comparison when viewed in the perspective of yet another potential nuclear substance,
6862

June 17, 1975
Business of Supply
enriched uranium, being exported by Canada to countries over which we would have no control concerning the ultimate use of that substance whether for peaceful or military purposes. Because of the concern of hundreds of thousands of Canadians about this project I would urge the minister of make clear the government's position on enriched uranium. I would urge him to reassure the House and the country that we will not be entering into another potential means of nuclear proliferation.


John R. Rodriguez: Madam Chairman, I was most delighted to hear the minister refer to his interest in helping mankind. That was the reason we got into this business of selling CANDU reactors. The idea was to help Third World countries develop alternate sources of energy rather than use their few precious reserves to buy oil. That has always struck me as rather strange. Sometimes I wonder about the kind of roles we play and the kind of things we say in this House and in bodies such as the United Nations when I see the way in which we perform.
I should like to leave the minister with a question which I hope at some time in this debate he will be good enough to answer. He is very interested in helping mankind in the technological field. That is very admirable, but we cannot escape the fact that our record with regard to Southwest Africa, and specifically Namibia, is not one of which we should be proud. The United Nations has taken a very firm position with regard to South Africa turning over Namibia to Namibians. There is the trusteeship of the United Nations which we support, and we want to help Third World countries develop. We want to help Namibia.
However, we have the most despicable situation in which South Africa has refused to hand over the resources of Namibia to the trusteeship of the United Nations. Canada supported that position by its very admirable conduct at the United nations and by the speeches of our representatives, but now can we put some action to those words? One of the ways to do so would be to come to grips with the situation in respect of the Falconbridge Nickel Mines. Falconbridge Nickel Mines is one of Canada's most powerful multinational corporations. Indeed, it is not a Canadian multinational corporation because it is owned by a very wealthy foreign company. However, it operates out of Canada using Canada as its home base. Falconbridge operates in Namibia. It uses native workers. It does not develop the skills of those workers so that in the future they would be able to take over the operation of Falconbridge. These people are used as indentured workers. They are returned to their compounds after they have been used.
Falconbridge's record is clear to the world, and the minister is well aware of it. And yet, Falconbridge in Namibia is permitted to write-off from their federal income tax in Canada whatever royalties or taxes they pay to the South African government. I do not ask the minister to interfere in the internal operations of South Africa with regard to Falconbridge, but surely if we are concerned about the developing countries we have a responsibility to say to Falconbridge, "Henceforth you will not be permitted to write-off the taxes and royalties or any other payments to the South African government for the operation

on Namibian lands". That is action, Madam Chairman, not pussyfooting around saying we cannot interfere in the internal workings of a country. Canada is before the world a partner in Falconbridge's rip-off of the Namibian people, of the South West Africans. Surely, when we talk about some kind of relevance in the developing world, and when we make all our great speeches on helping these countries develop, we must come to grips with that problem. The minister must answer why it is we cannot tell Falconbridge in Namibia that they are not permitted to write-off, under section 6 of the Income Tax Act, any royalties or taxes paid to the South African government.
The second question I would like to ask concerns a matter that is of great interest to me. We are in the process of selling a CANDU reactor to Argentina. I could understand it if Argentina were a struggling third world country and we tried to help them develop their technology for alternate sources of energy, but in light of what has been taking place in Argentina we know the situation there is not stable. The situation there is pretty volatile, with extreme right wing elements and extreme left wing elements knocking each other off. Every night we hear that four people were killed there and three people were killed in another place. An extremely volatile political situation exists there at present. And what are we doing? We are putting into the hands of Isabel Peron the means by which in the future, whoever takes over that government, would say to Canada, "Get out, you have no jurisdiction here".
Madam Chairman, these are questions that create a great doubt in my mind. When we say we are so concerned about helping mankind, are we really trying to help mankind or are we trying to do what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce said in the discussion on Bill C-9 earlier this year in the finance committee? He said, let us not forget that when selling these CANDU reactors we have to make bucks for Canada. That is what the name of the game is, it is making bucks. If we can sell a CANDU reactor for $600 million, by George, we will even help finance it. The name of the game is making bucks.
What I really wanted to say is that we should take a look at the whole situation of aid to see how Canada deals with Third World developing countries in providing aid. In the past few years, there have been a variety of scandals concerning CIDA's aid program reported in the press: money expended for railroads that do not exist, sewer systems that do not work, and so on. Such scandals provide the media with tomorrow's story, but such administrative oversights prevent us from understanding why the gap between rich and poor is growing. What needs.to be questioned is the whole structure, the organization and the ideology upon which the present Canadian aid program has been built. In fact, the present aid programs are designed quite consciously to prevent the less developed countries from developing self-reliant socio-economic societies. But what can we expect from a country which is itself dominated by the United States? Of course, we need to scrutinize CIDA and Canadian participation in various international banks as well as the International Monetary Fund, of which the Minister of Finance is currently the chairman.
The bulk of Canadian aid, for example, is channelled through the bilateral division of CIDA. Although there is
June 17, 1975

some possibility of change, bilateral funds are tied to the purchase of Canadian goods to the tune of at least 80 per cent. Bilateral aid accounts for about 60 per cent to 70 per cent of CIDA's budget, multilateral aid accounts for another 20 per cent to 30 per cent, and the non-governmental organization division accounts for another 10 per cent. Yet CIDA quite consciously overpublicizes the non-governmental organization division, that is the international charities and the churches, no doubt to give CIDA-type aid a good name.
The question at issue is the effect of the kind of aid that Canada among others in the west has been supplying to the Third World: what we find is that the effect of aid over the past 20 years has been to tie the Third World countries into the west's economic system so tightly that in general the non-communist Third World finds itself in a progressively deteriorating position.
The effects of inflation have, of course, been devastating, but inflation is not a new thing to many Third World countries. In the mid-sixties Brazil, for example, was experiencing inflation rates of 45 per cent to 60 per cent a year. In fact the only hope in the present international economic crisis is that it may provide real opportunities for Third World countries to develop self-reliance. In the period between 1950 to the end of 1973, we find that prices for Canadian exports such as zinc ore increased 350 per cent; nickel, 250 per cent; lumber, 215 per cent; wheat, 160 per cent; whereas the export price increase of such Third World commodities as bauxite is only 76 per cent. Even sugar increased only 73.4 per cent; coffee only 44.2 per cent and tea decreased 24.8 per cent.
Moreover, when you look at the percentage change in real purchasing power in terms of manufactured goods, we find in every one of these cases but bauxite a real decline in purchasing power. The present economic crisis has forced the west to at least pay attention to the ridiculous situation where Third World countries which had been receiving so-called aid found that the debt service as a percentage of gross lending ranged from 40 per cent to 87 per cent in 1967. How has this situation arisen?
The international monetary and banking institutions and their operating philosophies developed in the period after World War II and are a direct consequence of the depression. In essence, they were attempts to gain back for large capitalist trading nations economic supremacy in the non-western world, that is control of the resources and markets. The depression dealt a fatal blow to the gold standard. After the war, the major trading nations, especially the U.S. which just prior to the depression had begun to challenge the U.K. for domination of world trade, tried to devise institutions which would reconcile bo*h the exchange rate stability of the gold standard and the insistence of nation states on managing their own economies so as to minimize the possibilities of depression and unemployment, that is to internationalize Keynesian economics. The system was fashioned at Bretton-Woods in 1944; it was to be enforced by the IMF and was called the par value system of fixed but adjustable exchange rates.
The ideology of the IMF and its sister institution, the World Bank, is one of economic liberalism. The dominant force was and still is the U.S.-Canada, as in the case of the duplicity that led to the fall of Allende, just tags along,
Business of Supply
picking up a trade crumb here and an export dollar there. The IMF's philosophy calls for the widest possible freedom of play for market forces and frowns on any kind of government intervention such as price subsidies, rationing, protection of domestic industries. These are seen as distortions of the free market relations.
Consider some of the major features of the IMF's so-called stabilization program: First, abolition or liberalization of foreign exchange and import controls; second, domestic anti-inflationary programs, including: (a) control of government deficit; curbs on spending; increases in taxes and in prices charged by public enterprises; abolition of consumer subsidies; (b) control of wage rises, so far as is within the government's power; (c) dismantling of price controls; third, greater hospitality to foreign investment. Does that sound familiar, Madam Chairman?
The IMF policy of development, along with that of the various international banks, supports the internationalizing of Third World economies. Because local capital is used to finance the projects of international corporations such as Falconbridge, many Third World countries find it difficult, given cash shortages, to develop local substitutes to western imports. This leads to a circular process of dependency. An example of such dependency can be seen in the case of Chile, which was highly dependent upon food imports. Yet Chile has a potential agricultural productivity comparable to that of California. Canada helped prevent Chile from renegotiating loans which had been taken on by the previous administration. The distortions such economic dependencies cause prevent the development of industries which would appear to be natural to many areas of the Third World.
An example of what internationalization does for a Third World country could be seen in Mozambique prior to its liberation. Thousands of acres of fertile land were used to grow coffee for export, yet people in these areas were suffering from malnutrition. Moreover, a variant of this theme was put forward by agribusiness at the food conference. The large agribusiness corporations assured the conference that they could supply the needs of the Third World. Many of the products they can supply will, of course, be supplied from the west and hence use up valuable foreign exchange and prevent the development of locally-produced import substitutes. Moreover, to pay for these imports, countries must build up foreign reserves. To do this they must encourage the growth of cash crops and other crude exports, in many cases at the expense of feeding their populations. Yet even after making the sacrifice of malnutrition, export earnings never seem to match the value of western imports needed to run the kind of economy of which such countries as Canada approve.
If this were not enough, two other but related factors exacerbate the problems of the Third World. First, increasing foreign ownership by multinational corporations goes hand in hand with the liberalization of imports and exchange controls. Second, the role aid plays in Third World economies is clearly aimed at maintaining Third World dependency. The economic advice given western financial institutions, upon whose boards Canada sits, is quite clearly deflationary in nature. Liberalization of exchange and import controls means simply the disman-
6864

June 17, 1975
Business of Supply
tling of devices which were originally instituted to save foreign exchange. Such controls allow local leaders to decide what are necessities and what are luxuries. In fact, this requirement is a basic objective of the IMF. It results inevitably in an increased shortage of these funds in Third World countries.
World financial institutions, along with the Canadian government, try to promote the international flow of trade and investment and oppose modes of development which restrict this flow. Liberalization of trade and foreign investment, combined with the deflationary aspects of the IMF's rules, benefit the foreign-owned firms which are dependent on foreign imports imported from other branches of the same multinational corporations.
If, for example, foreign exchange for imports were severely controlled, that is, in order to encourage the development of local substitutes, then foreign-owned factories might have to cut down their production or seek local substitutes. Most multinational corporations prefer intracorporate trade because they are then free to set the prices and hence can transfer the profits from one country to another in the guise of payments for imports.
The recessionary conditions which trade liberalization causes lead to a situation where many Third World companies must either curtail operations and lay off workers or actually cease operating, that is, through bankruptcy. In other words, they become ripe for takeover by foreign companies at bargain basement prices. Although the means are different in Canada, the pattern of takeover is the same. And, as in Canada, these corporations usually finance takeovers by borrowing from local banks. Because of their size and wealth, local banks are assured that their money is safe, and hence prefer to lend money to multinationals rather than to .local companies. A trade liberalization program leads to foreign takeovers, the inability to develop local substitutes to foreign imports and shortages of foreign exchange. The latter is, of course, crucial. Without this, payments for the liberalized trade policies cannot be met. Enter foreign aid.
In fact, foreign aid is not a very accurate term. It conjures up the notion of gifts to Third World countries. The term "aid", as it has developed since World War II, means any international financial transaction, all the way from an outright grant to a loan at just below the going commercial interest'rates. The loans sections of aid programs make up the largest percentage of CIDA's bilateral and multilateral aid programs. The purpose of aid, remember, is to support development which leads to the promotion of international flow of trade and investment. Aid, in fact, is seen by IMF, international banks and aid agencies such as CIDA as a means for balancing the budgets of underveloped economies.
For example, an article from Finance and Development, an IMF publication, states the following:
For, unlike the post-war aid received by European countries, aid to developing countries constitutes a continuous source of financing. In general, therefore, the recipient countries are not expected to adjust their balance of payments to do without the aid as were the European countries during the immediate post-war period.
Foreign debt then becomes the sequel to foreign aid. If market forces are allowed free play, then all manner of imports may be brought into a country without any rela-
tionship to the actual needs of that country. Some Third World countries have experimented with multiple exchange rates, that is, one rate would be used for needed items and a higher one for luxury items. Such a system acts in the same way as a tax subsidy does. Such policies obviously interfere with trade, and hence are anathema to so-called free enterprise countries such as Canada. What is forgotten, however, is that most of these funds must be paid back at a later date. The importance of aid and foreign investment depends upon the degree of development a country has attained. The more developed, the more important foreign investment becomes, and vice versa.
Typically, then, aid is given for the purpose of financing such liberalized import policies, to pay for Canadian-tied aid. Such a policy not only builds up an ever-increasing debt, but also restricts the ability of the country to use its foreign reserves to import only the goods and services it actually needs and to develop locally-produced import substitutes.
A final consequence of this economic system which has developed, and of which foreign aid, as presently constituted, is an integral part, is the tendency for many Third World governments to suffer the consequences of rightist military coups. Much space is usually devoted to explain that dictatorships are the result of the democratic unpreparedness of many Third World countries, but such simplistic theories ignore the reality of world power.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but the time allot-ed to him has expired.


Mr. Dupras:: Madam Chairman, naturally I would have liked to have a little more time to discuss our external affairs, but due to the generosity of the previous speaker, I will have to do so in five minutes.
Just the same I would like to say first how eager the members of the Committee on External Affairs were when they received the terms of reference authorizing them to consider the international aid programm of the Canadian government. I wonder if at this stage the minister would be willing, for example, to consider the establishment of a subcommittee of the Committee on External Affairs to attend the beginning of the 6th or 7th special session of the United Nations, before its regular session. That session will certainly deal with the new economic order and the members of that subcommittee could benefit from the contribution of participating countries. The Department of External Affairs is extremely successful if one considers its operations or activities during 1974. For instance, Canada will take part in the 6th special session of the UN General Assembly.
There was also the World Population Conference in Bucharest where the Canadian delegation distinguished itself particularly. Before that, there was the Conference on the Law of the Sea at Caracas, at which the Canadian delegation assumed a special role by taking the lead in matters dealing with territorial waters. Shortly after, and once again, the officials of the department and Canadian delegates distinguished themselves at the Food Conference held in Rome, in October and November of 1974.
June 17, 1975

Finally, the last conference in Geneva, to continue the conference already under way at Caracas on the law of the sea.
Our country's influence and prestige were also evident within the Commonwealth. As you know, the conference held in the Caribbeans last March dealt mainly with the new economic order, and the Prime Minister took this opportunity to reassure other Caribbean Commonwealth member countries about Canada's intentions in numerous fields, especially that of the non-proliferation of nuclear arms, and on other subjects that have as much importance for those developing countries.
Finally, we also witnessed the European Economic Community giving us a place within its organization. Canada, which was already a member of the European military community and, in a certain way, of the European political community, was given an increasingly important place by these communities so that our country had closer ties with the European Economic Community and could thus benefit from the advantage for us of having a foothold, so to speak, a prominent place within the European community.
The Department of External Affairs also excelled in other areas, due to the typical sense of duty of public servants.
Before I conclude these unfortunately too brief remarks, I would refer to the theme I wanted to stress. I wonder whether we should not turn to latin America. Canada is woefully absent from Latin America, which is difficult to explain and rationalize. There is a role for Canadians, for Canada to play, in order to normalize relations with OAS member states, and also help developing countries which are increasingly turning to us for assistance. Madam Chairman, I see it is 9:45 p.m.


B. Keith Penner: Order, please. It being 9:45, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 58(9)(a), to interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

Shall External Affairs-Vote 1 carry?


[Stage Direction]
Item agreed to.
B. Keith Penner: Shall I report the resolution?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Resolution reported and concurred in.


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Mitchell William Sharp: Madam Speaker, on previous occasions at this time it has been agreed that there should be an opportunity to raise a point of grievance. As far as we on this side are concerned, we agree to this again this evening, so long as the usual procedure is followed that only half the time be taken in the expression of the grievance.
Grievance


EFFECT OF BILINGUAL POLICY ON TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES
Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to raise a matter which I raised when the estimates of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) were before the House on May 9. That was the problem created in the Public Service of this country with respect to the implementation of the policy of bilingualism as it affects term or casual employees. This is a very important question and has affected a great number of public servants. At that time I said to the President of the Treasury Board that I felt the policy which had been enunciated just a day or so before was discriminatory and unfair to unilingual Canadians.
I said that on the basis that the policy as announced indicated that before any person could be appointed as a casual employee to a position designated bilingual in the Public Service of Canada, that person had to be bilingual at the outset. No language training is provided for term employees. There are a number of term employees who wish that language training could be provided, but apparently that is not the case. Given the failure of language training and given this new rule of implementation that those employees must be bilingual at the outset, it comes to my attention that a large number of Canadians through an accident of birth and geography, are denied casual or term employment in the Public Service.
I raise this grievance because I truly believe it is discriminatory. I raise this grievance because I want the government to consider the inequity of this position. I raise this grievance because in the Department of National Revenue approximately 2,000 casual employees are affected by this policy. In so far as they are concerned, they have had some relief but I emphasize the quote "some" because the evil day has merely been put off for them until some event, perhaps two or three years distant takes place. This applies to many other departments which do not even have the benefit of that paltry order, and I would respectfully suggest that it is to that problem the attention of the government ought to be addressed.
I hesitated to raise this grievance, but it has been submitted to me and many other members by petition. I hope that members on both sides of the House will consider the position of persons who, by the accident of birth, geography and environment, cannot now qualify even as a term or casual employee in the public service of their country.
I raised this matter before and I feel compelled to raise it again because all parties supported the principles of the Official Languages Act. In so far as this small group of Canadians is concerned-a group that will probably grow-I cannot believe that it was ever meant they would be discriminated against in terms of service with the government on a casual basis. I hope that, as a result of raising this matter, there will be some indication that it will be reviewed by the President of the Treasury Board. I believe it is important.
There is a great danger in this whole matter of improper implementation-not wrong principle but improper implementation. I think it is important to the fabric of our country that we jealously guard the propriety of the implementation of this very important policy which is supported in principle by all parties. The difficulty does not lie with the policy, but with its practical implementa-

June 17, 1975
Grievance
tion in the public service. I earnestly hope that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) will consider this situation and consult the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) about it, with a view to seeing that persons casually employed by the public service will not be denied the right to employment in the public service of their own country. I am concerned about that aspect.
Let me repeat my request. I ask the President of the Treasury Board to consult with his colleagues to see whether this inequity-potential for some and real for others-cannot be corrected. Surely, the inequitable order could be revoked as easily as it was put through in the first place. Surely, we can help those who wish to work for the public service of this country in that way.


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: On the same subject, Madam Speaker, I think the hon. member who spoke before me should explain that the French-speaking community still has the main grievances. Indeed, when one looks at positions in the federal public service, one realizes that the great majority have been classified as English unilingual, and in a far greater proportion than that of the anglophone population, and conversely, when it comes to Francophones who represent more than or almost 30 per cent of the Canadian population, the percentage of positions in the public service that have been designated as French unilingual is not 30 per cent.
I would also like to remind the hon. member that according to the statistics submitted by the Public Service Commission for a number of years, Francophones are underrepresented in the federal public service, at all levels, in all departments and at every level in every department. And when the hon. member talks about discrimination, I would like to remind him that today the working language in most departments, agencies and institutions of the federal government is still English and English exclusively, and if there is a group against which the current policy of the government discriminates, it is Francophones. I quite agree with the hon. member that one must not look to the past.

We should not look to the past; we should look to the future. I was happy to hear the hon. member agree to the principle on which the policy is based. It is encouraging to note that most members of this House support the policy. It can be expressed in another way. It is a policy for national unity. For me, bilingualism is one means of achieving and strengthening national unity; it is a means of making sure that all Canadians feel at home in Canada, that they all feel the central government represents them, that the whole country is theirs, and that they need not retreat to one province.
We should examine the program from all aspects. Usually, after people have been hired for temporary employment in the public service, they end up obtaining permanent jobs in the public service. When they enter the competition, the knowledge and experience they gained on the job while working temporarily stands them in good stead; so the odds of their getting the job are high.


I think, Madam Speaker, that in the main the implementation of that policy may cause problems but in my opinion we must admit that altogether it is the French-speaking community which is mainly entitled to complain. As a matter of fact, the report of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism as well as the annual reports of the Commissioner of Official Languages, who incidentally is doing a marvellous job, show abundantly that it is indeed against the French-speaking community that the current policy discriminates.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member raised a point which is of concern in the national capital region. I believe it relates to term and temporary employees in supervisory positions. Those who are appointed to term or temporary supervisory positions are, according to a recent Treasury Board interpretation, required to be bilingual. The employees of whom the hon. member spoke, supervisory employees of the Department of National Revenue who have been, in many cases, called back year after year in a temporary supervisory capacity to do work connected with the preparation of income tax returns, constitute a special case. This matter was brought to the attention of the minister and Treasury Board. As the hon. member who raised the grievance pointed out, an order was issued to exclude those temporary employees from the operation of the policy. I have taken this matter up with the President of the Treasury Board and other public officials and there is a review taking place in the national capital region involving other employees who are in similar positions.
One of the inequities of the situation I suggest is this: those employees are not given priority for language training. They will not be accepted for language training although in many cases they have come back every year for the past 15 or 20 years to do the same kind of work. They have taken a temporary appointment which does not last the whole year and does not lead to permanent employment in the department. Because there is a lack of facilities for language training in the language school and because these employees constitute a special case, Treasury Board is currently reviewing the matter. I am sure the hon. member will wait, as will others representing the national capital region, for modifications in policy and developments which will deal with this special situation.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
June 17, 1975

Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Madam Speaker, a few days ago I asked the minister responsible for our national parks a question. It was prompted by representations made by people living in the towns and villages of my constituency and concerned the new fee schedule which has been posted for the national parks. Of course, this question had been raised indirectly a little while before I asked it; it was raised in the grievance period, following committee of supply proceedings similar to those of today.
At that time the minister replied by saying that the new policy is designed to have the users pay for the parks; he quoted a figure. As I recall, he said that 5 per cent of all Canadians used the parks. That figure may sound good; it may sound plausible, but if one examines it one will see it is fallacious, because there are no large national parks close to the large population centres of Ontario and Quebec. On the other hand, in British Columbia, some national parks straddle the Trans-Canada highway and I suggest that park users in British Columbia constitute a far larger proportion of the population than 5 per cent, a proportion larger probably than that of any province except Alberta, which is in the same position as British Columbia. Therefore, some of the problems in British Columbia and Alberta are different from those in the rest of the country.
The people who write to me are particularly concerned about the complicated and impractical fee schedule. I do not know what will happen when the summer traffic of July and August hits the national parks gates of Alberta and British Columbia, especially the gates of parks which straddle the Trans-Canada highway. Every car which approaches the park gate will be confronted with six choices, six options, and the people in the car will need to decide, almost instantaneously which of the six choices to make. They must decide whether to go right through or whether to stay one, two, three, four or five days and get a ticket for all national parks for the whole year. It will not be easy to sort out that traffic. I suspect there will be trouble at the gates. There will be increased trouble when the summer flow of traffic builds up. I understand the honour system has already been abandoned. When it was suggested that it would be used, I did not feel it would last a week, I gather it hardly lasted that long.
The other thing about it is that it could well be disastrous to established businesses inside the parks. These people are not consulted when the rules of the game are changed significantly for them. I have received representations, which I have sent to the minister, which indicate that business has dropped off very sharply. I feel the move was made without a clear appreciation of the community nature some of the businesses inside the park have for towns that are a considerable distance outside the park in British Columbia. Meetings of the Invermere-Windermere chamber of commerce are frequently held at the lodge at Radium, inside the park. It serves the role of a community gathering place. With the new fee schedule, every time a person attends each of perhaps five meetings, there is an
Adjournment Debate
extra charge that was not there previously because the definition of a user of park facilities is very narrow. If a meeting of the chamber of commerce is held inside the park, those people who would normally simply attend would now become users of a park facility and liable to the extra fee.
I have had representations from the Invermere-Winder-mere chamber of commerce suggesting that if the fee had to be increased, and realizing the inflationary pressures, it would have been far better to set it at a straight $5. That would not have necessitated the complicated policing that will be necessary. It would have saved the confusion at the gates and would probably not have had as detrimental an effect on those businesses that are established in the park.
The minister suggested he will try this for a year. I suggest that some of the businesses within the national park could be in considerable trouble if there is no relief and no change. The traffic on the Trans-Canada highway will be badly snarled if there is no provision to review the whole situation before a year.


Mrs. Iona Campagnolo (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, the minister has to date received only one letter from the Radium-Windermere area of British Columbia concerning alleged decline of business in an operation in Kootenay National Park. This will be answered in the next few days.
The new schedule of park fees was introduced as of April 1. The combined visitation to the park in 1975 for April-May has been below the recorded visitation in 1974 for the same period. Park officers indicate, however, that much of this has been due to the Easter holiday occurring in March this year and because of poor weather during both months.
Park officers indicate that operation of the entranceway at Kootenay National Park is posing no special problems as a result of the new fee schedule. This is particularly so now that through traffic on the Banff-Windermere highway, which has free passage, is identified by through passes which are temporarily affixed to vehicles.
The intention, of course, is to collect a park fee only from those people who intend to stop and use the park and the facilities in it. Though Kootenay park has posed no special problems, it can be said that fees application in all national parks will be reviewed after the summer season to endeavour to correct any anomalies that may be identified during the main operating season.
I should like to assure the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston), as a person who has enjoyed swimming in Aquacourt at Radium and the various facilities in that area, that confusions and troubles at the gate are not our goal. We seek better parks through public participation, by ordinary people making their acceptable contributions to that park's upgrading program by their monetary contribution when they are in the park.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-POSSIBILITY OF TASK FORCE TO STUDY WAGE POLICY IN ATLANTIC REGION
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Madam Speaker, the question that I raised in the House

June 17, 1975
Adjournment Debate
yesterday requesting an in-depth study of the federal wage policy as it affects all federal workers in the Atlantic region seems to me, and to most members from that area, a reasonable request. In fact, given the vague and ambiguous answers offered by the minister in charge of DREE, as well as the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien), as a rationale for the present policy, we feel that it is imperative to get such a study.
We are fed up with being reminded by the President of the Treasury Board that "for a number of occupational groups in the public service, a regional approach to rates of pay has been in effect for many years". The fact that a wage policy is an old one is not sufficient for it to be considered a valid or equitable one. We are also tired of being told, as the DREE minister told me in May, 1975 in hearings before the Standing Committee on Regional Economic Expansion, that "it is not just the federal government that has regional rates".
I would remind the minister that when the present minister of external affairs took over the labour portfolio, one of the first things he did was to raise the federal minimum wage above that then granted by provincial jurisdictions because, as he said then, the federal government has to give leadership in this field. Giving leadership when it comes to justice for blue collar workers and others in the Atlantic region seems to be the last thing on the minds of the treasury board decision-makers.
The facts are these, Madam Speaker. Fact No. 1-Disparity exists in wages paid to federal employees in different regions of Canada. Fact No. 2-The Department of Regional Economic Expansion was set up in 1969 to help close the income gap that exists between different regions of Canada. Fact No. 3-Many federally employed public servants in Atlantic Canada receive less, indeed much less, than do their counterparts in other regions. Fact No. 4- These federal wage disparities exist even though federal income taxes are paid on an equal basis in all regions of Canada. Fact No. 5-It takes the same effort, mental and physical, to do the same job within the federal service wherever the worker is employed in Canada. Fact No. 6- The present high cost of living is, if anything, higher in the Atlantic region. Fact No. 7-The recent increase in pay of members of parliament was the same all across Canada, on the basis of equal pay for equal work. Fact No. 8-The recent increase in judges' pay was the same all across Canada.
However, when it comes to blue collar jobs in the federal sector of the Atlantic region, the equal pay for equal work principle goes out the window. There is an annual difference of some $4,306 a year for a certain class of electrician in the federal government service if that person works in Vancouver rather than Sydney or Halifax, Nova Scotia. Federal government carpenters get $6.42 in Toronto and $5.23 in Halifax and Moncton. There is rank discrimination when we consider that the federal government as an employer pays an unskilled labourer $4.80 in Vancouver but only $3.82 in New Brunswick. Hospital workers, janitors, general labour and tradesmen and many other categories of people are also affected in a similar manner.
In an answer given in May, 1975 to the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) concerning the

total annual cost of regional rate elimination for all government employees, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) estimated that it would cost about $79 million. If we accept that figure as fairly accurate, then, of course, it would be reduced by the amount of all forms of taxes, direct and indirect, which are paid to all levels of government.
The multiplier effect of such an expenditure, even correcting for losses from such an income stream through personal savings, taxes and buying of imported goods, would have a significant effect on the growth of income in the Atlantic region. In any case, all we are requesting is an in-depth, comprehensive and detailed study of this federal wage policy. What we are getting as answers to our concerns are glib general rationalizations which are traditionally vague. The time is overdue for such an objective study, because it should be clear to everybody that the present policy promotes jealousy and regional disparity, and does nothing for the unity of this country.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has outlined numerous reasons why he would like to see an additional appraisal or study of the present wage policy of the federal government. He suggests that this study should concern itself, and I would like to quote him, "as it affects all federal workers in the Atlantic region".
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Jamieson) discussed with hon. members in the standing committee the efforts which DREE and other federal departments are undertaking to lessen income disparities across Canada. He also referred to the practical problems of coming to grips with the application of so-called national pay scales, which include important implications not only for the federal government but also for other levels of government as well as the private sector and unions.
I can go no further this evening than to reassure the hon. member, as the minister has done, that the government is very much aware of the need to lessen income disparities across the country. Numerous departments, including DREE and manpower, are involved in this fight, and the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) has indicated that his officers are keeping abreast of changing circumstances within the public service.


INDIAN AFFAIRS-LACK OF NATIVES IN SENIOR POSITIONS IN DEPARTMENT-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Madam Speaker, I rise tonight to deal with a question I asked the minister with reference to the number of Indian people who hold decision-making positions in the higher echelons within his department. The history of our country is not a proud one. It is not a history which is honourable. We have not treated our first Canadians in an honourable way or in a way in which I, as a Canadian, can look at with any amount of pride. As a matter of fact, it is a history that has blackened our nation.
Our policies hitherto have been steeped in ethno-cen-tricity and served white superiority. Our history is a
June 17, 1975

dismal record of two peoples in co-habitation in this country. I have a vision of the day when our Indian people will walk with us side by side with a pride their forefathers once had, but that will not be accomplished by an attitude on the part of the department that asks: What can we do for them? No, it will be accomplished by a department that allows the native people to do for themselves.
By the minister's own admission, his department has made mistakes. I quote from Hansard of June 12 at page 6695 where the minister is reported as having said:
Certainly there will be mistakes made. Lord knows, we have made more than our share.
Such true words come right from the minister himself. He goes on to state, as reported in the same page of Hansard:
We are quite prepared, with proper guidelines, to turn over to the Indian people as much responsibility for their affairs as possible. As far as I am concerned, that is a fundamental cornerstone of our policy, whether it is the management of funds or running the various other aspects that apply directly to their lives. We feel strongly that that should be the thrust.
Madam Speaker, here we have a minister who says it is his desire to have the department managed to the greatest possible degree by the native Canadians, the Indian people, in line with the thought of the native people having self-determination and who then contradicts that by the most blatant examples of inaction. I speak particularly of inaction in appointing native people to the decision-making positions within his department. I should like the minister to name for me five positions in Ottawa, referred to as the higher echelon of his department, which have been filled by Indian persons. That might be too difficult for him to do, so I shall ask him to name four or three or two. I challenge the minister to name one single solitary position in the higher echelons that is filled by a native Canadian. He cannot do that because there is not one position filled by an Indian person.
On June 13, when I asked the minister when he intends to appoint to one of these hundreds of positions a native Canadian he replied, as recorded at page 6732 of Hansard for June 13:
Mr. Speaker, I have some thoughts in these areas and am currently pursuing them with my colleagues in cabinet.
The minister says he has some thoughts in these areas. I should think after 100 years of bungling and making the kinds of mistakes that have been made he should have more than thoughts. He should be able to give me some names. He should have some responsible leaders in this country administering the policies which hitherto have been anything but in line with the concept of self-determination. I believe we, the white people, are responsible for turning our reserves into ghettos of poverty. We the white people, have stripped the native people of their pride. We have made them beggars in their own land. If the minister adopted this method of appointing native people and involving them in decision-making roles this would give us an opportunity to demonstrate our faith in the ability of the Indian people to run their own affairs. It is not that they demand respect, but rather that they are worthy of it.


Iona Campagnolo: Adjournment Debate
Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the hon. member took less than his allotted time because the amount of work which has been done in this field is so great I should like, if possible, to take longer than the regular time. I shall begin by saying that in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, for example, at the end of December, 1974 there were a total of 1,188 Innuit and Indian employees. This represents approximately 13 per cent of the department's total manpower. In addition there were 362 casual or term native employees. Of the total, two native employees were in the executive category while more than 300 were in responsible positions in the administrative and foreign service, scientific and professional categories. The balance were employed in technical, administrative support and operational categories.
The hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway) spoke about my minister during the last 100 years. While he is a relatively youthful man, I do not think 100 years would really do him justice. The honesty of the minister I have the honour to represent is unquestioned, and if he says he had some doubt about the efficiency of the program I think the hon. member should be honoured to receive those remarks in this House.
The employment of native people in the public service, in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and in the private sector is a high priority that is being pursued conscientiously and vigorously by the department.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Name them.


Iona Campagnolo: I named 1,188. I also named two who are in executive capacities. However, the hon. member may not be interested in these facts I am attempting to give him. We recognize that native people are significantly under-represented in the labour force. We know that this is the combined result of their socio-economically disadvantaged position and the consequent inability to compete on equal terms with non-Indian workers as well as a reluctance on the part of some to move into the wage-earning economy.
The department has a large number of programs aimed at dealing with this problem both directly and indirectly. In general, the economic development activities that the Indian and Eskimo affairs and northern programs undertake through various loans and grants are aimed at generating employment opportunities for the native people. The department has a wide range of educational and vocational training programs that are designed to enable the Indian people to acquire qualifications appropriate to their participation in the labour market. I do not believe it is stretching the point to say that the largest proportion of the department's budget is directed towards improving the economic situation of the native people.
But in addition to general economic development program which create jobs for the native people, the department has various specific programs designed to come to grips with particular employment problems.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.23 p.m.
6871

Wednesday, June 18, 1975