1976-12-22

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I am seeking consent to rise under Standing Order 43. It is not usual for a minister to do this, but in view of the special circumstances that prevail as a result of an editorial which appeared in today's issue of the Globe and Mail, I thought it was essential that a response be made by the House-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -to this unjustified, unwarranted and unacceptable attack upon yourself and your conduct as the presiding officer of the House. There is ample precedent to justify the statement that an attack of this kind upon your conduct and upon your person is an attack upon the House itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I refer particularly to the concluding sentence of the editorial which reads as follows:
Let it be said of James Jerome that he is not a Speaker but a gambler who plays incredible odds for the popularity of his party.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The earlier part of the editorial deals with a labour dispute, and it is not my intention to become involved in the facts or in any aspect of that dispute, but I do take grave exception on behalf of the House to this final statement which affects the privileges of the House in a very real way.
So I would like to have the consent of the House to move the following motion:
That the statement "Let it be said of James Jerome that he is not a Speaker but a gambler who plays incredible odds for the popularity of his party" contained in the editorial in the Globe and Mail on December 22, 1976, is a gross libel on Mr. Speaker, and that the publication of the article is a gross breach of the privileges of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I should have included in my comments that the motion is seconded by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the consent asked for by the government House leader, it is granted without reservation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: With respect to the force and purport of the motion which he asks this House to accept, we accept the words, the spirit and the intent without reservation, and I am sure the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) will join in those sentiments as well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party I join in the sentiments which have been expressed. We give consent to the presenting of this motion. We regard it as a very serious matter, and we hope the House will now adopt this motion unanimously.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party, I wish to join the official opposition and give our consent to the House in that connection. I think we must protect the House against such an attack since Mr. Speaker represents the House. We must unanimously protest against such action.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion presented pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be presented only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: This is an extraordinary situation and one which would never call for a comment from the Chair, but I

December 22, 1976
Oral Questions
cannot help but say that I am deeply gratified by the action of the House.
Some bon. Members: Hear, hear!


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43. In light of the fact that it has been revealed that the transfer of the Department of Veterans Affairs from Ottawa to Charlottetown, Prince Edward Island will cost an estimated $20 million and will create another level of bureaucracy in Ottawa, in light of the objections raised by the Public Service Alliance of Canada and veterans' organizations, and especially in view of the fact that budget cut-backs in military hospitals have created waiting lists of veterans seeking admission, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage (Mr. Masniuk):
That this House ask the government to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs to ask the Minister of Veterans Affairs to justify the expenditure of $20 million on a transfer that all involved oppose at a time of restraint and when military hospitals must restrict admittance because of budget cut-backs, and further that the committee study the objections made by the PSAC and the veterans' organizations.


Mr. Speaker:: For such a motion to be presented the House must give its unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Some bon. Members: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my questions are directed to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment, and they concern the impending environmental devastation which may result from the breakup of the Argo Merchant which, as of this morning, has released over 5 million gallons of crude oil, or to put it in grim perspective, twice as much oil as the Arrow spill in Chedabucto Bay six years ago. In view of the severe consequences which this spill could have, not only on the aesthetic beauty of our coastline, but on the marine life in the prolific Georges Bank, will the minister tell this House what action he will be taking to ensure that the spill does not affect Canada or Canadian waters?

In addition, will he indicate whether his department has the wreck under direct surveillance and if so what his current estimate is of the chances that part of the oil slick will enter Canadian waters?


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, this matter obviously changes almost as often as the wind changes. It is the very problem we are dealing with. The latest report I had, about three hours ago, is fairly optimistic about the chances of the oil slick not reaching Canadian shores. A meeting was going on at ten o'clock this morning in Halifax so I have not had a report on it yet. Our officials are keeping in very close touch. The fact is, we are facing very difficult weather conditions.


POSSIBILITY OF BANNING UNSAFE TANKERS FROM CANADIAN WATERS
William Herbert Jarvis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that tankers of dubious registry such as the Argo Merchant-which is reported to have been involved in 18 previous accidents including two groundings and is in fact banned from our ports-are little more than potential environmental catastrophes, will the minister tell the House whether he is able to acquire powers to ban these ships from operating within our 200 mile limit, powers that would be similar to those already available to the Minister of Transport, for example, under the Canada Shipping Act?


Fabien Roy: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that the Law of the Sea Conference, which is addressing itself to these very questions, should produce more positive results than we have had so far. I certainly join with my United States counterpart in deploring the fact that tankers that are badly equipped-I am not saying this one is because I have no way of knowing what the fundamental problem was-should be plying waters that are a potential risk to coastal states. The regulatory powers are vested in the Ministry of Transport-powers governing approach to Canadian shores.


EQUIPMENT AND ASSISTANCE AVAILABLE TO UNITED STATES TO HELP PREVENT CONTAMINATION OF COASTLINE
William Herbert Jarvis: the subject of the meeting in Halifax this morning was precisely on the point the hon. member has raised.


TRANSPORT
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the very serious environmental threat posed by this oil slick to Canadian waters and the Canadian east coast fishing industry, what steps is the Canadian Coast Guard taking to keep the oil slick under surveillance and what co-operation is the Canadian Coast Guard offering to the United States coastguard?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague effectively indicated the co-operation which always exists. In this case, we have a very good working relationship with the United States coastguard and of course we are available at any time.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs? In view of the statement made by the chief of the Environmental Protection Agency in the United States today to the effect that stricter international regulations are required to govern this kind of tanker traffic, especially with tankers flying flags of convenience-and we had an unhappy experience of our own with the Arrow disaster with which the minister is familiar as it happened when he was minister of transport-what steps has Canada taken on the eve of our implementation of a 200 mile fisheries management zone to press for international regulations in this regard, perhaps in concert with the United States?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External AfTairs):: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member will recall that Canada was in the forefront of proposals such as those outlined today. In 1959 we took the initiative at IMCO, one of the United Nations agencies, and of course many good results flowed from that. That agency is still operating and Canada is a member. We are still discussing what I agree ought to be a tougher regime in terms of international tankers. As the hon. member will also know, it is very difficult to get international agreement on this. In Canadian terms we continue to have the special fund which is assessed on all oil cargoes moving within our territorial waters. I have no doubt that we will be discussing with the United States, as well as with others, the possibili-
Oral Questions
ty that now the 200 miles economic zone has been declared, of extending the current limit to 12 miles farther out with regard to further pollution incidents.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister prepared to take the initiative on Canada's part and tell his counterparts in the international community that Canada, following the implementation of the 200-mile limit, is prepared to take the initiative in boarding vessels flying flags of convenience, in order to ascertain whether they have satisfactory navigational equipment and to protect the Canadian environment?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a useful suggestion, and if there could be even a bilateral agreement with the United States on this we might well be able to move in that direction. As I recall, boarding rights extend only out to 12 miles, but as I said in my earlier response, while the economic zone established deals primarily with fisheries, I think a justifiable link between those two aspects could well be established.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Considering that over the Christmas period some two million Canadians directly or indirectly will be affected by unemployment and that government job creation programs for the winter will create at most 40,000 jobs during the winter period, will the Prime Minister assure the House that appropriate ministries will be given the obligation during the one month Christmas recess to institute new job-creating initiatives for after the recess, and present them to the House?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that the appropriate ministers, indeed the government itself, will be devoting a great deal of energy and thought to this very serious problem.


FINANCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is encouraging to note that there will be thought, but we also would like action. May I ask the Minister of Finance if, in terms of his responsibilities, he would undertake during the next month to reconsider the government's position with respect to a budget and promise to come forwards when we resume work after the Christmas break, with a new budget of

December 22, 1976
Oral Questions
which the central economic thrust will be the task of creating more jobs in the Canadian economy?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. gentleman that we will continue the work we have had under way for the preparation of the budget which will be announced in 1977. Naturally, the impact on employment and growth in the economy as well as the impact of inflation on any possible measures will be fully considered.


John Edward Broadbent: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are we to conclude from the answer of the minister and that of the Prime Minister that the government has no definite plans but is simply keeping this serious and damaging problem affecting Canadians under review, and are we to expect initiatives to come only from the Bank of Canada but not from other sectors which Canadians expect to show serious leadership?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will recognize that statements on major economic decisions in this parliament occur in the course of a budget statement, and therefore the budget statement we are preparing will incorporate our conclusions on this point.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Since the Premier of British Columbia has sent a telegram to the Prime Minister on the subject of the inequality of ferry subsidies in Canada-


Mr. Fraser:: Don't laugh about this; laughing will do you no good where I come from.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: -I ask, has the Prime Minister received such a telegram from Premier Bennett and is it the government's policy to allow the inequity of $108 million for east coast ferries as contrasted with $1 million for west coast ferries to continue, or what action can the west expect?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is a long history of correspondence between myself and the present premier of British Columbia and, indeed, at least the two previous premiers. The federal point of view has been explained in those letters. There is an element to be still decided; but, so far as the inequities are concerned, I assure the hon. member that if he studies the facts, he will find that they are not inequities as he says they are.


John Allen Fraser: That is your view.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister accept an invitation to attend a public meeting in my constituency wherein is located the Canadian airborne regiment and where, accompanied by the Chief of the Defence Forces, he would be prepared to explain the government's views about the relocation of that unit, and in effect its destruction, and be prepared to answer questions both to the military and civilian population who, without exception, find this policy unacceptable?


An hon. Member:: Wear your helmet.


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Chief of the Defence Staff is going to Edmonton in the next month to meet with the military and civilian officials there. I know he is going to meet with Mayor Cava-nagh. I certainly would welcome the opportunity to speak to people in Edmonton. I hope the people in Edmonton show the same breadth of vision as they do in other places and on other issues and do not put the narrow focus on one regiment. I do not accept the premise that it means the destruction of the regiment.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Will the minister categorically answer whether he would accept an invitation to a public meeting in that constituency in order to discuss that matter?


Barnett Jerome Danson: No, Mr. Speaker, I really cannot conduct the affairs of the Department of National Defence by holding public meetings in an adversary situation. I would be pleased to meet with a delegation of people who want to come to see me or, if I am in Edmonton, I would be pleased to meet with a delegation of people there. I do not think a public forum is the place to discuss this type of matter where there is naturally, understandably and appreciatedly a sense of emotion about the loss of a very fine regiment to a very fine community. I understand that. I would like to discuss it with people dispassionately in terms of our military force structure. I am sure the people of Edmonton would understand that and I appreciate their reluctance to see the regiment go.
[DOT] * *


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
John Allen Fraser: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to questions asked earlier of the Minister of the Environment. Yesterday in answer to my question as to what environmental studies were available to the National Energy Board on the application of the consortium which wishes to build an oil pipeline from the Port of Kitimat on British Columbia's west coast through to the province of
December 22, 1976

Alberta, the minister said that all environmental assessments they have will be at the disposal of the Board. He went on to state:
I might say I view that situation with considerable skepticism.
Will the minister explain to the House just what he meant by that?


SUGGESTION THAT COPIES OF ENVIRONMENTAL STUDY BY KITIMAT PIPELINE LIMITED BE MADE AVAILABLE
John Allen Fraser: 
John Allen Fraser: In view of the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs talked only a few minutes ago in this chamber about introducing a tougher regime with respect to
Oral Questions
oil tankers, will the minister at least discuss with his colleagues the necessity, in terms of public relations, of insisting that the consortium make available copies of these particular environmental studies on marine dangers to the public of British Columbia and to interested citizens' groups?


Mr. LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: If the hon. member will observe what I did in connection with the seal hunt, he will find that I am a strong believer in full public disclosure of information with respect to issues which are by their very nature controversial and in connection to which knowledge of the facts is the only way of basing sound judgment.


POSSIBILITY OF PROHIBITING TANKER TRAFFIC IN STRAIT OF JUAN DE FUCA
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the same minister.
I also want to come back to the question of the Argo Merchant wreckage. Does the minister intend to make representations to the American authorities with a view to controlling if not eliminating tanker traffic in the Juan de Fuca Strait?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the question is really too general for me to answer without examining its implications on the international level.


POSSIBILITY OF ESTABLISHING UNLOADING PORT FOR TANKERS AT GRAYS HARBOUR, WASHINGTON
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I want to put a supplementary question to the minister.
Given the answer by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that he wants to initiate talks with the American authorities, I would like to know whether the Minister of Environment would be prepared to suggest to our American friends and neighbours reconsidering the project to establish a tanker unloading port at Grays Harbour in the state of Washington?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I certainly can undertake to consider that proposal and discuss it with my colleague.


CULTURAL AFFAIRS
Miss Coline Campbell (South Western Nova):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the minister in charge of cultural affairs. Is the hon. gentleman aware that of the Canadian delegation to the Lagos Festival only 31 persons out of 50 are

December 22, 1976
Oral Questions
Canadian citizens and, if so, is the hon. gentleman prepared to increase the number of Canadian citizens taking part in this event?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I presume, Mr. Speaker, that the question was addressed to me. I shall be happy to take under consideration the suggestion made by the hon. member.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Since the latest health study affecting residents of Grassy Narrows and White Dog reserves shows dangerously high levels of mercury poisoning persisting in the natives of the area, will the minister, now, after years of buck-passing, demand that the government of Ontario ban sports fishing in the English-Wabigoon River system, and if Ontario fails to do so, will the federal government take unilateral action to close the river under the authority contained in the Canada Waters Act?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: My predecessor had asked the government of Ontario to ban sports fishing in those rivers and I did so as well when I met with the Ontario minister a few weeks ago. Because the Ontario government has decided to reconsider the issue-as a matter of fact a meeting took place on this subject very recently-we are awaiting the results of that meeting before proceeding further.


Reginald Cyril Symes: In view of the decision by the federal government on November 16 to abandon the idea of a national park for the area, and promises of further consultation with native leaders to seek a solution to the problem, can the minister explain why no Indian representatives from the bands were invited to recent meetings between officials of the two governments, why no officials of Indian Affairs have met with the band councils to hear their proposals for economic development on the reserves, and why not even any written communications have been sent to the chiefs informing them of developments?


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


William Warren Allmand: As far as I know, that is not true. I have met with Indian leaders with regard to this problem and I understand my officials have done so as well. I do not know where the hon. member is getting his information.


INDUSTRY
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It has to do with the question I put to the Acting Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce on December 20 with regard to the extension of surtax on imported polyester yarns. He promised to have an answer ready before the House recessed. In redirecting my question to the minister, I should like, first of all, to wish him a merry Christmas, and then ask him whether he will assure the same festive spirit to those engaged in the textile industry by announcing an extension of the surtax which is due to expire before the House re-opens.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of all those who have expressed congratulations to the hon. member, might I formally recognize the honour which she, as a member of a great and famous clan, has received?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As to the question of the surtax, I can assure the hon. lady that this matter is receiving contemporary close examination by the government. I hope to be able to make an announcement within a very few days.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I thank the minister for his comments in the preface to that reply and hope the statement, when it comes, will be a positive one.


AIR TRANSPORT
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Has the minister received an assessment from the Canadian Transport Commission in connection with proposals to provide air services to six prairie communities-an assessment which was due on December 10-and, if so, when will he be announcing the carrier and the inauguration of the service?


Otto Emil Lang: I have not yet personally seen the proposal, but it is now completed. I shall be looking at it as soon as possible and trying to reach the necessary arrangements with the appropriate carrier. I cannot at this point predict how long that process will take.
December 22, 1976


HIGHWAY SAFETY
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport and it has to do with highway automobile deaths and injuries. Since early in 1977 we can expect a decision from the new US administration in relation to the provision of air bags as a mandatory safety feature in new motor vehicles-and it is my view that no other safety measure would do more to reduce deaths and injuries on our highways-can we expect a decision from the Canadian government in 1977 which would make the provision of air bags mandatory on Canadian motor vehicles?


Otto Emil Lang: No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member knows that while there is general agreement as to the usefulness of these devices it is not as generally agreed that the cost can properly be imposed in every case when one considers the availability of alternatives, such as the use of seatbelts. There is an arrangement in the United States whereby a significant number of automobiles will be equipped with air bag devices and this will allow us to examine their usefulness and reach a further conclusion a year from now.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
William Heward Grafftey: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In so far as the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs is mandated to protect the Canadian consumer, and many objective studies across North America have shown significantly that the air bag as a mandatory standard in motor vehicles will do more than any other standard to reduce the slaughter on our highways, would he review these studies and impress on the Minister of Transport the necessity that Canadian authorities implement this standard in future vehicles?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, may I take that as a representation.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. James Gillies (Don Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Given the announcement that Mr. J. L. Gray, former president of Atomic Energy of Canada, has
Oral Questions
been appointed a consultant to Finmecanica, which is the parent company of the Italian licensee of Atomic Energy of Canada in Italy, could the Prime Minister tell us whether this is in violation of the guidelines which he laid down for former employees of the Canadian government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take that question as notice.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Can the minister tell the House whether or not there has been any rearrangement of preferred airport car rental locations at airports across Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I have no further comment on that question today.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the fact that there is litigation or lawsuit underway at the present time, but I do not think the departmental position should be prejudiced. Are there any negotiations being conducted by the department respecting the location of car rental agencies within airports at the present time, and has any specific proposal been made to any car rental agency? I think that is simple; it has nothing to do with the lawsuit.


Otto Emil Lang: It is simple, Mr. Speaker, and it is that which I was really not prepared to comment upon. But I will tell the hon. member that there have been some discussions concerning the matter of an arrangement which would allow our car rental services to operate satisfactorily at airports.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister would be able to confirm that this new arrangement will be in place before the end of the year, or is there any time limit at all on the rearrangement of car rental locations?


Otto Emil Lang: I have no further comment on the discussions at this time, Mr. Speaker.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Steven Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. In view of the fact that the chief of staff is due to retire and that he is completely preoccupied with his retirement plans and therefore not preoccupied with the logical location of the Canadian airborne regiment, which should remain in Edmonton, would
2248

December 22, 1976
Oral Questions
the minister give the worthy women and children of the Canadian airborne regiment a Christmas present and leave well enough alone until a new chief of staff is appointed six months' hence and a complete economic and military study is reviewed?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I really think this question is quite uncalled for, with the reference to the chief of the defence staff making decisions that are not in the best interests of the Canadian forces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barnett Jerome Danson: General Dextrase is one of the most distinguished soldiers that this country has ever produced.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barnett Jerome Danson: He is respected by the armed forces of all nations, and civilians as well. I think the hon. gentleman will be very embarrassed when he reads Hansard and realizes what he has said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister please give me an answer?


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the fact that some 50,000 Canadians lost their lives in 1976 by being aborted in hospitals, institutions whose only function should be the preservation of life and the alleviation of suffering, could the Prime Minister indicate whether amendments to the Criminal Code will be introduced by the government in 1977 which would restrict this abhorrent, immoral action to those rare cases where the life of the mother is seriously threatened and give the greatest gift of all, namely life, to another 50,000 Canadians in 1977?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, some time ago the government appointed a committee to look into the equitable and proper application of the law. I understand the report of this committee, headed by Mr. Badgely, is ready for tabling very soon now, and I think it is the intention of the Minister of Justice, probably when the House reconvenes, to table the report. I think at that point the government and the opposition parties can study it and assess in a more proper way the functioning of the present law before discussing any changes.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, may I put a short supplementary question to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that in his office he is the protector of every Canadian, could we have his

assurance that he will do everything in his power to protect those people who can least protect themselves?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

[ Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Pierre De Ban£ (Matane): Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the head of the government.
Now that peace has been restored in Lebanon, considering that this country has been literally destroyed over the past two years, and considering also the size of the Canadian community of Lebanese origin, could the head of the government issue instructions so that, on humanitarian grounds, the various federal agencies and institutions may help Lebanon and participate in the reconstruction of that country, not only financially, but also through the distribution of prostheses, medicine, food and wheat? Could the government provide considerable help in addition to the $150,000 given to Red Cross international over a year ago?
Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for his question. He has advised me on a number of occasions on the Lebanese problem and the steps the government should take to assist these unfortunate people. The hon. member is aware that we have already taken steps in the area of monetary and immigration assistance, and I feel that his suggestions today certainly deserve being looked into most attentively. I promise to bring them to the attention of the ministers involved and to reply to him later next year.


PROPOSAL TO DRILL FOR URANIUM ON LAKE WAHNAPITAE- REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS PRIOR TO GRANTING LICENCE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I spoke to the minister about this matter before the question period. Is the minister aware of the immediate plans of certain corporations and individuals to do extensive exploration by drilling for uranium on Lake Wahnapitae in the Sudbury district, which lake supplies the water for a great many people in the area?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of his question. So far as I have been able to determine in the very few minutes available to me, there are no plans of which I am aware. I think an application was made at one time to the Ontario government and it was turned down. I
December 22, 1976

can assure the hon. member that before any exploratory drilling is permitted by the Atomic Energy Control Board- and it would have to be permitted by the Atomic Energy Control Board-the Atomic Energy Control Board would take a very close look at it. Secondly, it would not consider any application for drilling from any company unless the prior approval of the province had been obtained.


John R. Rodriguez: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact, as I have said, that this lake supplies the drinking water for the district, and in view of the fact that there have been difficult experiences with the Serpent River system in Algoma, would the minister assure the House that no licences will be granted to any corporation or individual to do any exploratory drilling for uranium on that lake in the Sudbury district?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give a categorical assurance other than this, that quite clearly before permissions of any kind are issued by the Atomic Energy Control Board the board would want to make a complete, thorough, comprehensive examination of the environmental effects. So that if any application were granted at any time, for drilling there or anywhere else, it would clearly have to meet the standard levels of health and safety.


John R. Rodriguez: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that we have had these assurances in the past and there have been unfortunate experiences at Port Hope and Elliot Lake, would the minister assure the House that before any licences are granted by the Atomic Energy Control Board public hearings will be held at which hearings all environmental aspects of such drilling will be examined?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I think if the hon. member were to look at provincial legislation he will find there is provision for public hearings under the Environmental Protection Act or an act of similar name. I would think that would be the appropriate area for hearings to take place, and Atomic Energy Control Board officials could be present.


John R. Rodriguez: You want it after the fact.


Alastair William Gillespie: I want to make it quite clear that I support the hon. member's interest in having full and public discussion, if in fact such application is called for.


John R. Rodriguez: We want it before, not after.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Transport.
Oral Questions
According to a report published in a Montreal daily newspaper last Friday, it appears that an exhaustive study conducted in 1970 by the office of management advisers, which comes under the Department of Supply and Services, concluded that the use of French in communications between pilots and controllers would make not only for more security but also greater efficiency in air traffic. I would like to ask the minister when this 200 page document was drawn to his attention and whether he had been made aware of it before ordering an inquiry into the use of bilingualism in air-ground communications ?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, officials of my department of course were aware of the document long before they began their specific work in attempting to find procedures which allow for the safe use of the two languages in air traffic control in the province of Quebec. It was after the original study that our safety people began to look at the practical use of the two languages and determined that it, indeed, was an important improvement in safety when the two languages could be made available because of the demand for them, with the result there was better communication between the air traffic controller and the pilot when the pilot was able to use his first language. That, however, was always applied with great care in that we insisted upon the maintenance of the high standards of safety which we have come to know and appreciate throughout this country, and that is how we have gone ahead with the matter since.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Since the minister is aware of such a report, may I ask him why it has not been made public, and how can he explain that when he instituted the inquiry commission on bilingualism he fought for such an inquiry because no other study had been conducted before the establishment of this commission? The minister now agrees that a rather serious study had already been made.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I am sure if the hon. member puts a question on the order paper to the appropriate minister and not to me, since I am not and never was the minister to whom that report was made, he could have some further information about it. As far as I am concerned, whatever opinions may have been held about the question, what was needed was a very careful safety examination by our aeronautical safety people to determine the progress that could be made, and that is what we have been doing toward our dedicated purpose, based upon a conclusion of what is, indeed, most practical and safe, namely, that we will introduce bilingual air traffic control throughout the province of Quebec as soon as appropriate and safe procedures have been developed and certified for that purpose.
80008-5%
Oral Questions TRADE

December 22, 1976


TEXTILE IMPORT QUOTAS-REQUEST FOR RELEASE OF GARMENTS HELD IN CUSTOMS
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I should first like to commend him for the measures he adopted some time ago in limiting garment importation quotas in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: We still have some minor problems in this connection. There are some small shipments of rental uniforms consigned to local retailers now trapped in customs. These retailers have complained to me that they cannot get these shipments out of customs. The condition arose as a result of the short notice the minister had to give. They have asked if these shipments could be released by customs. They were imported into Canada and are being held. Some of the shipments were made on December 1, the very day that the limitation went into effect.


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, we have made two minor changes to this policy, first of all to allow the entry without any import permit for all clothings which were in transit the day the policy was announced on November 29, and, last Friday, we have allowed the same thing with regard to goods which were in transit between November 29 and last Friday and whose value did not exceed $10,000. I hope those two exemptions will help resolve the problem the hon. member mentioned, and I thank him for supporting the policy we have announced.


CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. As Mr. Benson, the minister of finance when the CDC legislation was introduced in this House on February 22, 1971, stated, "the government ... will always be in a position to exercise the degree of influence on the over-all policies of the corporation which would be appropriate to its shareholding at any particular time", will the minister indicate in practice how this influence has been exercised on the over-all policies of the CDC, and to what extent is he informed of CDC transactions or proposed transactions?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, in terms of over-all policies, I would have to say that these would be policies of a general nature, such as areas into which the corporation should expand its operations or policies with regard to its capital. In respect of individual transactions,

it has been my experience and that of my predecessor that the individual transactions have not been brought to the minister for scrutiny and advice.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, bearing in mind that the government still owns all outstanding common shares of CDC and has approximately 70 per cent of the voting power in the corporation, will the minister indicate what steps are being taken to lower the government's dominant shareholder position in the CDC, as it was originally represented the government would do when it first proposed this scheme?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: As the hon. member knows, Mr. Speaker, there are approximately 15,000 to 20,000 individual Canadian shareholders with interest in the Canada Development Corporation. That corporation will have to make a judgment, on which we expect to be consulted, as to the further issuance of shares in due course when market opportunity would favour that.


SWINE INFLUENZA VACCINATION-INVESTIGATION OF GUILLAIN-BARRE SYNDROME AND POSSIBILITY OF COMPENSATION TO VICTIMS
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the two reported cases of Guillain-Barre syndrome resulting from swine 'flu vaccinations, will the minister indicate whether an investigation of these cases will be carried out by his department? Is his department passing on relevant information from the experience in the United States with this problem, and will compensation be provided for loss resulting to families which have suffered from this disease as a result of the vaccination program?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, it would be premature to establish a casual relationship between the vaccination and this particular syndrome. I think there have been four cases defined, two of them involving persons vaccinated and two involving persons who have not been vaccinated. It is too early to reach a conclusion on this particular aspect. Certainly we are passing on to the provinces any relevant information we obtain from the Disease Centre in Atlanta, Georgia concerning their survey of the situation. As far as compensation is concerned, this is a matter of law. The House will know, however, that we have provided for a form of guarantee for the losses of manufacturers who might be prosecuted regarding incidents of the disease resulting from the vaccination program with the exception of negligence on their part. There is provision for ensuring that there will be money available if a particular manufacturer is prosecuted, but the matter of legal liability will follow the normal route of the court system in the case of an individual suing the manufacturer involved.
December 22, 1976


LACK OF A-VICTORIA MONOVALENT VACCINE-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: My supplementary question deals with the fact that elderly people and those with chronic illnesses are still being given the bivalent vaccine which contains the swine flu vaccine and there is no A-Victoria monovalent vaccine available. Can the minister tell the House whether he has taken any action whatsoever to encourage or bring about the production of the A-Victoria vaccine which would enable older people to obtain flu vaccination without getting the swine flu vaccine as well?


Marc Lalonde: Mr. Speaker, there is presently no A-Victoria vaccine available in the world. It would take several weeks, to say the least, to produce such a vaccine. In the meantime, we will wait for the result of the investigation in the United States to see if there is any relationship between swine flu vaccine and the ill effects which have been reported.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and it is on the subject of decentralization of government services, a matter which I have been pursuing for a long period of time both with the minister and with other cabinet ministers by mail, in personal conversations and in the House. In the light of the serious unemployment situation on Cape Breton Island, which is well known to the government and the general poor economic situation, and since it is so close to the festive season, is the minister in a position today to spread some cheer to the population of Cape Breton by announcing which government service will be located on Cape Breton Island?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I wish I could play the role of Santa Claus, but I have to put on some weight before I do that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Unfortunately, I am not in a position to announce anything today. I would like to meet the wish of some members of the House and of the municipality of Ottawa to make any further announcement all in one shot, if I may use that expression. I hope to be in a position to do that early next year and I hope there will be something for certain sections of Nova Scotia.


Robert Muir: May I ask the hon. gentleman if he will continue to exchange notes with his colleague and my colleague from Cape Breton Island on that subject?
Oral Questions


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: He is so close to me that we can exchange notes now many times in the day.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Walter David Baker: I just want to pursue the question I asked the other day with respect to the 400 or 500 public service veterinarians. The minister had undertaken to look into the matter to see if some way could be found to have the interim payment made to them in 1976. As an alternative, he was going to discuss contingencies and remedies with the Minister of Finance. Can he tell us what the situation is with respect to that matter?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, as I suggested the other day, a better solution seemed to me to be that a payment be made by the Department of Supply and Services. My colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services, being apprised of the situation moved very quickly and I understand the payment will be made before December 31, which I think is the best way to have the problem resolved.


An hon. Member:: Fast government action.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am seeking guidance from the House. Because of the possibility that later in the day the House might adjourn for a fairly long time and there are half a dozen hon. members trying to ask questions, rather than conclude the question period now I would be prepared to at least permit those hon. members who have been seeking to ask questions throughout the question period to put one question, if not supplementaries, in order that they may be able to put their questions before the House adjourns.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: If that is the disposition of the House, may I conclude the question period by calling on the following hon. members to put one question each: the hon. member for Lisgar, the hon. member for Fraser Valley East, the hon. member for Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo, the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley and the hon. member for Victoria.


John Edward Broadbent: All Tories.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture and ask him if

December 22, 1976
Oral Questions
he can assure the House at this time that the government will not move to restrict the flow of agricultural chemicals and fertilizers from entering Canada from the United States. If I may paraphrase my question so the minister knows exactly what I mean I should like to ask him if he will assure the House, and consequently the farmers of Canada, that there will be a free movement of fertilizer and agricultural chemicals between the two countries.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: There is free movement of fertilizers between the two countries, but certainly not free movement of agricultural chemicals between the two countries. Coming to Canada they are duty free, but a 12 per cent tariff is imposed on them going into the United States. What the hon. member is referring to is the fact that the farmers themselves can import chemicals to Canada without going through the process of purchasing the same chemicals in the United States which would possibly cost them more in Canada. So they bring them in free of duty. We have said, before we made our decision on that, that we would meet with the farm organizations concerned which have made representations to us. It depends on whether we will be able to come to full agreement, but I would say that many farmers in Canada and many farmers in the hon. member's district are asking me to put tariffs on all kinds of products coming into the country. If they want duty free chemicals coming in, they better make sure other products with which they are competing in Canada are not free of duty.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Solicitor General or, in his absence, to the acting minister. In view of the concern that has been expressed by the residents of Fraser Valley regarding the report that over 50 inmates of Mountain Prison are being released on temporary passes over the Christmas season, among whom is a considerable number of those convicted of rape and some of murder, I wonder if the minister could give some assurance to the people of Fraser Valley as to the special precautions that are being taken to ensure maximum protection for people in that area?


Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, the temporary absence program to which the hon. member is referring is the same type of program that was in effect last year and which had an extremely high rate of success, with almost the total number of the people released under the program returning at the end of a temporary absence. The same precautions that were in force in previous years have been taken this year.
[Mr. Murta.|


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. Following the deportation of the alleged Japanese terrorist, Mr. Toshio Ohmura, and the plans by the Japanese consulate in Toronto to take all necessary protective steps within their jurisdiction based on reports of further Japanese terrorist movements in that city, can the minister assure the House that so far as the RCMP is concerned there exist no further Japanese terrorist activities in Toronto following RCMP surveillance which is continuing to take place in that city, and if the minister cannot assure the House of this, can he, together with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, take all necessary steps to have these accused terrorists deported accordingly?


Francis Fox: As the hon. member knows, the RCMP moved extremely quickly and efficiently in having the case of the known Japanese Red Army suspected terrorist dealt with in co-operation with the Department of Manpower and Immigration. The RCMP security services are monitoring the situation very closely, and all necessary precautions have been taken in connection with the Japanese consulate in Toronto.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD INCREASED PAYROLL-GOVERNMENT VIEW OF EXAMPLE OF RESTRAINT
Mr. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Grey-Dufferin-Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and it arises from the figures that the minister released yesterday in reply to a question on the order paper about the payroll of the Anti-Inflation Board. Has the minister reviewed the facts as revealed in his figures that while the number of employees with the board declined by 50 between July and September of this year, the AIB's payroll almost doubled in those two months, rising from $700,000 to $1,300,000, and is the minister satisfied that AIB is showing a worthwhile example of restraint to the private sector?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I will be glad to discuss this with the chairman, with the hon. member's question being the opening subject.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of National Defence about his conver-
December 22, 1976

sation last week with the retiring U.S. Defense Secretary. I understand that the minister said that Canada is now firmly committed to participating in an AWACS-Airborne Warning and Control System-in Europe as a first priority, but I missed what he said about Canadian participation in an AWACS for North America. Would the minister tell the House if there is a commitment to both these systems, would he indicate the projected cost, and if we are not committed to the North American AWACS, which the U.S. air force is now acquiring, will the U.S. air force be permitted to operate in Canadian airspace?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I am afraid I cannot give the answer to those questions because there is not a commitment to the system at this time. I believe the proper interpretation of the remarks at that time would have been that NATO ministers agreed that there was a military need for an AWACS in NATO. All ministers are speaking to their governments with reference to their participation, and we hope to meet in Brussels again in the New Year to reaffirm or explain our various government positions, but the expression at that time was not a commitment of this government to an AWACS. There was an indication that all NATO ministers thought there is a need for an AWACS in the NATO system.


OLYMPIC GAMES
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Postmaster General. In view of the fact that there is a shortfall on the sale of Olympic coins, will the Postmaster General look into the distribution and delivery of Olympic coins? I have heard numerous complaints from constituents who have purchased Olympic coins, received acknowledgement and waited as long as six months for delivery. Further, I understand that many members of this House have purchased full sets of coins and have not received them to this date.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Postmaster General: Mr. Speaker, I had occasion to speak with the director of the coin program prior to his leaving, which will be on December 31, and we discussed the matter quite fully. There have been some delays, and I am very much aware of them; however, it is our intention to make good all the orders which have been made and which have been prepaid to the best of our ability. We ask people to be as patient as possible and invite them to communicate directly with me, if they wish to, so that we can bring about the accelerated delivery of the coins which are already committed.
The Late Olive Diefenbaker


BEREAVEMENT OF THE RIGHT HON. MEMBER FOR PRINCE ALBERT DEATH OF MRS. O. F. DIEFENBAKER
Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It is with a great deal of regret that I advise the House of Commons of the death early this afternoon of Mrs. Olive Freeman Diefenbaker, the wife of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). Mrs. Diefenbaker died at her home at 1.30 this afternoon after an illness of some months.
As hon. members know, she was a daughter of the manse. Her father was a Baptist parson who travelled widely in western Canada, and he served as a minister in Prince Albert, where the late Mrs. Diefenbaker met the right hon. member for Prince Albert. She was a graduate of Brandon College, had a distinguished teaching career, and provided leadership in adult education work in the province of Ontario. She was married in 1953 to the right hon. member for Prince Albert and was with her husband at his election to the leadership of this party, and subsequently at his election to the office of Prime Minister of the country.
I think it is fair to say that Mrs. Diefenbaker was known and respected throughout Canada and abroad for the manner in which she assisted her husband in carrying out his responsibility, and also for the warmth and the openness with which she performed her own responsibilities as the spouse of the Prime Minister of Canada and of the Leader of the Opposition.
Many of us in this House were privileged to know the late Mrs. Diefenbaker for many years. We knew her to be a woman who was gracious in public, and generous and thoughtful in private. She was a friend to many people in this House and to thousands of Canadians outside this House. Particularly in recent years she has been a symbol of strength, courage, courtesy and warmth to Canadians in all the provinces and territories. I am sure I speak on behalf of all my hon. colleagues in this House when I extend our deepest sympathy to the right hon. member for Prince Albert and to the family of the late Olive Diefenbaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, certainly we on this side wish to say that we regard the words spoken by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) as extremely appropriate on this occasion. Many of us knew the late Mrs. Diefenbaker and learned to know the support she was for her husband, and also to know of the many fine personal qualities she possessed in her own right.
All of us will want to convey directly to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) our condolences on what for him will be a very great loss.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to join with the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the government House leader on behalf of the

December 22, 1976
The Royal Assent
members of my party in extending to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) our deepest sympathy at this time.
As has been indicated already by the Leader of the Opposition, Olive Diefenbaker was known by Canadians throughout the country as a warm and thoughtful woman, a fine person, and a gracious human being. She is going to be missed by all those who knew her and, in particular, deeply missed by the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert.
[ Translation]


Mr. Charles-Eugene Dionne (Kamouraska):: Mr. Speaker, I associate with my colleagues to extend to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and his family our most sincere condolences in those circumstances.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill C-19, to amend or repeal certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures, without any amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the following communication has been received:
Government House Ottawa
December 22, 1976 Sir,
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Bora Laskin, P.C., Chief Justice of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 22nd day of December at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to a Bill.
I have the honour to be.
Sir,
Your obedient servant,
Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere,
Administrative Secretary to the Governor General.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to take this occasion to extend to all hon. members and others-although I must confess there is some temptation to make certain specific exclusions in respect to the generosity of the invitation-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: However, in line with notice given if the House should proceed to the consideration of a motion, and if the House should decide in its wisdom that following upon Royal Assent or some hour later today that the House should adjourn for a period of time, as has been the delightful and customary practice in the past it would be my great honour to receive all hon. members and some of their guests later on this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts, in both official languages.-Mr. Douglas (Bruce-Grey).
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table in both official languages the text of information provided on September 15, 1976, by the Federal Bureau of Investigation on the investigation into the death of Anna Mae Aquash.


FISHERIES
Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to table in both official languages the Canadian Hydrographic Surveys charts illustrating the geographic coordinates of the new 200 mile fishing zone to take effect on the east and west coasts on January 1, 1977.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Statements by ministers. The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) on a point of order.


James Aloysius McGrath: This is a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which I think it might be appropriate to raise at this time. If Your Honour will hear me I shall endeavour to be brief.
December 22, 1976

We are about to hear a statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), and I congratulate and applaud him for making the statement in the House. My purpose in raising my point of order is that yesterday, even though the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment (Mr. LeBlanc) was present in the House for the question period, no sooner was the question period concluded than the minister proceeded outside the House to hold a press conference where he made a very important statement regarding the management of our fishery resources in connection with the implementation of the 200 mile economic zone which is to come into effect on January 1 next.
I appreciate your rulings on this, Mr. Speaker; however, I am concerned that your ruling of December 2, and others that you have made, as well as the precedent set by your distinguished predecessor, Speaker Lamoureux, may be tantamount to a licence for ministers to make policy statements outside the House on topical questions that are before the House, thereby depriving members of the opportunity to reply, in the first instance; second, and equally important, it deprives members of an opportunity to question ministers on their statements.
I raise this point of order in sorrow because of the respect I have for the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. His contemptuous action yesterday was out of character. I regret very much that the minister chose to make the statement outside the House, and I can only commend to him the excellent example being set today by his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief. I am surprised at the hon. member's indignation, when he did not even bother to ask one question on what he called this extremely important announcement of yesterday. It is quite obvious that the hon. member does not listen to his colleague, the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse), who sits behind him. For weeks now the hon. member for South Shore has been asking questions and I have simply had to say that consultations were going on in regard to this matter, so obviously this was not privileged information of any kind. The document was available to everybody we have been consulting with for the last three months.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Statements by ministers.


CHANGE IN NUCLEAR EXPORT POLICY
Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I wish to announce a change in Canada's nuclear export policy, a matter of central concern to the people and Government of Canada, raising as it does funda-
Nuclear Exports
mental issues affecting world economic growth and world peace.
In this Christmas season our thoughts naturally turn to peace and the brotherhood of man. It is easy to pay tribute to these fundamental goals with words. It is more important that we do so with our actions. It is a challenge to the Government of Canada to respond to the demand of Canadian public opinion that this country exercise its influence tov.ard the betterment of the global society in which we and our descendants must live. In the area of nuclear policy there is no simple answer or it would have long since been adopted. It is rather the need to balance energy requirements, the advance of technology which regardless of what we do will make nuclear capability within the reach of a wider and wider group of countries, and the need to establish a sound international framework which will curb the spread of nuclear weapons and yet take into account the legitimate economic aspirations of sovereign states. I wish to make quite clear, however, that the first priority, indeed the overriding priority, is to prevent the spread of instruments of destruction.
In this context I am pleased to announce that the Canadian government has decided upon a further strengthening of the safeguards requirements which apply to the export of Canadian reactors and uranium. Shipments to non-nuclear weapon states under future contracts will be restricted to those which ratify the Non-Proliferation Treaty or otherwise accept international safeguards on their entire nuclear program. It follows from this policy that Canada will terminate nuclear shipments to any non-nuclear weapon state which explodes a nuclear device.
This requirement is in addition to those outlined in December, 1974. The purpose of the Canadian safeguards policy is simple and straightforward. We wish to avoid contributing to the proliferation of nuclear weapons while at the same time satisfying the legitimate requirements for uranium and technology of countries which demonstrate the intention of restricting Canadian assistance only to peaceful non-explosive uses. Nuclear export policy already requires binding assurances that what Canada provides will not be used for explosive purposes. Existing policy, however, does not cover what a country receives from other suppliers or what it might do on its own. The new policy will close this gap. We will have, therefore, assurance by treaty that Canada's nuclear customers will have been selected from those countries which have made a clear and unequivocal commitment to the non-proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The development of the CANDU reactor has been one of Canada's great technological achievements. This technology is needed to reduce the world's dependence on oil. Moreover, our industrialized trading partners look to Canada as a source of uranium to fuel the nuclear reactor programs which they, like ourselves, have undertaken to meet a growing share of energy needs. In the absence of alternative technologies, developing countries will also look to nuclear power once they have exploited other conventional energy resources and have built up the national power grids necessary for large present reac-
2256

December 22, 1976
Nuclear Exports
tors. While research into conservation and renewable energy technologies should be intensified, energy planning in Canada and elsewhere must look to energy resources presently available.
While the Canadian government recognizes the legitimate energy requirements of its trading partners, it is determined to do everything within its power to avoid contributing to nuclear weapons proliferation. It is for this reason that the Government of Canada has unilaterally decided to strengthen further Canada's safeguards requirements. As in the past we are prepared to accept the commercial consequences of being clearly ahead of other suppliers. This is the price we are prepared to pay to curb the threat to mankind of nuclear proliferation.
We recognize that for this policy to be fully effective we must persuade other nuclear suppliers to adopt similar export policies. In discussions amongst suppliers we have urged that a collective decision be taken to restrict their nuclear exports to non-nuclear weapon states to those which have ratified the Non-Proliferation Treaty or otherwise accept full scope safeguards. We regret that to date it has not been possible to reach a collective decision to this effect. Canada, however, is determined to assume responsibility where it has the power to act, that is, with regard to Canada's own exports of nuclear equipment, technology and uranium. We are charting a course which we hope will serve as a compelling example for other nuclear suppliers.
With this announcement I am calling on other nuclear exporters to review their own export policies, not in the light of commercial gain but in the interests of maintaining a safe and secure world.


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, we thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) for making his statement in the House. Occasionally one becomes discouraged while sitting in opposition for it seems almost impossible, even with the best will in the world and what appears to be an almost irrefutable case, to convince the government to change its mind about significant issues. Today we rejoice, because after almost three years, following the leadership of the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) and other members of this House who advocated a change in the government's safeguards policy with respect to the export of nuclear reactors and nuclear devices, the government has taken its first tenuous step to assure that Canada will not contribute further to the proliferation of nuclear capabilities around the world. We applaud this first timorous move in what seems to be the only possible and rational direction.
We have always opposed the government's attitude toward the export of nuclear reactors. Its defence of its past policies has always seemed to us as specious. The argument that our own safeguards are adequate was proven false by the explosion of a nuclear bomb in India, an explosion made possible by the reprocessed fuel taken from a CAN DU reactor. That explosion started off a race for nuclear energy in the Far East.
(Mr. Jamieson ]
The argument that we must supply our technology to less developed countries is ludicrous in the face of our sales to South Korea and Argentina and discussions with energy rich countries such as Iran. What a strange way to be extending assistance when the AECL hires agents whom they do not even know in order to get contracts. What sort of argument is it that says we are coming to the aid of these countries when we engage in fierce competition in bidding for contracts and lose millions of dollars of the Canadian taxpayers' money in the process? What kind of argument is it that says that we must keep our nuclear industry employed when all the output of that segment of the Canadian economy could be fully employed domestically? Indeed, projections of current heavy water production suggest that we may be short of this integral part of our nuclear program in the early 1980's. There will be a shortage for our own domestic needs.
As the minister knows, the deadline the government set for the renegotiation of uranium exports will run out on December 31 this year. I presume that under this policy shipments will be suspended until new safeguards are put in place. Indeed this will be the test of the will of the government in enforcing these provisions.
Now the government has set forth a policy which will prohibit shipment to non-nuclear weapon states which have not ratified the non-proliferation treaty or otherwise accepted international safeguards with regard to their entire nuclear progam. Surely this should always have been the policy of any responsible government, and we regret that it has only now become the policy of Canada. We hope this is only the first step in the development of new policies with respect to nuclear shipments.
We have argued that the only effective world-wide control is control concerning the reprocessing of spend fuel rods. We hope that Canada will pursue with other countries the development of such a system of control. The non-proliferation treaty must be strengthened and we hope that Canada will show leadership in this regard.
We think that Canada must do more than talk about its moral responsibilities in the world. It must act in a moral way. Our credibility has been shaken in the past four months by revelations of some of our activities abroad. We only hope that the tentative step the government has taken today will reassert our moral leadership in the world.
Finally, we still insist that before contracts are signed for the export of nuclear reactors, uranium or related materials, these contracts should be discussed and ratified by parliament. Surely only parliament in its totality should take the responsibility for exporting these important devices. If the government had brought the Argentinian and South Korean contracts to parliament first, before entering into them, a great many of our present difficulties relating to those contracts could have been avoided.
At this time of good will when all men must pray for peace in what is truly an unstable world, we are pleased that the government is beginning to recognize tentatively its moral responsibilities, not only to Canadians, but to all citizens of
December 22, 1976

this small planet, its responsibilities relating to nuclear expansion.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) for sending me a copy of his statement. It is admirable in its rhetoric; unfortunately its substance is somewhat dubious. 1 understand that the key to the statement concerns shipments to non-nuclear states. In future contracts will be restricted to those which ratify the non-proliferation treaty or otherwise accept international safeguards. In our view the important question is, how enforceable are these safeguards? I presume the international safeguards referred to in the statement are those administered by the IAE in Vienna, an organization which has inadequate staff to do the required policing and inspection.
We think that we should consider the question of alternatives. First, we believe that we should not enter into an agreement with a country which will not sign the non-proliferation agreement. Surely that is an important statement of intent. Such countries should also accept full inspection, not only by the IAE, but by Canada, and should accept Canadian control of radiation waste. These should not be alternatives. If we do not have that minimum assurance, we have no assurance. We would depend, as the previous minister said, on the good will and good intent of the people signing such agreements. In the world of today that is definitely not enough. There are many unstable countries in the world today; with unerring skill the government has picked the most unstable to which to ship nuclear reactors. I am referring to South Korea and the Argentine.
The British not long ago appointed a royal commission to look into the entire question of the development of nuclear energy. It reported recently, and pointed out that a major danger in the proliferation of nuclear reactors is the danger that terrorists, or those who exercise illegal powers within states, will obtain control of some waste materials and transform them into plutonium and nuclear weapons. They think that is one of the major dangers. And what have we done? We are to supply a reactor to the Argentine, a country in which, admittedly, extra-legal bodies wander around enforcing the law. In that country the machinery of law enforcement is out of control.
I will not pause to suggest that apparently we are working hard to secure contracts which will provide us with a deficit. I do not know if it has been proved that moneys paid to agents were used for bribery; but if that is true it is most strange. We are one of the few countries in the world which has ever paid money to secure unprofitable contracts. The same remarks apply to Korea. Anyone who has studied the situation in South Korea as well as North Korea will know that the authorities there have, without concealment, indicated their willingness to use force to suppress the freedom of their own people.
The international strategic studies dealt with this whole question. They said that in their view the attempt to control
Nuclear Exports
the spread of nuclear proliferation was a promising attempt, but not a radical barrier. I want to say that I think we have here a credible intent but not a radical barrier.
I understand we are dealing now with Japan, Switzerland, and the EEC countries through Euratom. I would like the minister to tell us, if he can, just what is the situation with regard to our nuclear dealings with those countries. Have they ratified, or do they propose to ratify before the deadline which expires on December 31 agreements on that subject?
I conclude by saying that this is indeed a step forward. In so far as it is a step forward, I congratulate the minister and the government. Using the very language that is used here about the overriding priority, the importance of actions rather than words, and the fact that this issue we are discussing affects world economic growth and world peace, I say to the minister that this is only a step. I think it was the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) who said it was a faltering step.
We are engaged in a long process. Let us not fool ourselves by thinking that what we have done here is indeed the answer to the problem.

Mr. Charles-Eug&ne Dionne (Kamouraska): Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the statement of the Minister of External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) which I support without reservation.
I noticed, among other things, the passage in which it is said that Canada unilaterally decided to reinforce its safeguards requirements. On this matter, I support the minister's statement personally and on behalf of my colleagues.


Mr. Lawrence:: If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, I will put two or three short questions about merely one sentence in the whole statement by the minister. It is the only sentence that really means anything. It states: "Shipments to non-nuclear weapon states under future contracts will be restricted to those which ratify the non-proliferation treaty or otherwise accept international safeguards on their entire nuclear program." My three or four questions relate only to that one sentence.
First, where does this leave the Pakistani situation, the supply for the CANDU reactor outside of Karachi? My understanding is that Pakistan has not signed the non-proliferation treaty. If we can believe the president of Pakistan in his public statements, reported by reliable news services and wire services of the world, he has no intention either of accepting anything covered by such an ambiguous statement or accepting international safeguards on their entire nuclear program. Where does this leave the Pakistani supply?
Second, why does this have to relate to future shipments only? Everything else around here seems to be done in a retroactive way. Why are these restrictions not being applied to Argentina and South Korea, for example?
My final question is, what does the government mean by international safeguards? Is it talking about those rather vacuous and meaningless regulations coming out of the Vienna
80008-6'/2

Nuclear Exports
based organization, or the rules which we have not yet been privileged to see of the so-called Nuclear Supplier Club of nations which apparently may have some real meat in them, in view of the recent very welcome decision of one of the two bad apples in the nuclear barrel, mainly the decision of the French government to prohibit any future supplies to any nation building a reprocessing plant? My three or four questions to the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has already put three or four questions.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: The minister was having difficulty in finding a pen that works, like everything else around here that does not work. If he has those four questions, may I have an answer?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I think I can answer, Mr. Speaker. As I recall, the first had to do with Pakistan, the question of why not retroactivity and what is meant by international safeguards. As I answered in the House yesterday, it is clear that the requirements of this new policy certainly do and will apply to the Pakistani situation.
During recent days and weeks I have instructed our officials in Pakistan to enter into what I believe I described yesterday as last stage or last minute negotiations. I can report to the House today that no satisfactory commitment has been achieved in terms of a Pakistani undertaking. Therefore for all practical purposes the nuclear co-operation between Canada and Pakistan is effectively at an end.
We have already indicated, and will continue to do so, that if Pakistan wishes to adhere to both the provisions which were submitted to it previously, and also those which were stated today, we will be glad to resume negotiations and co-operation, but as of the moment the situation is that no further supplies will be made available. In addition, no further assistance from Canada will be provided in terms of dealing with the existing plant in Pakistan.
With regard to retroactivity, the question becomes one of legality in terms of the contracts which are already in place and the like. It was not deemed by the Government of Canada to be in the best interests of the country to abrogate or in any way change contracts which in some instances had been entered into a long time ago with, of course, the exception of the Pakistan one which I referred to, and the Indian one with which hon. members are familiar.
It was generally felt, and I think with some reason, that in terms of our trading reputation, not only in nuclear equipment and the like but also in other matters, that retroactivity would not have been the appropriate course to take. My colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), reminds me of the upgrading of the contracts which we have already achieved in some of the cases referred to by hon. members.
The international safeguards would be the ones to which the international community now subscribes. 1 do not quarrel if it was the intent of the hon. member's statement that these are to
some degree unsatisfactory or somewhat inadequate. However, as a member of the international community, there is very little that Canada itself can do beyond participating in whatever level of agreement has been reached at any moment in time. We are, of course, most active members of the suppliers' club, the group that was referred to and which is meeting regularly in London. As I indicated in my statement, we are very much in the forefront of urging that the international safeguards be improved and also that these other countries take the steps which Canada has taken.
The hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) may very well be right if he is describing it in a world context when he says this is a rather timid step. However, I remind him, and I think he will agree, it also puts Canada many steps in front of every other supplier in the world in terms of the kinds of conditions it places on international sales. I hope I have done some justice to the hon. member's questions.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a couple of questions, particularly in light of the numerous statements we have heard in this House from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and other members of the government concerning the strength, vigour, and rigour of the safeguards we impose. Now we find they were not as rigorous as was imagined and that something more has to be done. Would the minister be prepared to let us have a list of the present potential CANDU customers, with a comparable list showing those which have signed, or not signed, the safeguards convention? I have a couple of other questions I should like to ask.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I guess it is only natural to proceed in this way but I would hope we could carry on this question and answer period without being unduly argumentative, in the sense that we are all anxious to reach the same objectives. The hon. member talked about the previous regime of 1974. Those of us who spoke about it indicated that it, too, was ahead of the international community in the application of safeguards. We have now gone beyond that. As I said in my statement, we are now closing what was clearly one of the gaps in that program. This was an endeavour to supply some leadership to the international community, members of the suppliers club with whom we are dealing.
The second question had to do with the uranium safeguards. This matter was also raised by the spokesman for the New Democratic Party. We have until the end of the year, as was stated, to conclude an arrangement with Euratom, which is the nuclear agency for the Economic Community, and with Japan and Switzerland. Within Euratom it is possible that bilateral arrangements may take the place of Euratom-Canada arrangements because, to the best of my recollection, there are three countries with which we are dealing. In any event, as things stand at the moment we are still negotiating with Euratom, and considerable progress is being made. We shall not know for another few days whether or not they will be successfully concluded before the end of the year. The same
(Mr. Lawrence.)
December 22, 1976

situation exists with regard to Japan. Switzerland, we have been advised, is very close to signing the NPT and thereby qualifying to receive continuous supplies.


Donald W. Munro: The minister did not mention either Korea or Argentina and the possibility of these more rigorous safeguards affecting sales, or otherwise, in these particular instances. He did not tell us whether the suggestion that one of these countries might be attempting to acquire an enrichment plant is a factor which might prevent our selling a CANDU reactor in such circumstances.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Is the hon. member referring to an enrichment plant or to a reprocessing plant? Or does he anticipate that a country would only get an enrichment plant if it had the intention of getting a reprocessing plant? I take it he is referring to a reprocessing plant for all practical purposes. It is hypothetical, of course, unless we knew the country concerned, but as I indicated in answer to the question with regard to Pakistan, we have made it perfectly obvious that under no circumstances will we continue co-operation with Pakistan if that country acquires a reprocessing plant as presently suggested. In a couple of other cases, Korea being one, and Argentina, as I recall, being the other, we did succeed in getting a commitment not to acquire reprocessing plants before the agreements were signed. Again, I am not quite clear whether the hon. member was talking about future sales or not. If he was talking about future sales, then in the case of both Argentina and Korea any future sales in either of those countries would be in accordance with the policy I announced today.


Mr. Speaker:: I propose to conclude the questioning by recognizing the hon. member for Greenwood, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands, the hon. member for Don Valley, and the hon. member for Wellington.


Francis Andrew Brewin: In replying to the hon. member for Northumb-erland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) I understand the minister implied that it was intended to proceed with the terms of the agreement to supply a reactor to Argentina. I believe he said the reason for this was that we had signed a contract and it was advisable to live up to our contracts. I want to put this to him, though. I know the question of whether some inducement was paid to members of the former government of Argentina is an open one, still under investigation. But if it were found that some moneys were paid to people representing that government, would the hon. gentleman undertake to obtain advice from the proper source as to the legality of the contract and whether this would not give us an opening to say that the contract was an unprofitable one and that we did not wish to proceed with it?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am sure the hon. member realizes that the question he has just asked is hypothetical, and one on which I am reluctant to make any judgment or observation at the present time. My reference to contracts was in general terms and had to do with those which are valid, legal and, in every sense of the word, binding upon the government. In terms of
Nuclear Exports
the hon. member's question, I do not know whether any particular contract in Argentina or elsewhere falls into that category. That is not my ministerial responsibility. I was saying that in cases where we have made commitments we would, of course, honour those commitments.
While I am on my feet may I refer to the last answer I gave? I said I thought we had some success in getting a reprocessing plant decision reversed in Argentina. I am speaking from memory, and I am by no means sure whether that is correct or not. I am sure it is correct in the case of Korea and, of course, in the case we are talking about, Pakistan.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: My question relates to the approved licensing agreement between AECL and P.M. Nucliari which gives the latter company the right to design, make and sell CANDU reactors in Italy and, in five years' time, to sell CANDU reactors to other countries. As is usual, we have not seen the terms of this agreement but I should like to ask the minister whether, under those terms, Canada has any veto power over sales by the Italian company to other countries which may not have ratified the NPT.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The hon. lady will, I am sure, appreciate my position. I am not talking in legal language, but my understanding is, and I am quite certain I am correct, that our arrangement with Italy in the case she has mentioned is that all the Canadian requirements with regard to safeguards and the like are accepted in the technical agreement and must be adhered to by the Italian exporter in time on the sales it makes. In other words, it would be the same as if Canada were applying its own safeguards.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: I should like to direct the minister's attention to the post five-year period in which Italy would have the exclusive right to sell abroad. I should like to know what sanctions Canada will be able to apply if P. M. Nucliari went ahead and sold to countries which were not approved. What kind of control would Canada be able to exercise over such sales once the technology was in the hands of another country?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Let me repeat what I said a few moments ago. For the length of the arrangement, looking five years down the road, the Canadian safeguard requirements would be a total obligation on the Italian exporter using the Canadian technology. In other words, technology is covered by the statement I made today. As to the second point with regard to the reinforcement question, again I would have to look at the legal language but the safeguard agreement to which I referred a few moments ago would either be with Euratom or with Italy bilaterally, so it would be between the governments of Italy and of Canada, and presumably we can assume that the Italian government is going to live up to its word.


James McPhail Gillies: It is my understanding that if the Government of Canada is not able to gain acceptance of these new safeguards between now and the end of the month, with the Euratom countries or any countries to which it is selling uranium, no sales will be made to those countries. Are these

December 22, 1976
Nuclear Exports
new safeguards to apply in the renegotiation of agreements for supplies of uranium to any country which does not live up to those safeguards?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I understand the hon. member's question, but with respect I should point out that there is a difference in that the countries that I referred to in terms of uranium sales are already, with the exception of France, NPT signatories, and therefore in that sense they meet the requirements of the policy.
Over and above that, however, we have safeguards agreements, bilateral ones, relating to the sale of Canadian uranium, and it is that issue which is in question in terms of the countries I mentioned-Euratom, Switzerland and Japan. It would not be a matter of adhering to this policy; it would be in some respects something beyond this particular policy because it would be a specific bilateral arrangement between us.
I might point out that while progress has been made, the problem with the Euratom situation in particular is that there are some nine governments involved, and it has not been easy to get all of them together and to meet precisely the same commitments. That is why I mentioned, as an alternative, the possibility of bilaterals. If at the end of the year there is no agreement in place for a continuation, we would have to decide whether progress was sufficient to allow us to continue shipments on an interim basis or if we would simply disrupt shipments as of December 31.


James McPhail Gillies: Just to make it absolutely clear in m'y mind, do I understand from the minister's answer which he has just given that the safeguards announced today will not cover the export of uranium which has been renegotiated?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes, it will.


James McPhail Gillies: Then that is where I am in difficulty with the minister's answer. In the case of France and other Euratom countries to which we export uranium, but particularly France, the policy of the government is to negotiate a bilateral agreement rather than have this safeguard apply to the particular contracts which are coming up for renegotiation. Am I correct in that?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I can genuinely appreciate the hon. member's problem because I had it myself for quite a while before I finally began to understand it. I should make the side comment with regard to France, which is not covered by the policy because it is a nuclear weapons state. In the other cases, Canada has had for many years a uranium export policy. There are safeguards under the uranium export policy which are somewhat different from the over-all policy that I have enunciated today regarding the sale of CANDU's, technology and all the other things, but also including uranium. Therefore a uranium customer would have to meet the requirements of the general policy, and in addition to that would also have to meet the requirements of the bilateral safeguards which Canada has had for many years and which have been changed

quite frequently with regard to the sale of uranium to individual customers.
I should point out that in the case both of the European customers and Japan they are already signatories to the NPT. That is what makes the decision whether we continue to ship or not one which can only be decided at the last moment when we hear how far the negotiations have gone. If it appears that we are in sight of signing, that would make for quite a different situation than if there were a total refusal to accept our bilateral safeguards. I hope I have made the situation somewhat clearer for the hon. member.


Mr. Maine:: Mr. Speaker, my question stems from the comments of the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies) and his reply to the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson). I am afraid he inadvertently misled the House when he said that India exploded a nuclear device from material obtained from a CANDU reactor. That is not true, Mr. Speaker. A CANDU reactor produces electricity; it is a research reactor that produced the plutonium which India used to make a nuclear device.
My question relates to research reactors and the reactors used for making nuclear devices. It is Canada's policy now to stop the export of research reactors, as it did after helping India establish the technology needed to explode a device? If it is not Canada's policy now to export technology enabling countries to construct research reactors, do these safeguards that have now been announced take this fact into account and safeguard Canada from any further misuse of technology derived from Canada?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I learned long ago not to argue with a scientist. I think I will take that question as notice, except to say that I recall having discussed very small reactors for medical purposes, or some kind of nuclear device for medical research purposes. I would have to get behind the curtains with the hon. member to understand fully the import of his question. There is only one policy and that is the one we announced today. I believe that the only possible exceptions to it might be, as I said, very small units designed for medical research, but I am subject to correction on that highly technical point.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is no hope of concluding the questioning with one question on either one side or the other. I did indicate earlier that I would conclude with the question of the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Maine). I now see several other hon. members who are interested. If the Standing Order asks me to make a judgment during the course of the questioning as to how long the questioning should go, I always try to base that judgment on the number of members seeking the floor at that time. Having made that assessment, sometimes other hon. members seek the floor and this puts the Chair in a difficult position. I feel that under the circumstances I have given fair spread and variety to the questioning and that we should conclude it at this point.
December 22, 1976


James McPhail Gillies: Mr. Speaker, may I rise on a question of privilege. I may have misspoken when I said "CANDU". I do know that it was a research reactor, and I stand corrected. However, I am sure that the hon. member knows that it was a research reactor which did come from Canada, which did produce plutonium, and which did eventually lead to the bomb.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I understand that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) has a motion standing in his name.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The only reason I am asking is that there are questions on the order paper. I wonder whether hon. members might want to give their consent to my now calling questions on the order paper before calling motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 43, 134, 501 and 911.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the name and address of the person, persons, or company to which Post Office Box 220, Ville Mont-Royal, Quebec is rented?
2.	Is the RCMP investigating any Canadian publications or companies who have sold or in any way forwarded mailing lists to persons in the Soviet Union for purposes of soliciting subscriptions to magazines printed in English in the Soviet Union and, if so (a) what are the results of this investigation (b) has the RCMP any knowledge of how persons in Moscow obtained mailing lists of those in Canada holding Chargex and Master Charge cards?


Ralph Goodale: I am informed by the Post Office Department and the Department of the Solicitor General as follows: 1. It is post office policy to regard the information requested as confidential and not to disclose it without the customer's permission.
2. Yes. (a) Periodica International Subscription Agency purchases mailing lists from various firms (Canada and the United States) and sends them to the editors of three Soviet magazines. Subscription order forms are subsequently sent out from Moscow, (b) No.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	For the fiscal year 1975-1976, what contracts for professional services were let (a) for studies, surveys and analyses into present or future policies, programs or information analysis, and their efficiency and effectiveness (b) into the examination of the administration or internal operation of the Department of National Revenue?
2.	Flow much was committed on each contract and to whom?
3.	What were the comparable figures for the fiscal year 1973-1974?


Hon.   Monique@: 1 and
2. (a) $34,573.44.
Contractor	Cost
Leo J. Roghmans	$ 4,660.00
Prof. H. Arkin	$16,830.00
Management Consulting	$10,225.00
J. C. Neville	$ 2,858.44
(b) $281,389.	
Contractor	Cost
Public Service Canada	$18,000
Bureau of Management Consulting	$ 5,625
Dr. O. R. Porebski	$ 4,500
Stimler Associates Inc.	$ 3,864
Unisearch consultants	$ 2,500
A.M. Systems Consultants	$17,000
A.M. Systems Consultants	$30,000
Daniel A. Arbuckle	$ 5,000
B. Aubrey	$ 5,000
D.S.S. Bureau of Management Consultants	$10,000
D.S.S. Bureau of Management Consultants	$ 3,750
D.S.S. Bureau of Management Consultants	$ 6,000
D.S.S. Bureau of Management Consultants	$17,500
D.S.S. Bureau of Management Consultants	$ 9,500
D.S.S. Bureau of Management Consultants	$ 8,600
D.S.S. Bureau of Management Consultants	$20,000
D.S.S. Bureau of Management Consultants	$ 4,000
D.S.S. Bureau of Management Consultants	$ 8,900
D.S.S. Bureau of Management Consultants	$ 5,000
D.S.S. Bureau of Management Consultants	$14,000
Currie, Lehman & Associates Ltd.	$ 3,250
Dynamics Research Corporation	$ 4,500
Dynamics Research Corporation	$10,000
Heal, Shaw, Walden Ltd.	$ 5,000
S.P.L. International	$11,900
S.P.L. International	$43,000
J. G. Wilson	$ 5,000
3. (a) $41,664. (b) $41,857.


Mr. Herbert: What are the terms and conditions under which the Export Development Corporation financed an industrial cane sugar complex for the Republic of the Ivory Coast?


Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Export Development Corpo-

Order Paper Questions
ration states: on August 11, 1976, EDC and four Canadian banks made an agreement to lend $50 million to the Societe pour le developpement des plantations de canne a sucre, l'industrialisation et la commercialisation du sucre, to finance a sale by Redpath Industries Limited and Redpath Sugars Limited, Montreal, of goods and services for the development of a sugar cane estate and the construction of a raw sugar factory. Repayment is to be by 20 semi-annual instalments beginning six months after completion. EDC also provided a guarantee for loans by banks up to $5 million.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	For each of the past three years, what were the estimated yearly GNP Figures given at the end of each quarter?
2.	For the same years, what were the Final revised GNP Figures?
3.	For the same years, what were the sources of discrepancies which resulted in subsequent revisions of the GNP figures and what was the dollar amount each was in error?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: See the
following tables. 1 and 2. The following table indicates the GNP figures (seasonally adjusted at annual rates) for each quarter from 1973 to 1975. In every quarter, the latest estimate is higher than the first estimate.
Gnp Estimates by Quarter 1973-75
First Estimate	Latest Estimate
($ millions) Year-over- ($ millions) Year-overyear	year
percent	percent
changes	changes
1973	I	112,584	13.4	115,828	15.7II	115,992	13.2	119,380	15.4III	119,080	14.4	124,128	17.7IV	125,208	16.1	130,992	19.51973	First annual average	118,678	15.3	122,582	17.11974	I	132,060	16.9	137,708	18.9II	137,608	18.5	141,876	18.8III	142,672	18.3	148,304	19.5IV	144,120	14.5	150,576	15.01974	First annual average	139,493	17.5	144,616	18.01975	I	146,512	9.1	153,340	11.4II	150,344	8.5	157,408	10.9III	157,432	9.0	164,776	11.1IV	161,944	10.8	169,004	12.21975	First annual average	154,752	10.9	161,132	11.4
Note: The first annual average figures are published at the end of each year and incorporate any revisions to the quarterly

figures made during the year. Accordingly, the annual average figure cannot be calculated from the first quarterly figures given here.
3. The first estimate of GNP for 1975 was $154,752 million, while the latest estimate is $161,132 million. The following table indicates the sources of the difference on a GNP basis.
Wages, Salaries and Supplementary Labour Income	($ millions) 3,961	Percent Share 62.1Military Pay and Allowances	2	0.0Corporate Profits before Taxes	819	12.8Dividends paid to Non-Residents	- 90	- 1.4Interest and Miscellaneous Investment Income	420	6.6Accrued Net Income of Farm	50	0.8Operators from Farm Production	Net Income of Non-Farm Uninc	154	2.4Business including rent	Inventory Valuation Adjustment	133	2.1Indirect Taxes less Subsidies	601	9.4Capital Consumption Allowance	9	0.1Residual Error	321	5.0Total Difference	$6,380.	
In its publication "National Income and Expenditure Accounts, Second Quarter, 1976", Catalogue No. 13-001 Quarterly, Statistics Canada has provided a detailed explanation of the revisions. See particularly, pp. xv to xxi.


Ralph Goodale: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand, and that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand at the same time.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


Hon. Joseph-Phiilippe Guay (Minister without Portfolio):: moved:
That, when the House adjourns on December 22, 1976, it shall stand adjourned until January 24, 1977, provided that at any time prior to that date if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the Government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time;
And that, in the event of Mr. Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for the purpose of reconvening the House.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, if I might rise on a point of order, I do so for two reasons. First, I want later to seek consent to move a motion giving a reference to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. I want hon. members to tuck
December 22, 1976

that into the backs of their mirjds so that we can do it following the motion that stands in the name of the Minister of State.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Minister without Portfolio.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Minister without Portfolio. I was following the Speaker's latest pronouncement.
We have had some unexpected developments since the House opened this afternoon which have changed the character of the discussion and the length of our proceedings to the point where it may not be possible to do justice to the motion standing in the name of the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Guay), or do justice to at least the commencement of the debate on the introduction of television and broadcasting into the House of Commons.
Following consultations it is agreeable to me, upon passing this adjournment motion without debate, if we then recessed until the call of the Chair for Royal Assent. We would not proceed with the debate on the introduction of television or on the adjournment motion, because in the circumstances one or the other would be bound to suffer, so we want to let them suffer equally.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have tucked in the back of my mind the question of the order of reference referred to by my colleague, the government House leader, and the other matter raised by him. I should like to say that we are prepared to concur.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Spirit, in the same vein-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, first may I say that we too will agree to the motion which has been suggested regarding the giving of a term of reference to one of the standing committees. As for the immediate suggestion by the President of the Privy Council, I join with the House leader for the official opposition in saying it makes good sense. Things have happened today that we did not anticipate. There is not enough time left to do justice either to the adjournment motion, when we could point out all the sins of the government and so on, or to the motion to bring television into the House. I think it makes good sense for us to rise at this point and come back when you learn, Mr. Speaker, that the time has come for us to go to the other place for Royal Assent.
While I am on my feet, if this all goes through and we come back at a quarter to six for a trip to the other place for Royal Assent, there may not be any opportunity for anyone to say anything. Therefore may I have the honour and the privilege to be the first one to say it, Merry Christmas, Mr. Speaker, and Merry Christmas to all.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
International Development


Charles-Eugène Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleagues would not object to my adding that we agree to the suggestion that we adjourn immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: May I simply say to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, before seeing the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) again that I remain Mr. Speaker while I am in this Chamber. I only become "Mr. Spirit" when we move across the hall to Room 16.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, again on a point of order, could I get consent to put the motion giving a reference to the standing committee on External Affairs and National Defence?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There may appear to be two or three questions before the House at the same time. In fact I think there are not. The question that has been put by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Guay) is before the House, and in its terms it says "when the House adjourns on this day". We are still under motions at the present time. Therefore, to be orderly, I would ask the House to address itself to that motion. That leaves it open for us, having completed all our other business, to call the other motion, after which we might adjourn, for the adjournment motion by its very terms would prevail. The House has heard the terms of the motion relating to the adjournment of the House in the name of the hon. Minister without Portfolio, seconded by Mr. Buchanan. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence be empowered to examine and report upon the full range of policies of Canada in the field of international development with particular reference to economic relations between developed and developing countries.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Does it in fact give its consent to the introduction of the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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]
December 22, 1976
Royal Assent
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Orders of the day. If there is no further business, it being an appropriate time to adjourn the House, the House stands adjourned until the call of the Chair later on this day.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Should it not be recessed, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: The House stands in some sort of abeyance until the call of the Chair at a time close to 5.45 p.m. In relation to my earlier announcement, in case there is any doubt in anybody's mind, I extend an invitation forthwith to a reception in Room 16.
At 4.20 p.m. the sitting was suspended.
The House resumed at 6 p.m.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General has been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bill:
Bill C-19, An Act to amend or repeal certain statutes to enable restraint of government expenditures-Chapter No. 3.
[Stage Direction]
It being after six o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made earlier this day this House stands adjourned until Monday, January 24, 1977, at 2 o'clock p.m.
If we have not adequately done so already may I take this occasion to wish everyone in the Chamber, and all their friends and families, a very Merry Christmas and Happy New Year.
At 6:04 p.m. the House adjourned until 2 p.m., January 24, 1977, pursuant to special order made this day.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, January 24, 1977