1976-06-21

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

['As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.']
Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to such a motion under Standing Order 43?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



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 impact of inflation on the declared profits of the Canadian corporate sector without sufficient provisions to alleviate this problem and, furthermore, since Canada is lagging behind other nations in implementing inflation accounting which would properly measure the economic progress of business, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Gillies):
That this House instruct the Minister of Finance to initiate a study to bring about a long-range program to implement inflation accounting in all federal government departments, Crown corporations and agencies as an example for the private sector to follow.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Standing Order 43 requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
* *
*


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
* *
*

Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the position just taken by the Quebec Order of Agronomists, which asked the federal Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to postpone the application of his new dairy policy because of the serious effects it may have, namely possible shortages of dairy products which would result in further price increases for consumers, and considering also that the effects of that dairy policy are already causing an important decline in farm machinery and feed sales, which may have an impact on other vital sectors of our economy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House immediately analyze the short- and long-term consequences of the new dairy policy so that it can be reviewed thoroughly in the light of that reevaluation, before Quebec agriculture is completely broken up and other sectors of our economy are affected.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, wish to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The failure of the government to reach agreement with France in negotiations over boundaries between Canada and St. Pierre and Miquelon now creates serious problems as a result of declarations by both countries over the extension of 200-mile limits. In view of the fact that the last discussions on the delineation of boundaries was held in 1972, and that the government refuses to comply with motion for production of papers number 70, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That the whole matter be referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; therefore, the motion cannot be put.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity concerning the investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and the Unem-

June 21, 1976
Hereford Conference
ployment Insurance Commission of the defrauding of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, particularly in the Ottawa area. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the Minister of Manpower and the Solicitor General give details to the House of the specific aspects of this investigation being made by the RCMP, by Real Meilleur, Chief of UIC benefit control and two of his control officers, Mike Richard and Claude Charron, into the possible and suspected connections between the defrauding of the Unemployment Insurance Commission and trafficking in narcotics.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact it is obvious that the policy of apartheid, or racial separation, of the government at Pretoria is the source of the recent massive violence and bloody riots there, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin):
That the Canadian government call on the government of the Republic of South Africa to consider these events as a warning that they must once and for all abandon a system which is clearly unacceptable under any criterion of human rights.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion pursuant to Standing Order 43 can be debated only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave to present a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the World Hereford Tour and Conference commencing today and ending July 9, when representatives from 50 countries will visit some of the world's leading farms and ranches across Canada, culminating in Alberta, with 1,000 delegates expected at the conference in Banff June 27-July 2; an anticipated attendance of 2,000 at the Alberta Hereford Centre, Innisfail, July 6, the only place in the world where a breeding association does its own recording of performance testing; the Hereford Show at Calgary, July 8-9, where over 700 Herefords will be shown, 110 from the United States and 620 from Canada; I 
move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave):
That this House request the Speaker of the House of Commons, on behalf of the members of the thirtieth Parliament, to send greetings, salutations and congratulations to members of the tour on their ingenuity, independence and importance, to Mr. Warren Smith, President, Central Alberta Hereford Club, Olds, Alberta,-


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


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bruce-Grey.


IMPORTATION OF BEEF
Mr. C. Douglas (Bruce-Grey):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As it has become apparent that the importation of Australian and New Zealand beef has increased by 34 per cent as of the end of May this year over the same period last year and that prices for imported beef-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Capilano.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the Prime Minister's recently expressed views concerning conflict of interest and in view of the fact that Campeau Corporation is the largest landlord renting space to the federal Crown not only in the Ottawa area but in the whole of Canada, and in view of the fact that these lease arrangements in the Ottawa area between the federal government and Campeau have increased over 900 per cent since 1968 and that these leases with Campeau now have an annual cash flow of nearly $10 million, and in view of the fact that the government rents 90 per cent of Campeau's available commercial office space in Ottawa, and in view of the fact that the incumbent assistant deputy minister, Planning and Development for the Department of Public Works is actively involved in leasing functions with Campeau-a company he was vice-president of until 1973-a situation which could give rise to a possible conflict of interest-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a motion perhaps he might put it.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I move, seconded by the hon. member for Huron-Middlesex (Mr. McKinley):
June 21, 1976

That this House instruct the government to launch an immediate and in depth inquiry into the possible conflict of interest existing in the situation of A. J. Perrier in regards to leases negotiated and arranged with his recent former employer on behalf of the Crown.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provision of Standing Order 43, I request the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion dealing with an urgent and important matter.
As the irresponsible and disgraceful actions of the English-speaking controllers who want to prevent the use of French in Quebec province whose population is francophone, and as those controller's blackmailing threatens Canadian unity by giving Quebecers the impression that one cannot be a Canadian in French, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House order the government to go ahead with its bilingual policy in ground-to-air communications, and that severe sanctions be taken with anglophone controllers who spurn the law and our courts.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In light of the fact that a majority of the aviation community has brought air traffic movements to a halt in Canada on
Oral Questions
the grounds that it is not safe to fly in present circumstances, and noting that the Minister of Transport has promised an inquiry into the implications for safety of the possible introduction of bilingual air traffic procedures which were to be conducted simultaneously with the MOT simulator study, can the Prime Minister tell us when a commissioner is to be named to conduct this inquiry?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the search for a commissioner or commissioners to replace the one who resigned recently is actively going on and we hope to be able to name a commissioner very soon. I would point out that the work in which that commission would have to engage would probably take a period of several months and it is hoped that the pilots and air traffic controllers will await the outcome of that study. This being the case, I find it very regrettable that some of them would be engaged in a strike because the strike in itself cannot advance the very basic requirements of the commission's work which would be to see how safety could be maintained in every way and be made compatible with the bilingual capacity.


Donald W. Munro: My supplementary question is directed to the Acting Minister of Transport or to the parliamentary secretary. In light of the fact that approximately two weeks ago the Minister of Transport requested from the air traffic controllers suggestions as to names for people who could satisfactorily be commissioner or commissioners, could there be some explanation of why there has been a delay and whether official communications have been concluded with the air traffic controllers to say whether or not the proposals they have put forward are acceptable.


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the minister, before his departure, and certainly officials since that time have been in rather regular communication with all parties interested in the decision which is to be taken. As the hon. gentleman will appreciate, the job which the commissioner or commissioners will have to do is extremely important and one that requires substantial expertise and sensitivity to the issues that are involved. Therefore, it is our hope that we will be able to find the best person possible to conduct that inquiry, so we are conducting the broadest possible search in order to find the individual or individuals who will do the job that is necessary.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the President of the Treasury Board.
Can the minister tell the House whether it is true, as has been announced, that the Treasury Board is in the process of penalizing the controllers as provided by the law?

June 21, 1976
Oral Questions


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister advise us what position the Minister of Transport is taking in view of the refusal of air traffic controllers to report for work? Is it the position of MOT that, notwithstanding the absence of air traffic controllers at a number of airports and threats to not work at others, it is still safe for commercial flights to be continued?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman will appreciate, the inactivity or the lack of operation of certain air traffic control towers in the country very obviously complicates the problems of managing the traffic flows from one part of Canada to another. The ministry is very actively observing the situation at present, and obviously flight operations will not be allowed under circumstances which are unsafe.


GOVERNMENT POSITION ON POSSIBLE BREACH OF INJUNCTION BY PILOTS
John Allen Fraser: Is it the government's position that the airline pilots are in breach of the injunction obtained against them yesterday? I ask this in view of the fact that under all circumstances individual pilots who have reported for work are in the invidious position of having to make their own decision as to safety.


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the position of the air line pilots is something which was determined by a legal proceeding initiated by the airline companies, and the relationship between the companies and their employees is a matter for them to sort out, with the assistance of the courts.


SUGGESTED WIDENING OF INQUIRY TO INCLUDE ADEQUACY OF AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL EQUIPMENT
Mr. Lies Benjamin (Regina-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport who, I understand, is attending the funeral of his father-and all hon. members extend their sincerest sympathy and condolences-I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government would be willing to widen the terms of reference of the commission of inquiry to include not only the matter of bilingualism in air traffic control, but also the adequacy of equipment which air traffic controllers have to use at airports generally in Canada, and their working

conditions, in the light of the kind of stress they have to work under in present circumstances.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the government has just finished negotiating with the air traffic controllers, and as I understand it, there has been a satisfactory conclusion of the contract on every point. The question of bilingualism is the only non-contractual matter which is outstanding, and I do not think it would simplify things if we were to introduce into the work of the commission the various extraneous propositions put forward by the hon. member. They are, of course, of interest to the government, and the parliamentary secretary indicated just last Thursday or Friday that if there were anything particular that the government should do to increase safety by way of instruments, it would gladly hear any representations, of the hon. member or of anyone else.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Whether air traffic control is carried out in one language or six, we cannot separate working conditions from the quality of the equipment they are using in the performance of their duties. When the Prime Minister is considering the terms of reference for the commission of inquiry, he should be aware that at the Vancouver airport there are 900 aircraft movements on one runway per day


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Surely if the hon. member is seeking information, the question ought to go forward, but if it is a representation with respect to details, that ought to be made in another way.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister asked me if I had some specific points. I will begin the wording of my question in a proper and accepted way. In view of the fact that there is an average of one equipment failure per day at Vancouver airports, that they are using world war II receivers, that radar which has been installed is not working and that surface detection radar, ordered six years ago, has still not arrived and they cannot see planes on the ground in a fog-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -would the Prime Minister reconsider the terms of reference of the commissioner or commissioners so that it will be more than just bilingualism in air traffic control which will be considered? Should the considerations not include the adequacy of equipment which is available for the controllers and their working conditions?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Apart from the representations which have been made, which I will look into, the answer to the question remains the same.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I might also ask the Prime Minister the following: in view of the circumstances and the atmosphere presently prevailing in the country, particularly with regard to air traffic controllers, pilots and the Ministry of Transport, is the government now prepared to provide sufficient assurances so that the Ministry of Transport, the air traffic controllers, the pilots and the public can cool it on the matter of how and when bilingualism comes into air traffic control until the findings of the
June 21, 1976

commission of inquiry have been reported and fully discussed among all concerned?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think that is a very proper suggestion. I suggest that this House in some way should adopt the suggestion of the hon. member that the pilots and the air traffic controllers should cool it and agree to do their jobs and stay within the law until this point has been properly decided.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGRICULTURE
Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
The Quebec Order of Agronomists analyzed the new dairy policy of the federal government last weekend and underlined the serious consequences which are already being felt in this area, namely the sale of major farm equipment which is close to zero and the decline of 50 per cent in the sale of feeds.
Considering that industrial milk producers have really agreed to lower their production in the last two months, can the minister tell the House whether his department proposes to change the dairy policy enunciated a few months ago and when.


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, over a week ago we announced what we were considering at that time whether any changes were to be made in the policy. I would remind the hon. member that the dairy policy was agreed to by the dairy farmers of Canada. The dairy farmers of Canada will have to agree to any new conditions in the dairy policy. It will not be without any discussion with them if changes are to be made. This is an agreement signed by the dairy farmers of Canada and the provinces. The real problem is the distribution of quotas within the provinces themselves. If the provincial people would quit passing the buck to Ottawa, it would be better for all producers concerned.


PROPOSED INTRODUCTION OF QUOTAS ON TEXTILE IMPORTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As the United States retains 90 per cent of its domestic textile market for its own producers, the European Economic Community retains 80 per cent and Canada retains only 46 per cent, is the government planning to introduce quotas on textile imports which will more closely approach those of our most important trading partners and thereby make it unnecessary for
Oral Questions
the large scale and steadily increasing lay-offs and closing of plants which have been taking place in recent months in the Canadian textile industry, due to a steadily increasing stream of cheap imports from law wage countries?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, it was only last week that there was full and detailed debate on this subject in this House. I answered many of the questions at that time. I can assure the hon. gentleman I used the words "more quotas" than at the present time because we have quotas on a great number of commodities and textiles. We are presently considering additional ones relating to such things as outerwear. As I told the House during the debate last week there is an industry, government and provincial committee with labour representation on it which is asked to report to me by the end of this month the further steps that should be taken.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As the minister stayed very clearly away from this issue of increased quotas in his speech in the House last week, and as those people in the industry with whom he has been dealing and will be meeting later on are unanimously and strongly of the opinion that the only way to correct this disastrous and increasingly serious situation is to increase quotas to levels more approaching those imposed by the European Economic Community and the United States, I again ask the minister if he will give serious consideration to bringing Canadian quotas to a level closer to those of the countries with which we deal on a larger scale, the United States and the European Economic Community, so that this industry, which is in very serious condition right now and is getting worse day by day, will not perish?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my comments the other day we are looking at whether there should be a different arrangement of quotas or an expansion of the quota system. The hon. member says it is the unanimous view that this will solve the problem. I would say to him that there are certain sectors that are by no means of that view. There is a certain degree of conflict which we are seeking to eliminate at the present time. I have indicated that we are flexible and that if some proposals come forward that make sense and would bring about the result that the hon. member desires, and which we all desire, we certainly would look at it very seriously and quickly.


ANTI-INFLATION PROGRAM SUPPORT FOR PROGRAM OF SENATOR LAWSON IN VIEW OF SALARY INCREASE ACCEPTED
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and it concerns a member of the other House, Senator Ed Lawson who was appointed some four years ago by this government. His salary has been boosted as vice-president of the International Teamsters' Union from $18,000 to $22,500, an increase of 25 per cent. In addition to that he draws a salary as director of the Affiliated Canadian Conference of

June 21, 1976
Oral Questions
Teamsters and is president of the Union's B.C.-Yukon Board. As the senator gave such strong support for the guidelines providing for increase of between 8 per cent and 12 per cent, has he been in touch with the government to advise that he would not be accepting this increase, so unjust to the enforcement of the guidelines and to wage earners earning comparatively low wages, but yet, in this case, apparently defended by the senator who previously gave his full support to the guidelines?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the senator has not been in touch with me, but I will be glad to inquire to see if he has sought advice in this regard.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question for the Minister of the Environment arises from recent reports, the most recent one being from the University of Denver, which suggest that chemical reactions occurring from gases released by aerosol sprays are threatening to erode the atmosphere's layer of ozone. As such erosion could result in a substantial increase in skin cancer, will the hon. gentleman tell the House whether he has investigated this latest evidence and, if it is factual, will he consider introducing legislation to ban the use of aerosol sprays?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment and Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, it has not been proved thus far that the use of aerosol sprays causes an irreparable damage. The U.S. Academy of Science made a study and came to the conclusion that nothing proved that the use of aerosol sprays could cause damages such as those he mentioned.


William Herbert Jarvis: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I thank the minister. This is the single voice in opposition to the proposal that has been advanced by the University of Denver and other groups. Be that as it may, is the hon. gentleman aware that, according to the Canadian Cancer Institute, it is estimated that a 10 per cent decrease in the ozone layer will result in a 20 per cent increase in the incidence of skin cancer and that, at present trend rates, we shall reach that point within the next quarter century? Does the hon. gentleman propose to take action to protect Canadians from the threat of this dread disease which last year afflicted over 11,000 Canadians?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I missed part of the hon. member's question, but I agree on the consequences of the destruction of the ozone layer. As for the second part of the question, of course we are interested in the problem raised. We are following it closely and seeing

by what means we can prevent an increase of that destructive element in the atmosphere.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. As industrial milk producers are now in severely straightened financial circumstances, having received in the month of May one quarter of the income they received in the same period last year for the production of milk, and since the minister has intimated that he will be consulting the dairy farmers of Canada, can he now confirm that he will consult them, and when?


Eugene Whelan: 
ALLEGED DUMPING OF BEEF BY AUSTRALIA AND NEW ZEALAND-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Crawford Douglas: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As it has become apparent that the importation of Australian and New Zealand beef has increased by 34 per cent by the end of May this year over the same period of time last year, prices for imported beef having been from 15 cents to 25 cents lower per pound than that paid for the same beef delivered to the United States, and as it would appear that this practice is very close to dumping by Australia and New Zealand, would the minister tell the House what steps his department has taken to prevent this practice from continuing to the detriment of Canadian cattle producers?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Agriculture some days ago referred in the House to this problem. Since that time, indeed, I think before then, representations were made to the governments of New Zealand and Australia. I personally, in the absence of my colleague the Minister of Agriculture, met with the minister of agriculture from Australia. They have undertaken to reduce the differential in price between sales in Canada and the U.S., but some details are still to be worked out at the official level. As soon as this is done no doubt some kind of public statement will be made.
June 21, 1976


ALLEGATION BY MINISTER THOSE OPPOSED TO NUCLEAR POWER ISSUING MISLEADING STATEMENTS-REQUEST FOR INQUIRY
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources concerns the statement he made last week in which he condemned those opposed to nuclear power for issuing distorted and misleading information laced with scary sensationalism. Since the Liberal convention of 1975 called for a full public inquiry into this matter, and the Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility also called for a full public inquiry, will the minister advise the House why he still opposes a full public inquiry, since any misleading information could be defused during such an inquiry?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I was making the important point in my remarks that lots of people are taking advantage of public ignorance and public fear to put forward very scary, alarmist statements which cannot be supported by fact. I hope the hon. member shares with me the call to those who report on the generation of nuclear power to exercise more responsibility and look at the facts before they make statements or write an article.


PROPOSED ESTABLISHMENT OF CENTRE TO DISSEMINATE INFORMATION ON GENERATION OF NUCLEAR ENERGY-TYPE OF INFORMATION DISSEMINATED
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, that is a good argument in support of a public inquiry. I am pleased to note the minister making it. Since the minister has called for the establishment of a public information centre to disseminate information, may I ask, will that centre be providing for new evidence available from responsible sources showing that the export of the CANDU reactor brings no compelling economic benefits to third world countries and that, according to IRDA, an agency of the U.S. government, the CANDU produces twice the amount of plutonium, which could be used by terrorists, of any other reactor and that the CANDU is the most dangerous reactor being exported in the world. Is the minister ready to see that kind of information disseminated by the public information centre the establishment of which he is calling for?


An hon. Member:: The IRA want a CANDU.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, a number of responsible agencies and groups in the country are interested in advancing public understanding of nuclear power generation, not only for Canadian use but for use outside. I was speaking specifically about the use of nuclear energy in Canada. It seems to me we have not marshalled the important resources of universities and the expertise and opinions of the public responsibility group to which the hon. member referred, the Coalition for Nuclear responsibility. I have written, or am in the process of writing, to a number of groups such as the Science Council of Canada and professional groups, including engineering groups, suggesting that perhaps we should form, with their assistance, some
Oral Questions
kind of public information body on resources. It should not be a propaganda agency; it should be a publicly supported agency which can deal with this question on a factual basis. That is one way of going about it. The other way is by proceeding by way of interaction between these various groups, and that has been going on. I am interested in getting the views of those most concerned and most knowledgeable in this area, and their advice.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Finance follows the question asked by my colleague the hon. member for York-Simcoe on June 15, and also arises out of a newspaper article printed last Saturday linking Mr. A. L. Bissonnette, another member of the Anti-Dumping Tribunal, with the private business activities of the tribunal's chairman. Is the minister in a position to inform this House whether he widened the inquiry he undertook last week and when he will most likely be able to report to this House with respect to his findings concerning Mr. Bissonnette?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have had a discussion with Mr. Bissonnette and expect to be able to make a statement about the chairman tomorrow.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Agriculture is on the same lines as another question asked earlier this afternoon. It has to do with dairy policy. Since Manitoba has remained within its quota for the last two years but at present faces the prospect of severe cutbacks under our dairy policy, I ask if the minister has put forward, or is prepared to put forward, any proposals to the provinces and the Canadian Dairy Commission for changing the operation of the interprovincial quota transfer system, which, as it presently operates, appears to reward provinces contributing to the surplus while penalizing those which have kept their production under control? Manitoba is one of the provinces which seems to be penalized.


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, Manitoba increased its production last year over and above the 5 per cent. However, Manitoba has probably one of the fairest systems of any marketing program in Canada because it has a complete pooling system for number one milk. They are not without problems in Manitoba. I addressed the annual meeting of the Manitoba milk producers. They made some representations. How-

June 21, 1976
Oral Questions
ever, I can state that they are a lot happier in that province than in any other province, including Ontario and Quebec, because of the system under which they operate.


TRANSPORT
Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Transport. In view of the fact the government has agreed not to proceed with Bill C-87 before the summer recess and as there is considerable fear that the provisions of clause 15 of that bill will be enacted in anticipation-what I speak of is with regard to the act and East rates and the handling of grain at the Great Lakes terminal-can the minister give the House and all those involved some assurance that the previous pattern of grain movement will be retained until such time as clause 15 of Bill C-87 is amended, withdrawn or a new bill drafted for the next session? Also, will he advise the wheat board that this grain movement should be maintained because to act upon the provisions of a bill that had not been passed would be to act unlawfully.


Ralph Goodale: Of course, Mr. Speaker, if a particular provision of a bill has not been enacted, it does not become law. The existing statute will therefore continue in force as it has in the past.


STATISTICS CANADA
Mr. Jacques Lavoie (Hochelaga):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Since several employees of Statistics Canada will be dismissed on September 30 next, allegedly because the staff ought to be younger and less numerous, if they have not been restored either to their same functions or hired in another service in the federal government, can the minister tell the House whether he intends to contact Statistics Canada's officials so that these employees may be rehired by other services in the same agency or in the federal government?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know of the particular matter to which the hon. member refers. With regard to the second part of his question, I will certainly take this up immediately with the head of Statistics Canada.


HOUSING
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, I will direct my question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. It arises as a result of the parliamentary secretary's answer in the House last week that it is common practice to offer lower interest rates on one year mortgages on the part of the trust companies. Will the minister indicate whether he is aware of this practice of one year mortgages at a reduced rate of a half per cent and does he intend, either in his own name or in the name of his colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, to take action to prevent this bait and switch method of mortgage financing?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that. Looking at the whole picture of the rollover of mortgages, it was CMHC which in 1969 introduced the five year rollover. It is designed to bring more mortgage money into the market. The reduction in cost of the one year rollover might be a difference on the one quarter of one per cent. This seems to be reasonably stable now with the five-year planning. I am looking at it. We always keep all options open. I will discuss it with my colleague, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Serge Joyal (Maisonneuve-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport.
In view of the allegations made by members of the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association that near accidents have occurred in the last few weeks in places other than the province of Quebec, and since there are some doubts in the public opinion concerning the causes of these near accidents, can the parliamentary secretary inform hon. members of the House whether inquiries are now under way at the Department of Transport to identify the causes of these near accidents, share the responsibilities of the parties involved and take the measures and necessary action to prevent their repetition or sue those who spread a false rumour?


Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, whenever incidents of this kind are reported to the Ministry of Transport, they are investigated quickly and thoroughly. I can assure the hon. member that in the particular instance to which he is referring, an investigation will be undertaken to determine if there is any validity to the allegation which has been made.

June 21, 1976


NORTHERN CANADA POWER COMMISSION
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and concerns the proposed rate increases by the Northern Canada Power Commission. For the past several weeks, people in the Northwest Territories and Yukon have been expecting the minister's reply to reports on NCPC by the Public Utilities Boards and by citizens groups in the two territories. Is the minister now prepared to make public the action he will take to protect northern consumers from these drastic increases in the cost of electricity? The minister has gone on record as saying he favours a reduction in the interest rates on loans to NCPC. Will this be one of the methods the minister will use to protect northern consumers from this increase?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite correct. I have received the two reports of the public utilities boards in each of the territories as well as the Dalby report. Virtually all of the matters with which it dealt fall within the competence of the Northern Canada Power Commission and have been taken in hand by the chairman of the NCPC. The one matter that will have to be examined by the federal government is the question of the capital debt. We are currently looking at this. We are not sure it can be handled by a lightening of the interest charges, as the hon. member suggests, or a diminution of the actual amount of the outstanding debt. These matters involve departments other than my own. We are currently looking at this and hope to have some sort of proposal to present before the summer months expire, while people in the north are enjoying minimum power consumption.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development whether there will or will not be a rate increase announcement?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, there have been rate increases announced. It is our intention that these will proceed. As I indicated, it is our hope that during this period of low power consumption during the summer months we can examine this and see if we can roll back part of this increase.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD REQUEST THAT BOARD STUDY RATE INCREASES PROPOSED BY AUTOMOBILE INSURANCE COMPANIES
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. The automobile insurance companies are increasing their rates as of July 1 by 10 per cent after a 12 per cent increase on January 1 of this year, making a cumulative increase of 23 per cent on top of a 40 per cent increase last year. Acknowledging that the insurance companies are losing some money, but with the imposition of seat belt legislation and lower speed limits, the picture will be a little brighter, does the minister intend to ask the Anti-Inflation Board to take an especially close
Oral Questions
look at the justification of these increases and perhaps ask that the increases be phased in over a longer period of time?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it was specifically because of this concern that we put this industry under the AIB control.


ANIMAL CONTAGIOUS DISEASES ACT
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister indicate when we might anticipate receiving the new regulations respecting compensation for livestock that have been destroyed under the Animal Contagious Diseases Act? Also, what efforts are being made to ensure that this information is available to Canadians prior to the summer recess of parliament?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, it is our hope that it will be ready by then.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the minister's statement in Jasper that the budget maintains a substantial amount of fiscal stimulus in order to maintain a high level of domestic demand, and as Statistic Canada now reports that the domestic demand was a weak point in the economy with a high buildup of inventory, can the minister now say if his assessment of the strength of the domestic economy was wrong?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the hon. member that the national accounts for the first quarter of 1975 indicate an increase in that quarter of 2.7 per cent and that consumer spending, current government spending, housing and inventory accumulation were all the sources of that strength. The hon. member might go back and reread the article.


FINANCE
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. Would the minister indicate when we may expect some budgetary bills, and specifically how many bills might be tabled?
14690

June 21, 1976
Oral Questions


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, that will be in the next session. Very likely there will be two bills; it will depend on the nature of the actual tax changes.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister at least give first reading to the budgetary bills to enable people over the summer period to have the chance of reviewing the provisions of the bills, since many people in the private sector are disturbed at some of the aspects of the budget now before us?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the interval would be better used in discussing with people in the private sector the ways and means resolution that is now before parliament, so that this discussion can be taken into account in the drafting of the bills.


MANPOWER
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the continuing and pressing need to create jobs in Canada, can the minister tell the House whether a decision has been made with regard to the reintroduction of the LIP program or any other job-creation programs, when will he be making the announcement, and what date will the programs start?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I will be making an
announcement within a very few days about the $100 million Local Initiatives Program for the fall and winter of 1976-77. We anticipate that this will start in the fall. The details will be similar to those which apply in the previous two years, but with some increase in influence on the allocation of funds to areas of high and chronic unemployment. Some of the other criteria I will be announcing in detail, as I say, certainly before the end of the month.


ELECTORAL BOUNDARIES READJUSTMENT ACT
Mr. Paul Dick (Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that I have not been able to get an appropriate answer from the Secretary of State, I should like to direct my question to the President of the Privy Council. Under the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act the draft order was presented on June 7, it was proclaimed on June 11 and I believe gazetted on June 16. Have all steps been taken such that any election held after June 15 of 1977 will be on the new boundaries? If not, would he explain what steps have to be taken?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, my recollection is that within the next couple

of months returning officers have to be appointed for all the new ridings. I think the situation is this, that you could not hold an election before the date mentioned by the hon. member. I do not think I can yet give assurances that one could be held immediately thereafter; that would depend upon the chief electoral officer, if he is satisfied.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. When will the reorganization of the ministry, as announced to the press on May 28, the day after his estimates were passed by the committee, take place? Since this in fact represents a major reorganization of government, does the minister intend officially to notify parliament by way of a statement in the House?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the reorganization has been underway, is currently underway and largely in place. It was dealt with when the estimates were before the committee and we talked about the restructuring, co-ordination and new positions within CMHC and the ministry. This process is proceeding smoothly and we think it will have a great beneficial effect in making the ministry even more effective in the future.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question. Would the minister be prepared to make a statement in the House as to the timetable of the reorganization, and can he confirm to the House the plans of the government to appoint the present president of CMHC as deputy minister or undersecretary in the new ministry?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I thought the information was pretty clear. The information given out was certainly discussed before the committee. I would be delighted if the hon. member would choose an opposition day on which we could discuss this in some detail. I think all hon. members would find it of very great interest and a great step forward in the reorganization of government, making more effective use of resources which were complementary but not sufficiently well co-ordinated, as will now be the case.


MERCURY POISONING-PROPOSED CLOSING OF ENGLISH AND WABIGOON RIVERS TO FISHING
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the minister of health concerning mercury poisoning in northwestern Ontario. Is the minister or the special study group on mercury poisoning in his department aware of the contents of a special report in the hands of the Ontario minister of health which recommends that the English and Wabigoon river system be closed to all
June 21, 1976

fishing, and is the federal government prepared to take such action under the Canada Water Act?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of such a report. However, I know that consultations are now under way with Indians and between Indians and Ontario government ministers on that matter, and I am sure we will have the opportunity to discuss it soon with the Ontario government.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Manpower and Immigration a question.
Would the minister inform the House on the new situation concerning Lebanese visitors to Canada, and confirm whether it is true that new regulations have been decreed last Friday concerning Lebanese visitors to Canada?


Robert Knight Andras: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We are, effective today, going to offer the opportunity to some 1,000 Lebanese people here in Canada in the category of independent immigrants or who are here as visitors to apply for landed immigrant status through order in council, provided that with assistance from the Lebanese community they can be successfully established in Canada. Immigration officers will review their applications in those terms under relaxed criteria. Indeed, persons with or without relatives who arrive with visas will be admitted in the category in which they are seeking entry.
On the other hand, those who come to Canada illegally- that is, without visas-from countries other than Lebanon will be returned to the country from whence they came; that is standard immigration policy. We will be offering to those people here who do not have relatives, and who are here as of today, the opportunity to apply for permanent residence within Canada through order in council.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question has a very related and important connection. May I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether, in light of the successful efforts by the United States to evacuate a number of their nationals from Lebanon and activities by other countries in Europe, she can advise the House if Canada is taking any steps to evacuate the 200 or so Canadian nationals who are still in that war torn country?
Oral Questions


Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as the House may know, the airport at Beirut is closed and this does not give us any possibility of sending Canadian aircraft to take out Canadians. Our information indicates that there were no Canadians in the British organized convoy which arrived in Damascus on June 18. On the other hand, I was just informed that there were nine Canadians included in the 263 civilians being taken to Athens by the U.S. navy.


FRESHWATER FISH MARKETING CORPORATION
Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Fisheries). Has the minister received a request from the fishermen of northern Saskatchewan for a review of the price offered by the Freshwater Fish Marketing Corporation for cutter white-fish of as low as two cents up to 714 cents, which is less than half the price offered last year; and can these fishermen expect any support under the fish support program?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen a request of this type but I will obviously check into it right away. I might say to the hon. member, on the other hand, that the price is set by the corporation, its board and advisers, including a large number of fishermen represented on the advisory committee and on the board itself.


INTERNATIONAL PAYMENTS DEFICIT-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO COUNTERACT
Mr. Jim Balfour (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In light of the massive deficit on current account of international payments reported by Statistics Canada last week, is the minister considering any initiatives designed to improve Canada's trade position in relation to its level of exports?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Very much, so, Mr. Speaker, and a great many of them are underway. I am sure the hon. member has been advised of them. If not, I will be very glad to make them available to him. They include various missions to different countries as well as a number of missions coming here to look at the potential for export, and there is a wide range of other activities. So that the total package is quite impressive. Of course, as I mentioned to the House some weeks ago, particularly on the trade account itself, it looks as though last year's deficit is in fact being turned around and we will wind up with a small surplus.
14692

June 21, 1976
Oral Questions


FINANCE
James Balfour: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. Does he intend to take steps to modify the level of foreign borrowing, particularly by provincial governments, in order to reduce the level of interest paid from Canadian sources in respect of such borrowing, thereby alleviating to some extent the very serious balance of payments situation facing this country?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I take it what the hon. gentleman is advocating is a very loose monetary policy, and it would not be the intention of the government to ask for that action by the Bank of Canada.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question that is supplementary to one asked earlier of the Minister of Agriculture. It relates to the matter of imports from Australia and New Zealand of frozen carcas beef and boneless beef. Would the minister, perhaps in consultation with his colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, suggest that Canada should insist that all such imports from down under be brought in at a price no less than that for equivalent types of meat going into the United States and not at any discount, whatsoever, particularly the six-cent a pound discount we have heard about?


Eugene Whelan: Mr. Speaker, I, too, met the Minister of Agriculture for Australia, but in another city, namely, Rome. We discussed this very topic that the hon. member has mentioned. I did say I would discuss it with my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, at the first opportunity, but I have not had that opportunity so far. I am satisfied that the Minister of Agriculture for Australia is quite serious about bringing this whole matter of the sale price of their meat in Canada in line with what it is selling for in the United States.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table, in both official languages, the report of the commission of inquiry into the marketing of beef and veal.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I should like to table, in both official languages, a communique issued following the federal-provincial conference of attorneys general held at Vancouver on June 17 and 18, 1976.


NOTICE OF MOTION TO CONCUR IN MAIN OR SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES
Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, there was a technical slip-up at the end of the week. I should, therefore, like to move a motion, which I understand carries the support of my colleagues the House leaders of other parties, as follows:
That, notwithstanding Standing Order 58(4)(a), during the period ending June 30, 1976, twenty-four hours' written notice shall be required for any motion to concur in main or supplementary estimates.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I have had some communication in respect of this matter, and we are prepared to concur in the motion. I should like to commend the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) for not following the precedent of his colleagues in criticizing his public servants for the slip-up that occurred and for accepting the responsibility himself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, we agree to this method of correcting this error.


Léonel Beaudoin: Nous sommes d'accord, monsieur le president.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) which is introduced without notice at this time with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
June 21, 1976


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Ralph Goodale: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 5,362, 5,392, 5,401, 5,417 and 5,420.


Mr. Forrestall: 1.	Have any officials of the Department of Justice examined the answer to Question No. 3,703 in which it is stated that the Public Service Commission "is restrained by the provisions of section 13 of the Public Service Employment Act to the consideration of a prospective candidate's place of residence rather than his or her place of birth" and, if not, for what reason?
2.	Are there any regulations or orders issued pursuant to section 13 and, if so, have they been examined by the Department or its officials and, if not, for what reason?
3.	Does the answer to Question No. 3,703 have the nature of a legal opinion?


Mr. Francis Fox (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: 1. No. The Department of Justice has not been requested to provide legal advice to the Public Service Commission on this question.
2.	Section 9 of the Public Service Employment Regulations, which were made by the Public Service Commission in 1967, deals with the determination of the area in which applicants must reside in order to be eligible for appointment. As required by section 4 of the Regulations Under Section 9 of the Regulations Act (which were then in force), the Public Service Employment Regulations would have been examined by the Clerk of the Privy Council in consultation with the Deputy Minister of Justice to ensure that the form and draftsmanship thereof followed established standards. An examination of those Regulations also would have been made by the Department of Justice under the Canadian Bill of Rights.
3.	No. Government legal opinions can only be given by the Minister of Justice and the Attorney General of Canada by virtue of the Department of Justice Act.


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	For the crop years 1974-75, 1973-74 and 1972-73, how many producers, in each of the provinces, were charged interest on arrears arising from default under provisions of the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act?
Order Paper Questions
2.	What was the total (a) aggregate amount (b) for each province collected by the Canadian Wheat Board for interest in lieu of default under the provisions of the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act?
3.	Were any producers successful in appealing the decision of the Canadian Wheat Board to levy interest and, if so, how many?


Ralph Goodale: 1. Canadian Wheat Board statistics, relating to producer accounts for the crop years 197475, 1973-74 and 1972-73 that were placed in default and assessed interest under the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, are not maintained by province. The total number of producer accounts placed in default and assessed interest for each of those crop years are: 1972-73, 3,657; 1973-74, 3,555; 1974-75, 1,999.
2.	(a) 1972-73, $453,829; 1973-74, $751,822; 1974-75, $397,259; (b) Not available by province.
3.	No.


Mr. Beatty: What was the total cost for the building and opening of Mirabel Airport?


Ralph Goodale: The actual total cost, as of March 31, 1976, for the building and opening of Mirabel Airport is $324,858,000.


Mr. Reid: 1.	With respect to the answer to Question No. 3,938, does the government have a statement from Dr. Marion C. Powell that she has not been and never has been a member of Doctors for the Repeal of Abortion Laws?
2.	Is the government aware that in an advertisement in the CMA Journal of June 21, 1975 (Vol. 112, 1419) the name of a Dr. Marion C. Powell, Toronto, Ontario appears, and has the government investigated to discover if this Dr. Marion C. Powell is the same Dr. Marion C. Powell appointed to the Committee on Abortion Law Study and, if so, what were the results of the investigation?
3.	If the two Dr. Marion C. Powells should happen to be the same person, does the government consider that the neutrality of the Committee on Abortion Laws is destroyed by virtue of having a committed advocate of one side of the question on the Committee and, if so, what action does the government intend to take to redress the balance and to ensure that other sides of opinion are represented on the Committee?


Francis Fox: 1. No, but the government does have such a statement from Dr. Marion G. Powell.
2.	If the name appearing in the advertisement of the C.M.A. Journal of June 21, 1975 (Vol. 112, 1419) was intended to refer to Dr. Marion G. Powell, I am informed that she did not authorize the use of her name in this advertisement.
3.	The terms of reference of the Committee on the Operation of the Abortion Law, tabled in the House of Commons on October 15, 1975, make clear that the government is not asking the Committee to make recommendations on a policy with respect to abortion. The government considered it more appropriate to establish a committee to conduct a scientific study of the way in which the existing

June 21, 1976
Order Paper Questions
abortion law is actually operating. All the members of the Committee were carefully selected on the basis of their knowledge and experience and their ability to carry out this kind of research.


Mr. MacKay: What is the total cost of Mirabel International Airport to date, including approved estimates relating to (a) original land acquisition (b) supplementary land acquisition (c) court and legal costs arising out of land acquisition and expropriations (d) consulting fees to CAIM (e) consulting fees to outside consultants excluding CAIM and related to Mirabel (f) construction costs as approved by the New Montreal International Airport Project Office and costs of ancillary equipment for operations?


Ralph Goodale: The total actual cost, as of March 31, 1976, of Mirabel International Airport is $324,858,000. This includes the airport proper (including land used as airport operational zone), the air navigational aids (some of which are used exclusively for Mirabel), the meteorological services and ancillary equipment for operations. The total estimated cost, as of March 31, 1976, of Mirabel International Airport, including approved estimates relating to items (a), (b), (c), (d), (e) and (f) is $336,437,000.
n.b.: (a) Some 17,000 acres of land used as the airport operational zone were acquired for an approved estimated cost of $18,000,000. This cost is charged against the airport costs. In addition to the land used as airport operational zone, some 76,000 acres of airport peripheral land were acquired for an approved estimated cost of $143,000,000. This cost is not charged against airport cost; (b) there was no supplementary land acquisition; therefore no cost; (c) $1,280,603 have been spent as court and legal costs arising out of the total (some 93,000 acres) land acquisition and expropriation. Therefore, these costs are charged to the airport or to the airport peripheral land in proportion to the area of land. The proportion of these costs chargeable to the land used as airport operational zone is included in the $18,000,000 mentioned at item (a), (d) $25,637,500 have been approved for consulting fees to CAIM; (e) approximately $16,000,000 have been approved for consulting fees related to Mirabel to outside consultants excluding CAIM; (f) the total construction costs as approved by the New Montreal International Airport Project Office is $336,437,000. This figure includes, among other items, the estimated cost of the land used as airport operational zone, fees to be paid to consultants, the estimated cost of ancillary equipment for operations, the air navigational aids and meteorological services. The estimated costs of ancillary equipments for operation is $10,121,000.


Ralph Goodale: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Are the remaining questions allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding a question I placed on the order paper on June 8. It is a starred question and is in respect of which members of the cabinet were on the Treasury Board on December 2, 1975, dealing with the LRPA contract. This is an answer that could have been provided in one day and I would appreciate it if I could be provided with an answer by not later than tomorrow.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Opposition motion for the supply period ending June 30, 1976.
That this House condemns the government for its cynical behaviour at the Habitat conference held recently in Vancouver, first, in its position on land speculation; second, its policy of placing commercial criteria ahead of any others in the sale of nuclear reactors; and third, the obvious conflict between the government's bold statements on such environmental matters as clean water and its inability or unwillingness to enforce minimal standards in Canada, as in the case of the Syncrude plant in northern Alberta-Mr. Gilbert.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, this seems to be a day for confessing errors. I am grateful to the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) for pointing out a drafting error in the motion which our party has put down for debate today. As an old printer, I emphasize that it is a drafting error and not a typographical one. At any rate, the last phrase of the motion that will be debated today reads, "as in the case of the Syncrude plant in northern Alberta." It should read, "as in the case of the Great Canadian Oil Sands plant in northern Alberta". Like my hon. friend across the way, I will take the blame for it. Like him, I have discussed the matter with the other House leaders, and they have agreed that consent be given to making this change so the motion will read as I have indicated.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is quite right, and I should like to join him in congratulating the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk).


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, the motion which is on the order paper will be amended, by consent, so that in the last line the words "Syncrude plant" will be changed to read "the Great Canadian Oil Sands plant". Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview) moved:: That this House condemns the government for its cynical behaviour at the Habitat conference held recently in Vancouver, first, in its
June 21, 1976

position on land speculation; second, its policy of placing commercial criteria ahead of any others in the sale of nuclear reactors; and third, the obvious conflict between the government's bold statements on such environmental matters as clean water and its inability or unwillingness to enforce minimal standards in Canada, as in the case of the Great Canadian Oil Sands plant in northern Alberta.
He said; Mr. Speaker, the motion today refers to the recent United Nations conference in Vancouver on human settlements which was hosted by Canada and was called Habitat. This conference of over 125 countries, involving 4,000 persons, was a follow-up to the UN conference held in Stockholm on the environment, the conference in Rome on food, the conference in Belgrade on population, and the conference in Mexico on the status of women. Hon. members will note that in the motion I am critical of the performance of the government of Canada. It was outvoted, outclassed and outmanoeuvered, and played a role of compromise, cajoling, pleading and begging instead of giving leadership and direction to the problems of human settlements.
I am not critical of government ministers who represented Canada. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson), who acted as president of the conference, is a decent, open, honest and compassionate person-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Gilbert: -who spoke from the heart in the hardfist-ed business of politics. But the head as well as the heart must be used in respect of these problems.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) worked hard and long trying to defend the indefensible and trying to reach compromise solutions. What annoyed many Canadian delegates and observers was the weak and vacillating position of the government on the main issue of land, nuclear reactors, clean water and the new international economic order. I should like to demonstrate the government's poor and pitiful performance. The moral tone of the conference was set by the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau), Mother Teresa, the Vancouver symposium made up of Barbara Ward and 23 other world-renowned human settlement experts, and the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. I should like members to listen to what the Prime Minister said at the opening of the conference. He said:
Love is all you need-
But ordinary love will not be enough, according to the Prime Minister.
The only type of love which would be effective in the tightly packed world we already live in would be a passionate love-
Then he quoted Teilhard and said:
Love one another, or you will perish.
Then he said:
Life would become intolerable if one failed to love one's neighbour, the only path is a "conspiracy of love"-in this lies the salvation of human settlements and the hope held forth by Habitat...
The ordinary people, the youth, of whatever age, the participants in the parallel Habitat forum-all have a commitment. And of all the factors bearing down on the conference, Trudeau stressed that urgency was as important as any.
The long years of experience, the specialization, the advanced knowledge and the wisdom of the delegates of Habitat, mixed with the imagination, the originality, the spontaneity, the boldness and the
Habitat Conference
irreverence to be found at Habitat forum will produce, I am sure, an effervescence of quality.
That is what the Prime Minister said at the opening of the conference to set the moral tone. Let me relate what Mother Teresa had to say. Mother Teresa, the saint from the Calcutta slums, told people at the Habitat forum to put their love into living action and to give love until it hurts. She said:
Let us not just put this love into words. Let us love until it hurts.
Mother Teresa responded to the words of the Prime Minister in respect of a conspiracy of love by saying that the Prime Minister of Canada should match his words and his actions in accordance with what he stated at the opening of the conference. The Prime Minister's actions and Canada's actions were deafening by their silence and inaction. The third group to set forth the tone of the conference was the Vancouver symposium lead by Barbara Ward and 23 other renowed human settlement experts. The following is a news release:
The Vancouver conference is about the whole of life, says the declaration. "It is in settlements that mankind achieves happiness, justice and dignity-or suffers rejection, despair and deepening violence-Let Vancouver be remembered as a city where a new hope was born".
Then they set forth some of the problems which we are facing in respect of human settlements, and offered some solutions. They said that every encouragement must be given to the citizens themselves to arrange, build and diversify their communities. The declaration contains a strong commitment to public control over development land. The unearned increment created by changes in land use must return to the community, the 24 experts said, and not to private land owners. They also propose a moratorium on nuclear power and the transfer of research and resources to income-energy systems like solar power. The fantastic waste of resources and energy in western technologies, the declaration states, are errors and extravagances which all countries, developed and developing alike, can and should avoid. This was the statement led by Barbara Ward, Margaret Mead, Buckminster Fuller and others who set forth the moral tone.
May I relate what the Minister of State for Urban Affairs said. I quote from the Vancouver Province:
Danson said the ultimate reason for poverty is not a lack of resources but a lack of political will. "We have an opportunity here to change that choice. This, to me, is what we mean when we speak of Habitat as a solution-oriented conference."
Danson later held his first news conference as Habitat president. He repeated the position that industrialized nations must increasingly share their wealth with the developing world.
"If we try to isolate ourselves from other parts of the world, there will be despair and violence and from that we cannot escape, nor should we escape."
May I deal with the performance of Canada with regard to the Habitat conference. Canada's performance was disappointing and duplicitous. It was duplicitous in the sense of pretending to listen, but not acting. Senator Perrault was the embodiment of the duplicity in the sense of being all things to all men. The Prime Minister, on Monday at the opening of the conference, spoke of the conspiracy of love. On Tuesday, the day after, he said that Canada will not stop the sale of nuclear reactors to other countries. On Wednesday, Maurice Strong, the chairman of Petro-Canada took an opposite view and expressed the need for a

June 21, 1976
Habitat Conference
moratorium to study the impact and safeguards with regard to nuclear reactors. You could hear and feel the crash of the moral tone as a result of the statement by the Prime Minister with regard to a moratorium on nuclear reactors.
Second, with regard to the land issue, the conference started off with the principle that unearned increment should be returned to the community. Canada played the role of compromise, the role of waffling and vacillating with regard to the particular course Canada should accept. Mr. Speaker, this begged the question of how much of the unearned profits should be returned to the community. Should it be 5 per cent, 10 per cent, 95 per cent, or 100 per cent? The Minister of Justice summed it all up to the delegates. He said that this is a political question to be determined by the particular government. The final draft read:
The unearned increment resulting from the rise in land values resulting from change in use of land, from public investment or decision, or due to the general growth of the community, must be subject to appropriate recapture-
Again it begged the question: What is appropriate recapture. Is it 5 per cent, is it 10 per cent, or is it 100 per cent? The problem with regard to the recapture of unearned profits was a problem that Canada had because it was in the grips of the land developers. It was in the grips of William Teron, the president of CMHC. It was in the grips of Keith Morley, the president of Costain Land Development Company, and it was in the grips of the minister of housing for Alberta, William Yurko. It was they, and they alone, who set the vacillating and compromising position of Canada which Canada took with regard to the recovery of unearned profits relating to land. I shudder to think what would have happened to Canada's position if the persons representing the non-governmental organizations had not applied pressure to the delegates and the ministers concerning this problem.
The third issue is that of clean water. Practically every country there agreed on the general principle that we should have clean water either by 1986 or 1990. Clean water should be available by those dates to all persons throughout the world. What did Canada do? Canada did not make any dollar commitment to implement this principle. The best Canada could do was to have one of their delegates from the Department of Finance, Brian Hunter, come to the NGO meeting and say, "Really, gentlemen, this falls under CIDA. We have $1 billion to spend under CIDA, and perhaps we can spare $70 million to $100 million under this program. But really it is up to the developing countries to determine whether they want this money." If Canada had wanted to show leadership and direction, they would have said that we have money available immediately outside CIDA to implement this program. Then they would have had the support and encouragement of all the other countries. But no, they vacillated, they compromised, they refused to act.
The other area was with regard to the new international economic order which would have taken care of monetary reform, trade patterns, resource development and multinationals, because all these have formed part of the problems of human settlements. The answer of the Canadian govern-

ment was that they could not discuss this because the problems had already been discussed at the other UN conference of UNCTAD and therefore Canada could not disturb what took place there. You can see the position of refusing to act on a moratorium concerning nuclear reactors. There was waffling and compromising with regard to land, no action with regard to international economic order, and no dollar commitment with regard to clean water. Is it any wonder that Canada's performance was disappointing and duplicitous?
The real performers at the conference were the non-governmental organizations which were represented by approximately 200 persons. They were chaired by Mark Dorfman and the co-ordinator was Bernard Daly. It was they alone who had a real appreciation of the problems of human settlements, and it was they alone who forced the government to take the small steps that it took. I should like to read from the resolutions that the NGOs put forth to this government. I will summarize them because they are rather lengthy. In the Canadian NGO manifesto they said the following regarding the new international economic order:
1.	Regarding the new international economic order, let Canada take action to lead in establishing new international agreements and arrangements regarding trade, monetary systems, industrial strategies and resource development programs that are advantageous to the developing countries. Let Canada's response to the needs of poor countries not be only aid through the Canadian International Development Agency (CIDA).
2.	Let land be treated as a community resource and not as a market commodity ...
3.	Let Canada lead in establishing a moratorium on expansion of nuclear power, with accompanying emphasis on alternative power sources and on energy conservation.
4.	Let there be an end to fragmentation of housing programs among the federal, provincial and municipal levels of government. Let priority in housing be directed to special-need groups, especially by means of government action at all levels to control the cost of land and the cost of money for housing.
5.	Let there be a Canadian dollar commitment now to programs for clean water ...
6.	Let indigenous land claims be settled prior to the undertaking of development projects in Canada; and let special attention be paid to advancing the equality of indigenous women and to the general needs of native peoples in such matters as housing and jobs . ..
8. Let there soon be right to information legislation covering all levels of government in Canada.
They also added to that the need to develop a conservation-oriented society. This is what the Canadian position should have been, and what the Canadian delegates should have expressed at the conference. If they had, they would have had a splendid response, not only in Canada but throughout the world. The least that can be done now is for the Minister of Justice and the Minister of State for Urban Affairs to meet at a post-Habitat conference in Canada with the representatives of the non-governmental organizations and address themselves to the answers to the problems and to the solutions that they set forth to the government.
One of the main problems-and I dealt with it in a way- was the problem of land. Canada's position with regard to land and to the United Nations reveals a weakness at the federal, provincial and municipal levels. The high cost of housing in Canada is made up of three components: the cost of materials, the cost of financing, and the cost of land.
June 21, 1976

We in the NDP have pointed out to the minister on many occasions that the high cost with regard to financing is due to the fact that mortgages are in the control of the financial institutions which control the flow of moneys and determine the interest rates. Is it any wonder that people in Canada today are paying between 11.5 per cent and 12 per cent for mortgages? It is because the control and flow of mortgage money is in the hands of the financial institutions instead of under the control of the government.
The control of land for housing in Canada is in the hands of developers, and the government aids and abets the developers and speculators to increase their profits at the expense of home buyers. When I heard the Minister of Justice, the developers and the minister of housing for Alberta, Mr. Yurko, speak with regard to the recovery of unearned profits on land, I heard them say that in Canada they can recapture these unearned profits through the capital gains tax, the special speculation taxes in certain provinces, the corporation taxes, the municipal taxes and the impost taxes with regard to services. All these instruments do not work, and land developers are gouging the purchasers by unwarranted, unjustified and unconscionable profits in land development. They are treating land as a commodity instead of a community resource.
This philosophy is expressed by the developers and they are aided and abetted by the government. Back in 1973 this government commissioned Peter Spurr to make a special study with regard to the land problems across Canada. He prepared a report and gave it to Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. CMHC did not publish it for public use, but James Lorimer, who is a specialist in urban affairs, a teacher, writer and publisher, published the work of Peter Spurr with regard to land. The real thrust of his report is that in all the main cities across Canada, with the present exception of Montreal, land for housing purposes is in the hands of small groups of developers who make enormous profits and who pay little or no taxes on these profits because of the tax laws with regard to capital cost allowances, and the accounting and reporting procedures of these land development companies.
This is the price the Minister of State for Urban Affairs has had to pay to accomplish an increase in housing starts across the country. He had to give to the developers all the tax advantages available to them. This is the rip-off to which home buyers in Canada have been subjected to obtain shelter.
Let me deal with two examples. Let me deal, first, with the example which was raised by Wendy Day on CTV this past week when she said that in Erindale, Mississauga, in 1972 a three-bedroom bungalow on a 50-foot lot cost $32,850. To qualify, a purchaser required an annual income of $12,000. A down payment of $9,000 was made, which the purchaser obtained from the sale of his former home. With the down payment of $9,000 and a mortgage of $25,000 at 83/4 per cent interest, the monthly payment for principal and interest amounted to $204.96; with taxes, $270 a month. Today, less than four years later, the same bungalow two miles away, situated in Erindale, Mississauga, costs $63,995. That is almost a 100 per cent increase.
Habitat Conference
The purchaser now requires an income of over $20,000, and with a down payment of $15,500 and a mortgage of $48,480 at 11 per cent, the payments are now $466.83 for principal and interest; and with taxes included, $530 a month. That dramatizes how the cost of homes has increased in the short period from 1972 to 1976. In 1972, 50-foot lot in Mississauga cost $12,850. That same lot, in 1976, sells for $30,934, 2l/i times the price of 1972. This situation with regard to Erindale is true of all the major cities in Canada.
In an article by James Lorimer published in the Globe and Mail of May 22 he pointed out that in 1972 in Calgary a three-bedroom home on a 50-foot lot cost $25,000. In 1976 the same home on a 40-foot lot costs $54,000, an increase of more than 100 per cent; and an income of over $21,600 is required. In 1972, the average 50-foot lot in Calgary cost $6,320. In 1976 it costs $20,400, three times as high. Mr. Lorimer points out that the largest Canadian development corporations are in the land banking and land development business on a very big scale indeed.
Information collected by Peter Spurr for 1973 showed a total of 119,192 acres owned by 47 development corporations in about 21 Canadian cities. These private land banks in many instances are large enough to supply all the new land required for housing for the next five years. I am going to repeat that: these companies have enough land within their control to supply all the housing needs of Canada for the next five years. Around Ottawa and Hull- and I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Gauthier) will be interested in this-nine corporations were found to own 9,416 acres. That is almost 15 square miles of land. It is an eight-year supply at current new house densities and projected growth rates. Around Toronto, 24 firms were listed as owning 41,198 acres, and nine large firms held 87 per cent of that land. The same pattern prevails across the country with regard to the control of land by the development companies and with regard to the cost, profiteering and release of that land.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary wishes to ask the hon. member a question.


John Gilbert: Mr. Speaker, I will be delighted to answer the question when I have finished speaking. My time is very limited and I want to finish what I have to say. It is not only that land developers have land under their control; the government aids and abets the developers through capital cost allowances, and some provinces are permitting them to charge carrying costs. One would think that all these land developers who make such high profits would pay their proper share of corporation taxes. In James Lorimer's article of May 29, 1976, it is pointed out that in 1974 S. B. McLaughlin and Associates made a profit of $2,254,000 and paid taxes of only $376,000. In 1973, that company made a profit of $3,224,000 and did not pay one cent in taxes.
Daon Developments in Vancouver made a profit of $3,096,000 in 1974 and did not pay one cent in income tax. The Cadiliac-Fairview Development Company, which is a Toronto firm, made $13 million in profits in 1975 and paid $440,000 in taxes. Why is it that all these land development
14698

June 21, 1976
Habitat Conference
and building companies can make such huge profits at the expense of Canadian home buyers and not pay the proper taxes? The reason is that the tax laws of this government with regard to capital cost allowances provide loopholes to these companies so that they can get away with their enormous profits. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) will not take action with regard to these companies because he knows as well as I do that in Toronto the profits of Cadillac-Fairview, Bramalea, and S. B. McLaughlin are enormous. He knows that by permitting these companies to take advantage of capital cost allowances, they get away without paying any, or very little, taxes.
What should we in Canada do to reduce the cost of housing for the ordinary person? The first thing we must do is develop the philosophy that land is a community resource and not a commodity. The minister must learn that principle quickly. The second thing is that we must have public land banking. The minister will say that we have a form of public land banking. It was instituted by the present Minister of Justice. It is mere token land banking. What is needed is an immediate thrust with regard to the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his allotted time has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Gilbert: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank my colleagues. I certainly will not abuse the privilege given me.
I say that the minister has to set forth on a better land banking program which will immediately get within the control of the federal government, the provincial and municipal governments a sufficient number of lots which can be released to purchasers at a reasonable cost. I say "at a reasonable cost" because the experience, not only of CMHC but of some of the municipalities, as they have released the lots at an inflated price compared to what they paid has had little or no effect on the cost of land.
The government must purchase selective land development companies across the country so that we will have a yardstick with which to compare the price of land of private development companies and of public development companies. I am sure the Minister of State for Urban Affairs knows of the British Columbia experience when a private company was taken over. It provided them with a yardstick for the price of housing and the price of land. It was used for comparison purposes when the private developers tried to tell the provincial government that they were not making money on land and homes.
Another measure would be to close the loopholes with regard to capital cost allowances. These companies are permitted to charge 5 per cent of the cost of the buildings that are on the land. Experience has shown that in most cases the buildings on those lands have not depreciated but have, in fact, appreciated. In the financial statement given to shareholders, the figures of the accountants and audi-

tors show that it does not come anywhere close to the 5 per cent; in fact, it is much less than 1 per cent. What the minister must do is persuade the Minister of Finance to close the loophole with regard to capital cost allowances.
These suggestions are only starters with regard to the problems of land, Mr. Speaker. If the minister would take them under consideration, we could go to the next United Nations conference and make a real contribution to the problems of human settlement. We would not be seen to be wavering, vacillating or compromising on the question of land.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, like the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), I, too, have some critical comments to make about the government's performance at Habitat. I want to begin on a positive note, however, by congratulating the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) not only for his chairmanship of the entire conference, where I thought he conducted himself with great dignity and did credit to our whole country, but I want to pay him a particular tribute for his speech on Thursday night at the climactic moment of Habitat. As he, himself, described it, it was a speech from the heart, a speech that I think spoke for many Canadians who saw in Habitat a chance to make a forward move in the whole direction of international development.
Having said that about the minister, Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the House to consider some of the reasons the government's performance was indeed, as the hon. member for Broadview said, so cynical with respect to Habitat- cynical for a much deeper reason than the three mentioned by the previous speaker.
The motion deals with the specifics of land speculation, the spread of nuclear technology, and putting water in settlements, it says that the government was cynical with respect to those three matters. I could agree with that, but I think, despite the lip service that the hon. member for Broadview paid to Barbara Ward, he indicated that he still thought Habitat was fundamentally a housing conference. Habitat was far more than a housing conference, Mr. Speaker. In order to have any kind of realistic evaluation of what it was trying to do, what it failed to do, and why the Canadian government was cynical in its conduct during that conference, Habitat has to be seen in its total perspective.
It is quite true that the press of this country branded Habitat a failure. The press, that paragon of wisdom, reported up and down this country that Habitat was a failure because of the Arab-Jewish enmity which was carried from the halls of the United Nations in New York into the Queen Elizabeth theatre in Vancouver, turning a conference that was designed to provide settlements for people around the world into a prolongation of that terrible conflict in Palestine, and because of the Arab intransigence in insisting that the final declaration of principles contain an oblique derogation of Israel, forcing Canada along with 14 other countries to vote against the declaration. The press has regarded this whole performance as a failure.
That is too superficial a view of what Habitat was. I do not say that Habitat was a success. I deplore as strongly as anyone the ugly Mid-east battle that took place in Vancou-
June 21, 1976

ver, a battle of words, a battle of resolutions, a battle to slow down the very slow progress being made in the area of international development. But to tell the Canadian people that Habitat goes down the drain because of this resolution is to miss the point of what Habitat was. What did Habitat try to tell us, what was it trying to tell the world? Why was it more than just a housing conference?
One third of the entire urban population of the developing world lives in slums and settlements. Thirty per cent do not have water within 100 metres of their home. More than half the people in developing countries do not have electricity. Those are just the opening statements in the description of a world scene in which hundreds of millions of people in the 35 developing countries, now called the fourth world, live under conditions of absolute poverty and deprivation. It forms a global ghetto which closes in on them while pressing out on the rest of the world.
In many small, developing countries where dramatic growth has occurred, the benefits have not reached all the people. Of course, the question of numbers enters into it. The figures of the growth of cities, especially in the third world, are horrendous. Of the 17 cities in the world that are now called the "ten million" cities because they have populations in excess of ten million, ten will shortly be in the developing world where there is a desperate shortage of existing social services to provide the inpouring migrants with a semblance of human dignity. It did not take Habitat to tell us the situation of global disparity which produces this mass poverty.
The United Nations, through the series of conferences of which Habitat was but one, has shown us the global picture. The environment conference of 1972, the population conference, the world food conference of 1974, and the status of women conference in 1975, together with related conferences, culminated in the seventh special session of the United Nations in 1974-75 which gave us the new economic order. These factors, considered together, give us an overview of the global scene today, of which Canada is one part, and show us how serious the situation has become.
The situation has arisen because of the manner in which we and other industrialized nations maintain our standard of living and growth. We do it with the continued acquisition of technology, capital and resources which feed the ever-growing demands of our societies. The problem is terribly complex and can only be resolved by a new international partnership of developed and developing nations. I add, parenthetically, that the days of aid are over. I am talking of aid in the sense that it can raise the standard of living of people trapped in countries without resources, technology and capital. Aid is a "way-station" on the way to true reforms of social and economic systems which will allow the peoples of the underdeveloped countries of the world to become self-reliant. Basically, that is what Habitat was all about. It was concerned with specific questions relating to human settlements.
We should not think, by any means, that the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at Habitat, and the speech of Mother Teresa, earlier referred to this afternoon, set the tone of Habitat. The previous speaker suggested
Habitat Conference
that the tone of Habitat was set by the Prime Minister of our country and Mother Teresa speaking eloquently and rhetorically about love. That tone was quickly dissipated by the President of Mexico, President Echeverria, in the most under-reported speech of the whole conference. President Echeverria, who headed the delegation from Mexico to Habitat, was given a standing ovation in the plenary hall. He excoriated the industrialized nations for not following their rhetoric of the past few years with action which would help developing nations. I shall quote a paragraph or two of President Echeverria's speech to show the mood of Habitat, a mood to which Canada failed to respond. That led to cynicism. President Echeverria said, in part:
How could the human tide that is moving the cities actually be kept in the rural areas with a decent standard of living when the prices of food and raw materials are at the mercy of mercantile monopolization and iniquitous international speculation? ...
The attitude which the industrial states have recently adopted in economic matters reveals the extent to which their real dispute is waged not in the sphere of worldwide ideological conflict but rather in that of specific economic interests, and how easy it is for powerful minorities to reach circumstantial agreement when the majorities make specific demands and organize for action. When matters come to a head, however, questions of profit and loss have always proved more powerful than the standards of freedom, democracy, justice and solidarity.
The President of Mexico told the world and delegates to Habitat that despite the gravity of conditions facing developing nations, the industrialized world is not backing its sentiments of love with concrete action. It has not adopted the great resolutions previously passed by the United Nations. He specifically referred to the fourth UNCTAD conference which ended in Nairobi a few days before the Habitat conference began. Hon. members will recall that we discussed the work of the conference in this House a little over a week ago. It turned on the validity of the principle of a common fund being established for some ten buttressed commodities which developing nations export and on which they depend for foreign exchange, exchange with which they pay for the manufactured goods and commodities they need.
Although the matter was highly technical, the main line of the argument became clear. It was this: an integrated system to protect the prices of primary commodities produced in developing countries must be in place if those developing countries are to be given a chance at being self-reliant. Canada at the beginning of the UNCTAD conference gave lip service to the idea. At the end of the conference we said we would go along with the establishment of the common fund provided it was actually established. That quasi-commitment was dragged out of Canada in the course of the UNCTAD conference.
I mention the UNCTAD conference while talking of Habitat because both conferences are very much connected. Both Habitat and UNCTAD bear some relationship to the principles set forth in the UN charter of rights dealing with duties of states, and with the new economic order. These matters were raised in the declaration of principles. Canada voted against the declaration of principles which the Habitat conference finally produced. We voted against the declaration for reasons set out by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), the head of the Canadian delegation, to the effect that the declaration contains an iniquitous section derogatory of Israel. Since the Canadian gov-
95 5 70-30>/2

June 21, 1976
Habitat Conference
ernment made it clear that it will not tolerate any UN resolutions which link Zionism with racism, we found it easy to vote against the entire declaration of principles.


Marc Lalonde: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to hear the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) applauding.


Marc Lalonde: I will applaud again. Are you in favour of racism?


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I can only say to the minister that I have not successfully communicated with him this afternoon. I thought I made it clear at the beginning of my speech that I deplored that point as much as anybody.


Marc Lalonde: The hon. member should be consistent with his own speech.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, if only the Canadian government would be consistent with its own announcements, we would be a lot further down the road to development. I am sure the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) knows precisely what I mean. Canada voted against the declaration of principles presumably because it contained the anti-Zionist section. Actually, the declaration contained other points which made Canada uncomfortable and for which we did not want to vote; and as the Minister of Justice himself said during the two weeks, those points gave Canada a great deal of trouble. For instance, may I quote point 14 of the declaration of principles, which reads:
To achieve universal progress in the quality of life, a fair and balanced structure of the economic relations between states has to be promoted. It is therefore essential to implement urgently the new international economic order, based on the declaration and program of action approved by the General Assembly in its sixth special session, and on the charter of economic rights and duties of states.
If hon. members wish to know in more detail Canada's difficulties with that resolution, I direct their attention to an article written Mr. Bernard Daly in the Ottawa Journal of Friday, June 18 last. He points out that the intransigent position of the Arabs provided a smokescreen behind which Canada was able to hide its opposition to some of the bitter facts which developing nations were including in the declaration of principles. A balanced structure of economic relations between status has to be promoted, yet Canada is not ready for that kind of action.
The Minister of the Environment (Mr. Marchand) was interviewed by the press at Habitat. It was widely quoted across Canada. He said that we could not expect Canada to go along with any of these substantial changes because the government would risk electoral defeat. That is to say that the people of Canada and the Minister of the Environment would not support the changes called for in such declarations as the declaration of principles of Habitat because the government would risk electoral defeat. That is a very interesting point indeed. Is that to say that the government's own five-year strategy of international development co-operation that was published before the seventh special session opened last September-a 21-point dimensional strategy, a structural reform that puts it together as our own policy, which I have several times said in this

House that I support-will not be implemented because the government is afraid of electoral defeat?
Let us follow this down to hard specifics. I know the Minister of State for Urban Affairs is extremely familiar with this. I quote from our mutual friend, Barbara Ward, who wound up her brilliant and masterful book, "The Home of Man", which was the overview of the Habitat situation, by asking: What is it we are really trying to bring about in these structural changes? I quote:
A sustained determination to end hunger in the next ten years-
Is the government afraid of electoral defeat for trying to do that?
-a committed plan to provide every human being with clean water by the mid-eighties-
Will that plan throw the government out of office?
-a strategy for decent shelter for every family as the new century dawns-
Is that program going to defeat any Canadian government? I say that any Canadian government afraid to implement such a program is not worthy of holding office.
The remarks of the Minister of the Environment were widely noted by delegates from around the world when they read the Vancouver press. That minister ought to be excoriated by this House for failing to indicate the true Canadian position, a position supported by all sides of this House, for the movement forward of Canada's meaningful participation in international development. That policy is contained in a report to parliament from the subcommittee on international development, representing all parties, which studies this issue extensively.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the allotted time has expired. He may continue only with unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Roche: I thank my colleagues. I will not abuse the privilege. I want to make it clear that the policies for international development that we are talking about are incorporated in the report to parliament by the subcommittee on international development. It is still on the order paper awaiting debate. I will get to that in a second. I will read just one paragraph from the policy that supports this parliamentary policy and supports the government's own five-year strategy about which they are worried they are going to be defeated. I quote:
We realize the need for realism and for a long-term view of the role Canada can play in the global resolution of these difficult issues. Canadian influence must not be overestimated, but neither must it be underrated. Canada's own interests and economic influence place this country in a strategic position in a number of these debates, and Canadian credibility is reasonably high among most groups of countries.
That is just an inkling of the words that are found in that policy. However, Mr. Speaker, the problem gets down to this very simple reason about which the Minister of the Environment is concerned regarding electoral defeat, namely, that the Canadian people do not know what is going on; they have not been told about this policy.
June 21, 1976

We are debating Habitat this afternoon on an opposition day motion. We debated UNCTAD on an opposition day. We are always doing this. Why does the government not bring in its own motions, resolutions and legislation in order to state in this House its position in a positive way so that we can respond positively? It is wrong for parliament to be debating international development in the context of an opposition day. The government must become committed to promoting its own policy. Do not tell me that they are promoting it. If you go to the shelves of the CIDA library you will find 25,000 copies of the government's five-year strategy, unused and uncirculated. What is wrong with a government that allows its own policy to sit on the shelves?
There is a lot more to be said. I will not say it because my colleagues will speak on some of the specifics with regard to land speculation and the nuclear and water sections of the NDP motion. However, as the first speaker for our side I would be remiss if I did not attempt to point out the true reasons for Canadian government cynicism at Habitat. We went there with an excellent delegation, good leadership and a terrific program brought out by the NGO participation group throughout the country in the preceding year.
Talk about information overload! There was so much good material that even an expert could not absorb it all. There was no reason for the Canadian government not to seize the moment of leadership. UNCTAD centered around a common fund. Habitat centered around the provision of clean water for every human being by 1990. Canada did not stand up and say, "Yes, we will live up to this with a dollar commitment." During the course of Habitat, the Prime Minister said in the House that we are giving money to regular CIDA programs; nothing more special needs to be done. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs knows as well as I do that there was a moment lost at Habitat because we did not live up to our words. That was the true cynicism.
We covered our reluctance to move ahead with the declaration of principles to join in what could have been a consensus. We covered by hiding under the smoke screen of Arab-Israeli resolutions which I deplore. These are terribly complex plans. The United Nations is in great danger of losing the dwindling support it has in the western world. Read the letters to the editor in last Saturday's Toronto Star and you will get the mood of the Canadian people with regard to the UN following the Habitat conference.
The government has a terrific obligation to promote its own policy. That policy is incorporated into its five-year strategy. It centres around industrial co-operation, transfer of technology, trade liberalization and a better pricing policy for the commodities of the world. That is the true way to help the developing nations. The government has a great responsibility to promote that policy and show how it plugs into the United Nations systems of conferences, of which Habitat was one, and how all of that relates to the provisions of the new order. That is the way we are going to make progress.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen) is co-chairman of the continuing conference of international economic co-operation, the conference of rich
Habitat Conference
and poor producing and consuming nations that meets in Paris. If he is going to maintain his credibility, he will have to be backed up by a government that is willing to move to show the Canadian people the tremendous responsibility we have, and also the opportunity. This is the most important moment in Canadian history because we can move ahead in the global community in which we live by a profound, positive policy of enlightened internationalism.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the opposition motion condemns the government for its cynical behaviour at the Habitat Conference. It includes land speculation, nuclear reactors and environmental matters such as clean water and the necessity to enforce minimal standards in Canada.
In reading the word "cynical", Mr. Speaker, I could not believe that a political party represented in the House-in this case the NDP-had chosen to impute motives as contemptuous and outrageous as they did to the Canadian delegation. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, it is not the government of Canada that attended the Habitat Conference but a delegation made up of representatives from all levels of government and non-government organizations: ministers, members of this House, provincial ministers and representatives of provinces and municipalities-


Marc Lalonde: Including NDP governments.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: -including NDP governments. The delegation was further enhanced and completed in a serious and professional manner by spokesmen for several organizations or near government agencies, representatives of various Canadian citizens groups as well as by organizations of specific interest, such as minority groups and those with a particular vocation. [English]
Mr. Speaker, as the first speaker on this side of the House in this debate, allow me first to report to the House, as an alternate delegate, on our experience in Vancouver. For me-and I understand for many other members-it was a very enriching one, a period that was very well spent. I should like to stress at the beginning that the government is convinced that the results have justified the considerable effort and expenditure over the past few years in arranging to host the conference and participate in it. Much of the press and others have suggested that the conference was so bedevilled with political issues that all else was obscured. I cannot agree with this view.
On the other hand, it is too soon to be certain that Habitat was a success. Its organization was certainly a success. I should like to thank the members of the opposition for recognizing the role that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) played. He displayed a very human approach to the problems. Although his position was sometimes difficult, he showed an understanding of the situation and gave leadership and constant direction in spite of the stress he was under. He has been for Canada an example of statesmanship, and I want to recognize that here this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 21, 1976
Habitat Conference


Jean-Robert Gauthier: In my judgment, Habitat will produce lasting improvements. Our experience in Canada indicates a much greater public awareness of the issues which must form part of human settlement policies, and a greater acceptance by all levels of government that these issues must be handled in a comprehensive manner, with full co-operation among the various jurisdictions involved.
In passing, may I say that we seem to have difficulty in Canada with the word "national". We define it as "a confederation", and recognize it has both a federal and a provincial definition. In preparing for and participating in Habitat, we have had to stand back and take a good look at ourselves, our settlements policies and institutions, and consider our values and our hopes for the settlements in which we must live. This process involved not only the federal government but also the governments of the provinces, municipalities, public groups, business and private citizens. Much of this consideration went into Canada's national report to Habitat entitled "Human Settlement in Canada," and into the three short films which we prepared for the conference.
This wide participation was reflected in the Canadian delegation to Habitat, and I would like to express my thanks to all those who so generously gave of their time and effort to join with the federal government in this fully representative delegation. I think that all will agree that the experience has been beneficial in itself and has set the stage for further co-operation among those concerned with settlements in Canada. From our observation at the conference, it seemed clear that many other nations had similar beneficial experiences in preparing for, and participating in, Habitat, and that we may expect that all nations, separately and jointly, will be approaching the problems of human settlements in a more coherent manner and with a greater sense of urgency.
Canada's objectives at Vancouver were twofold. First, as host government we were responsible for providing the extensive facilities and services required for such a conference and for the parallel, non-governmental meeting, the Habitat forum. I can report that our host arrangements, with the single exception of the weather, met with universal praise and were a credit internationally to Canada, to the province of British Columbia and to the city of Vancouver. In addition to the usual conference facilities, we provided extensive facilities for television coverage and for the use of audio-visual presentations, and many of these new techniques will undoubtedly be incorporated into future world conferences as a result of their effectiveness in Vancouver.
We were a participant in the Habitat conference, as well as host, and we took a very active role and received from every member a full measure of co-operation. We put forward a clear and balanced view of our national settlements policies and tested these policies in discussions with other nations. We have learned a good deal about what is happening in other nations, some of which will undoubtedly find its way into our own practices and will show us how best we may assist other nations who will require considerable outside assistance in improving the lives of their people.

In this last regard, I believe that the conference has provided an important new focus for development efforts, a focus on the place and the manner in which people live, rather than some impersonal objective such as GNP or tons of metal ingots. The message of Habitat has been that we must address ourselves more directly to the improvement of the life of the individual if we are to improve the lot of the whole. It is for this reason that the Canadian delegation repeatedly stressed the need to identify specific targets in matters which directly affect people's daily lives, such as the availability of safe drinking water, and committed ourselves to assist in the achievement of such goals.
There were several other Canadian initiatives at the conference which I would like to mention. The offer of the University of British Columbia, supported by the federal government and the government of British Columbia, to house a continuing United Nations audio-visual library on human settlements was well received by the conference. Arrangements for this program are now being completed between the university and the United Nations and it is expected that the library will commence operation within a few weeks.
The delegation also succeeded in putting forward some fairly distinctive Canadian views on policy recommendations dealing with the control and the value of land, the rights of indigenous peoples, nuclear energy, the conservation of resources, and the participation by the public in the formulation and implementation of settlements policies and programs. We were also able to gain acceptance for a more positive approach to the role of environmental policies in settlements planning, rather than the purely negative considerations which have been current. Over all of the recommendations for national action discussed at the conference, we sought minor amendments to make them more applicable to federal states such as Canada.
Debate on international co-operation was divided into discussions of new programs which might be undertaken following Habitat, of how the appropriate section of the United Nations secretariat might be reorganized to deal with increased programs, and on a declaration of principles to be issued by the conference to emphasize the role of settlements policy in national and international affairs. The Canadian contribution to the debate on programs included a general commitment to give favourable consideration to settlements projects within our development assistance programs, and several specific commitments: to create the audio-visual library at the University of British Columbia and to continue and expand our support for a human settlements training program at the Asian Institute of Technology at Bangkok. We also indicated that we would be prepared to participate in similar programs in other regions.
On the reorganization of appropriate United Nations secretariat resources, the Canadian delegation argued for a rationalization of all available resources in a single unit, with headquarters in New York but with its staff and activities deployed as much as possible at the regional level. In a fairly extensive debate emerged a fairly broad consensus on what should be done, but it appeared that many nations were not ready to take decisions on the location of the secretariat headquarters or its precise
June 21, 1976

attachment to the United Nations' framework. This will be the subject of further discussions at the summer session of the UN Economic and Social Council and at this fall's General Assembly.
The discussions on the declaration to be issued by Habitat provided the sharpest division among governments at Habitat. At the end of the first week the group of 77 brought forward an amended version of the original draft declaration, a version which included some greatly expanded references to a new international economic order, and an unacceptable reference which would have linked Zionism to racism. Subsequent negotiations failed to improve these aspects of the draft, and in the end the Canadian delegation, together with many others, was obliged to vote against the declaration as a whole when attempts to obtain a paragraph by paragraph vote proved fruitless. The vote was 89 in favour, 15-including Canada-opposed, with 10 nations abstaining. In explanation of the Canadian vote, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) stated that had it not been for the paragraph which sought to link Zionism with racism, Canada would have been in a position to join in a consensus on the declaration.
The vote on the declaration received a great deal of publicity and I think it is important to keep it in perspective. The objectionable feature which led to our negative vote is a matter of a few words in a lengthy document, most of which we did, and shall continue to, support strongly. While the declaration lacks the weight of consensus, it is nevertheless a valuable statement of some of the basic thoughts which should guide nations in improving the lives of their peoples. In addition, the debates on the declaration and the divisions they produced were largely separated from the main bulk of the conference's work and did not detract from the more positive achievements in other areas.
On the whole, therefore, I think that the Canadian delegation can be proud of the twin roles, as host and as a participant in Habitat, and I think we can be confident that this conference will yield great benefits to all peoples over the years to come.

To finish, Mr. Speaker, I would like to make a few remarks on the results of the conference and the wish of some people who want to quantify everything. It is impossible to measure the results of such a conference quanta-tively. One has to attend it to realize what forces were at play and to really take part in it to understand that it is not always possible to reach a consensus by mere good will. It seems utopian to me to quantify the conference in the sense that, for instance, Canada has a national policy to provide clean water to all parts of the country by 1986. A consensus was reached for 1990. We would have preferred it sooner, for all countries. Still, to answer one of the comments made by the opposition, I do not think Canada wants to be paternalistic and impose any programs which might not be well received now in underdeveloped countries.
Problems at the international level, and I think particularly of the terms of the exchange, are acute. The fact remains that, as Mrs. Barbara Ward said, we are dealing with an international problem in which we have the world of the wealthy endowed with a conscience and the world of
Habitat Conference
the poor whose will and force to strike can cause concern. Habitat, Mr. Speaker, may have given us opportunity of becoming aware of the international problem, of exchanging view, of realizing that audio-visual aids are fantastic.
We saw, thanks to electronic devices, what goes on in other countries. For my part, the experience was rewarding. For most of the delegates, it was obviously the experience of a lifetime. I hope the press and hon. members will understand that to quantify the conference in terms of government measures was not the aim of the conference. Its objective was to give an awarenesss of the situation, to give the opportunity to elaborate, to think, to discuss and to exchange views: if the conference has had positive results, I trust they will be given concrete form.
As for speculation, there is a long way to go. The hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) said, I know, that we are up against a problem that is difficult to solve. Still the fact remains that the collective will of the people, expressed through the various levels of government, by government representations, in terms of what is a fair profit or gain, will be decided by the governments themselves and not imposed by them, by the government at the top. We have a long way to go, we have a lot to do. Of course, it is important that we should conserve what arable lands we have. We must have overall policies that induce us into conserving them. We must elaborate new policies, as well as new ways and means. I think the minister, in convening his tripartite conferences has found a formula that might work, because town planning is a matter for municipalities and provinces and not the federal government. But I think that to get a group of government bodies in Canada to plan the common good, everyone will have to show considerable good will and recognize the fact that we have not solved all our problems, that we have much to do and that though, in the final analysis, the Habitat Conference may have brought some solutions it did not solve them all. We must continue to work at it.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, to indicate that the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) will take the floor tonight. He will listen with interest to hon. members' remarks, and I hope those remarks will be positive. In addition, we will have some spokesmen who will discuss certain particular points in the debate, with a view to answering as much as possible hon. members' concerns and questions.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I want to devote my time this afternoon to the third complaint contained within the NDP motion, that is, the complaint regarding pollution of the Athabasca River from one of the tar sands extraction plants. Just to put this in its proper perspective, I should like to spend a little time on background in so far as the development of tar sands is concerned in a general sense. I believe it is fair to say that this party is every bit as concerned about environmental matters as the author of the motion we are debating, and perhaps even more so than some of the members of his party. But we also want to be realistic and practical in talking about these developments.
We know the Alberta tar sands can produce all the crude oil Canada will need in the foreseeable future if they are developed in an orderly manner. A couple of months ago

June 21, 1976
Habitat Conference
the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) told the House that Canada is short of oil and gas. I think everybody knows that, and knew it at the time of his statement. He went on to say that the future looked so bad that we would be investing $181 billion in energy projects in this country between now and 1990, and by crossing our fingers the best we could hope for would be limiting our demands on oil imports to one-third of our needs.
I want to question the minister's projections because I think they are not necessarily accurate. We will have to spend on oil exploration and development, according to the minister, $40 billion in 1975 dollars. In return for this massive investment of capital we will increase our productive capacity by 500,000 barrels, or one-third of what the province of Alberta is producing today. But the energy department's own figures and graphs show that development of the Athabasca, Peace River, Wabasca and Cold Lake tar sands would give us the same amount of oil for $6 billion. In fact, the price spread would be still greater because frontier oil has to be carried down from the north in pipelines which are very expensive and, as yet, unbuilt. Pipelines from the tar sands would be shorter and much less costly to construct.
How much oil would we have if we spent $40 billion on new tar sands plants? When it comes on stream in 1978 or 1979, the Syncrude plant at Mildred Lake will produce about 125,000 barrels of synthetic crude oil per day in return for a capital outlay of $2 billion. Other things being equal, it is just simple arithmetic to see that $40 billion would buy us 20 plants with the same productive capacity as Syncrude and would give us 2.5 million barrels of oil per day. Moreover, the civil servants of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) have been estimating that if world prices for petroleum remain high, close to $6 billion will be spent on tar sands plants without any particular encouragement from the federal government.
The three plants which an additional $6 billion would buy could produce 375,000 barrels of oil per day, bringing total tar sands' production, when Syncrude and Great Canadian Oil Sands are counted in, to over three million barrels per day. As it happens, three million barrels per day is greater than the total Canadian demand for oil is expected to be in 1990. And all this is to say nothing about the enormous savings in pipeline costs which investment in tar sands plants would bring, the very large economies of scale which would come from the building of 20 or more plants, or the tremendous benefits which might accrue to the national economy if Canadian industry were geared to producing the machinery for these plants.
Finally, 20 or 25 tar sands plants would require in excess of 100,000 workers on a permanent basis and would constitute a partial answer to the unemployment from which so many Canadians today are suffering. I am trying to make the point that the development of the Athabasca tar sands, as well as the other three tar sands areas to which I referred earlier, is essential to Canada. Beyond that, I also want to say that Canadians should not expect that Alberta alone should be responsible for developing these plants just to supply energy to the rest of Canada. In other words, there is also a role which the consuming Canadian provinces can play in this development. One of them, Ontario,

already is doing that to some extent in that it is participating in the Syncrude project directly.
However, there are a number of things which need to be done before development takes place in accordance with what I have described as a possibility. Those requirements are that the processed synthetic crude should have access to world prices, as has been guaranteed to Syncrude but so far refused to anyone else who has indicated a desire to develop a plant. The federal government should become less greedy and get away from double-taxation. I realize that greed is one of the government's greatest assets, but I think it should dispose of that asset and get away from the idea of disallowing royalties to be deducted for tax purposes. I think the government should also bring in a program for earlier depreciation write-offs, when we consider, for example, in respect of the Syncrude plant that there is perhaps a $3 billion capital outlay, or between $2 billion and $3 billion, before one single barrel of oil comes out.
Finally, we should consider the tragedy for Canada which would result if the crew of experts, the construction teams, were allowed to disintegrate in 1978 when the construction at Syncrude is finally completed. I think the government should plan that new plants would be started at least as frequently as would be necessary to keep this crew of skilled people assembled and working.
I wanted to put that background material on the record because it emphasizes the proper perspective in respect of pollution control in so far as the plants are concerned. I think the NDP motion complaining about pollution by GCOS originated from a Globe and Mail article of June 9 written by Mary Kate Rowan and entitled "The Athabasca foul-up". In that article there is a suggestion that 400,000 gallons of polluted water is going into the Athabasca River from the tailings pond at the GCOS plant site. This plant and the tar sands happen to be in the middle of my constituency. For that reason alone, if not for any other reason, I usually keep in close contact with the developments in the area. I have been informed by a representative of GCOS that the statement indicating that water from the tailings pond is going into the river is totally erroneous and that indeed there is no polluted water going into the river from the tailings pond.
However, 400,000 gallons of water are going into that river, but they come from a filtering system contained within a large dike built of sand which forms a portion of the wall of the tailings pond. Some tests have been carried on in respect of this effluent. I have a report here which was produced by Environment Canada in September, 1975, concerning this particular problem. I wish to quote from this report because I think it will help clarify the matter before us. The report reads in part:
The liquid effluent being discharged from the effluent holding pond during the sampling period demonstrated no acute toxicity and the chemical parameters measured were all reasonably low. Notably the oil and grease values were low, particularly in comparison to some reported values for this effluent stream. Analysis for metals indicated that all were below detectable limits except for zinc and vanadium. However, the one detectable zinc level was low and could not be considered a problem in relation to other treated industrial effluents. The significance of the vanadium value is uncertain and is currently under investigation by Alberta Environment and Environment Canada. However, it is evident that the vanadium levels present in the effluent did not cause acute toxicity to rainbow trout.
June 21, 1976

There was also some testing carried out with regard to the effluent which comes from the drainage pipes which are the outflow of the filter system I mentioned in the dike forming part of the tailings pond. The effluent from this did contain some toxic materials and the toxicity to rainbow trout was indeed significant. The cause of toxicity could not be conclusively specified from the water chemistry, but the relatively high concentration of total organic carbon and total dissolved solids would likely include the specific compounds or elements responsible for toxicity.
Separation and identification of organic compounds from the organic fraction was shown to be feasible and produced some interesting compound identifications. Further work to comprehensively separate and identify the organic compounds and classes should be pursued under the auspices of the Alberta oilsands environmental research program. I wanted also to read that, because it suggests quite clearly that the industrial people in question are indeed making reasonable efforts to control the pollution.
There has been some toxic effluent from the drainage pipes in the dike. I am informed by this report, as well as by a representative of the industry, that engineering studies are under way which are aimed at collecting this effluent into a collection system of some kind and pouring it back into the settling pond. However, there are some fairly serious problems with that, one of them being that the location of the dike is close to the river and that the collection ponds which might be erected could well be taken away with the spring flow when the river levels are high. That could be a serious problem.
However, I am also informed that tests have been carried out on the river water above, as well as below, the outlet of these pipes and that there was no significant difference in the quantity of the toxic material above and below the outlet from these drainage pipes. The reason for that is that the volume of 400,000 gallons is so small in relationship to the total flow of the river that a substantial dilution of this toxic material takes place immediately, so that the river water is not at all toxic to the fish in it and, indeed, there is an abundant fish supply in the river in that region.
The ratio of this 400,000 gallons to the total river flow is around 3,300-thousands of 1 per cent of the daily river flow or, in other words, .00033 per cent of the total water flowing in the river. This suggests that the volume is so small in relation to the river that there is not much danger. When we compare that to some other areas of pollution right on our doorstep here in Ottawa, we can see that the problem here is much more severe. When the city of Hull pours 10 million gallons of raw sewage a day into the river, and the city of Montreal pours 300 million gallons of raw sewage a day into the St. Lawrence River, we can see that the problem of water pollution much closer to Ottawa than the Athabasca River is substantially greater and, I suggest, perhaps warrants a great deal of immediate attention as well. But for some strange reason our left-wing friends to my left neglected to make any mention of that kind of pollution. I find that rather strange. Of course, I find them a rather strange bunch anyway.
Habitat Conference


John Gilbert: I had only 30 minutes. I could not cover everything.


Paul Yewchuk: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), for whom I have a great deal of admiration, is the epitome of humanitarian concern. If he had a chance, I think he would smother half the people of Canada to death, particularly the poor and the aged, with his affection for them and concern for their welfare as individuals. If we consider the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), perhaps he might liquidate the other half of the Canadian population because they happen to be successful on their own without government assistance.


William Herbert Jarvis: Right on.


Paul Yewchuk: We can see what would be the result of the NDP policies on the population of this country. No one would be left. Half the population would be smothered, and the other half liquidated.


John Gilbert: And you would like to exploit them all.


Paul Yewchuk: It seems to be a curious mixture of sadism and humanitarianism which moves the NDP. No wonder there is difficulty in giving serious credibility to their arguments.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Physician, heal thyself.


Crawford Douglas: Good advice; take it.


Paul Yewchuk: The extremely original statement which we have just heard from the member for Winnipeg North Centre will be duly noted by me. I will see what I can do about it.
I will carry on for a moment because there are a few more things that need to be said about this problem. One of them is that an attack has also been made on Syncrude and GCOS by my friends to the left in so far as the emission of sulphur into the air is concerned. I am told that GCOS is licensed to put out 348 long tons of sulphur, mostly in the form of sulphur-dioxide, and the permit which has been granted Syncrude allows them to put out 287 long tons of sulphur a day. Some reports on this matter have been produced-one of which I have here-again by Environment Canada or the regional department of the environment task force. Through the application of the best available technology, total sulphur emission could be reduced from 287 long tons to an estimated 40 long tons.
I have looked into this problem and I am informed that this equipment to which reference is made is still unproven. Both companies, involved as well as the provincial government, suggest that this equipment is indeed unproven and perhaps not at all practical at this time. I am told also that the use of energy in the operation of a plant with this kind of equipment would be very high and the efficiency of such a plant would be drastically reduced. In addition, no real need has been demonstrated to reduce emissions below that level because studies have been done, again in relation to CGOS which has been operating in the area of 348 long tons a day, and a study was conducted by the Canadian Wildlife Service in 1973, as well as a more recent study in 1975, to determine whether there has been

June 21, 1976
Adjournment Motion
any damage whatsoever to the soil or vegetation within a radius of seven miles around the plant in question-and they all indicated there was no evidence of damage of any sort. So insofar as the Syncrude plant is concerned, it seems difficult to conclude from these two studies that there is a any real need to reduce the emissions beyond the amount granted in the licence.
Finally, in so far as Syncrude is concerned, it is difficult to estimate the cost of installing such equipment. If it were ordered today, I am told it would not be available for another five years, but it may well raise the cost of construction by $1 billion. So we have to consider all these factors before we become too raucous in attacking provincial governments and industry about the decisions which have already been made regarding further development.
I would like to conclude my remarks by stating that I am very concerned that some politicians in this country, and perhaps some other people, are making a lot of unwarranted attacks on the tar sands development. I do not know how much influence that has had upon the federal government, but perhaps it has resulted in a situation where the federal government is turning its attention from the tar sands and is looking to frontier development. According to the figures which I have given, this is a ridiculous decision on their part because such a move is extremely costly and a total gamble. You do not know where or whether you will find the oil, whereas with the tar sands there is no gamble, the development costs less and you wind up with a greater supply of energy for Canada. We are all interested in pollution control but also in self-sufficiency in energy. I would like to suggest that everybody concerned should stop being hysterical about possible errors made in construction associated with the tar sands. We should be very careful to ensure that proper attention is paid to the environment, but we should not be so hysterical as to retard development in that area.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Labour Conditions-Lockout of Air Canada finance branch employees-Possible resumption of mediation; the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn)-Energy-Proposal for location of uranium processing plant in Saskatchewan-Public participation in site decision; the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens)-The Canadian Economy-Area in which jobs will be created this year.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Gilbert:
That this House condemns the government for its cynical behaviour at the Habitat conference held recently in Vancouver, first, in its position on land speculation; second, its policy of placing commercial criteria ahead of any others in the sale of nuclear reactors; and third, the obvious conflict between the government's bold statements on such environmental matters as clean water and its inability or unwillingness to enforce minimal standards in Canada, as in the case of the Great Canadian Oil Sands plant in northern Alberta.
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal particularly with the clause in the motion which refers to the government's policy of placing commercial criteria ahead of any others in the sale of nuclear reactors. But before I get to that specific subject, I would like to make one or two general remarks.
I do, indeed, support my colleague, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), in his criticism of the government's actions at the Habitat conference, but I want to say that I do not think it follows from that that we wish to criticize the Habitat conference as such. There is too much cynicism about some of these international activities. Of course things happen in international forums which are distasteful to us, but we should not jump from that to saying that the whole thing is a failure. Indeed, to put it mildly, that is premature because it destroys the foundation of the concern and the enthusiasm which is necessary if we are to do the things internationally that the welfare of the people of the world in every country, including Canada, requires.
I do not in any way, by being critical of some of the points of view taken by the government, wish to denigrate the importance or the significance of the conference itself, nor of some of the things the government did.
However, we are an opposition and we look with a critical eye. We frequently find, in the actions of the government, a considerable gap between rhetoric, on the one hand, and action on positive issues on the other. I have been to quite a few international conferences. I have never found a single reason to complain about the rhetoric of the Canadian spokesmen; it has always been of the highest order. But when it came down to practical decisions on practical issues, a different story is told. I want to say to all members of the government that they should try to reconcile their rhetoric with practical actions, and there are many fields where that injunction should be carried out and taken seriously. To get to the question of nuclear reactors, I would like, first, to quote what Albert Einstein said, as follows:
The splitting of the atom has changed everything, save our modes of thinking, and thus we drift toward unparallelled catastrophe.
The subject of nuclear energy which came up at the Habitat conference at Vancouver from time to time is one about which very many serious-minded people in Canada are deeply concerned, but I am afraid the Canadian gov-
June 21, 1976

ernment's action at this conference was inadequate, to put it mildly. There is a fairly new organization called the Canadian Coalition for Nuclear Responsibility. Its supporters include the Primate of the Anglican Church and Moderator of the World Council of Churches, the Very Rev. E. W. Scott; the founder of the Club of Rome, Dr. Aurelio Peccei; and Maurice Strong, president of Petro-Canada, who is well known for his deep concern about these subjects. They have joined others in signing a petition asking for an inquiry into the whole nuclear field. The petition has been signed by General Burns, who is well known not only as a soldier but as a statesman, who is the former head of the U.N. peacekeeping force; a gentleman named Joe Clark, who I believe is known to some hon. members in this House; Alex Campbell, who is Premier of Prince Edward Island; and Gerry Regan, Premier of Nova Scotia, among many others.
This petition deals primarily with the question of the increased reliance on nuclear energy to deal with our energy crisis. The pamphlet which the coalition put out says that the government expects to see 112 CANDU reactors in operation in Canada by the end of the century. The pamphlet goes on to point out that the industry has been exempted from having to carry full accident insurance because no insurance company will risk issuing such a policy. The coalition points out that the inhalation of dust particles and radioactive gases in mines has caused 450 cases of silicosis and/or cancer in Canadian uranium miners. That is something which could have been prevented if the proper controls had been adopted.
The coalition to which I have referred calls for complete public accountability on the subject of nuclear energy, accompanied by a full disclosure of all pertinent information, and as a possible mechanism for realizing these objectives the coalition is challenging the federal government to conduct a public inquiry into all aspects of nuclear power development in this country. I ask the House to note that this refers to all nuclear power development, not just nuclear power for reactors for export but the nuclear power which is going to be used to supplement our energy resources. The coalition says that the proposed inquiry would investigate a host of unanswered questions about the Canadian nuclear program, questions of safety, economics, energy requirements, social impact, health and pollution and the decision-making process itself.
In speaking to this motion I would like to take this opportunity to urge upon the government, as has been done before in this House, that it proceed with such a public inquiry so that the very grave disquiet which many informed people feel on this subject can be allayed by the disclosure of the facts or by the necessary action to prevent these developments.
At the Habitat Conference the question divided itself into two parts. One was about the increased demand, domestically, for the production of nuclear power, and the other was the sale of nuclear reactors abroad. I wish to deal with them separately. I believe the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) addressed himself at the conference to these matters and was very explicit. He said that it is the Canadian government's policy to proceed with the sale of nuclear reactors on a commercial basis, and he linked that with the need for the development of developing countries.
Habitat Conference
I want to challenge the Prime Minister on the suggestion that the developing countries are seeking nuclear reactors, on the whole, for the purpose of developing power. I want to point out what was said at the conference by Mr. Arjaun Makhijani, who works on practical energy solutions in a village near Bombay, which certainly is a part of the world which is underdeveloped. He attacked the policy of imposing large-scale energy projects like nuclear power plants on societies which are not suited for such schemes. Mr. Makhijani said that it is not a question of emotionalism but that nuclear energy is extremely capital-intensive. It must be used 80 per cent of the time in order to be economically efficient, and in the underdeveloped countries it could be used only about 40 per cent of the time, and in villages only about 10 per cent of the time. Because the highly centralized nuclear energy must be used in such an intensive way, it is unsuitable to types of societies, to the underdeveloped countries and to their mainly rural village populations, he said. He went on to say that we could save enough power to deal with this much better and much more cheaply by other methods. He said he rejects, on behalf of developing countries, the theory that the nuclear option is the one that will really solve their problems-problems which not only require scientific developments but require labour-intensive developments to give employment in the countries concerned.
The Prime Minister started out at the conference with what I think must have been a cold douche for the enthusiasts thereby reiterating Canada's stand and basing it on what I suggest is the false belief that this is the best way to help developing nations.
This matter was raised at the NGO conference forum, and was raised again by the group led by Barbara Ward-I think they called themselves the Vancouver symposium- and it was raised in the final conference resolution which, when dealing with the subject of shelter, infrastructure and many other things, recommended an extreme examination of the whole question of energy. An effort was made to add to that the special consideration for hazardous developments in this field and they sought to be put in the words "for example, nuclear power" as a main example of the type of development that was hazardous and ought to be examined. It is my understanding that the Canadian government did not support that, and that the official resolution had no reference to nuclear power. I say they were failing to give the leadership that this country could give and should give in this field.
I should like to turn to the subject of the sale of nuclear reactors. It has been fully debated in this House a number of times, so there is not much point in repeating what has been said at length. I believe the three opposition parties joined in a motion criticizing the government for the sale of nuclear reactors to certain countries and urged that we stop this particular policy. The government responded by saying that sales would continue on the grounds that we had safeguards.
Mr. Speaker, I have talked to General Burns and other people who believe that the safeguards are totally inadequate; they are only safeguards if you trust the word of the people who sign the agreements. Of course, in international affairs we have to trust other countries to some extent,

June 21, 1976
Habitat Conference
but why do we make nuclear reactors capable of being transformed into making plutonium for weapons purposes? Why do we do that with a country like South Korea, which has a militant dictatorship in charge and does not try to conceal its warlike attitude toward North Korea? Only recently in the Argentine we have seen how unstable their regime is, yet we sell reactors to them.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen) constantly tells us that the safeguards are the best answer. But are they good enough? He has never been able to answer that question or deny that the agreements we have depend on the good faith of the people with whom we make them. He has never been able to defend the fact that some of the people we make agreements with are not to be trusted in this particularly dangerous field although, of course, they may be trusted in other things.
I, therefore, feel that the right of this House to pass a resolution regretting the government's policy in dealing with nuclear reactors is not adequate; there was no leadership in this field and, in fact, the reverse attitude was adopted by government representatives at the Habitat conference in Vancouver.
I just want to mention one other subject, Mr. Speaker, and that is the new international economic order. Once again, we have subscribed to that and have given full lip service to it. But what was wrong with reiterating our concern about it? The minister says we have to let the people of Canada know about it. Why not use the opportunity of such a forum as Habitat to say it once again? It may be repetitive, but we have to keep on repeating the tremendous importance to the world and Canada of making the structural changes that would bring about a new economic order throughout the world. I say that Canada showed lack of leadership when they failed to join with those-which included the NGO and the Barbara Ward group-who urged that there be specific reference to the new economic order. There is none at all.
While we feel that the conference was worth while and that much of great value may emerge from it, we will do our best to urge that action be taken on things like clean water and other matters that were raised. We are duty bound to say to the government that their leadership at that conference was inadequate. That is the purpose of this motion, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Maurice Foster (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have the opportunity to say a few words on this motion put forward by the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) concerning the Habitat conference and the resolutions relating to clean water, energy and land use. I had an opportunity to speak at one of the non-governmental organization conferences on nuclear energy, and even though I did not agree with all who attended some of those NGO conferences and their view of nuclear energy, I think it is well that these things are discussed at an international conference of this kind.
I listened very closely to the arguments opposing nuclear energy and I did not find anything very new or exciting in them. I applaud the suggestions that we should have stronger conservation programs. These fit in very well with this government's policy as announced earlier this

year by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) and in earlier announcements concerning conservation by the former minister. I certainly agree with their aim that over the next few years we should move toward greater use of renewable energy resources.
It is rather interesting that Barbara Ward, who was one of the principal speakers on the panel that I took part in, said in glowing terms that we want to see, 40 or 50 years from now, a greater use of renewable energy. Who does not? We all do. We all know that in the long haul we are going to see very extensive use of renewable resources. That is why the government is investing more in windmill energy, tidal power, solar power, and other renewable forms. But governments today cannot just plan for 40 or 50 years; they have to make plans for this year, next year, the immediate future, the intermediate future, and the long haul. We cannot permit ourselves to say we will spend all our resources for something that is going to be important 40 or 50 years from now. That is why we see nuclear power being very important during the intermediate term, and perhaps the long-term as well, let alone the position that holds right now in our country.
The hon. member for Greenwood suggests that because the government does not agree with some of the positions or resolutions coming from the NGO conference, the government is wrong. Mr. Speaker, international forums of this kind are set up to allow us to discuss these questions. Surely, everyone will not agree with every motion put forward by every individual group.
The motion suggests that Canada places commercial considerations ahead of all others in the sale of nuclear reactors. This is not so. The person who wrote the motion was either cynical about the position Canada has taken over the years or, worse, ignorant of what the federal government has done in fields of safeguards related to nuclear energy. Canada has participated in the International Atomic Energy Agency. We were one of the early signatories, in 1970-71, of the Non-Proliferation Treaty. One of the important parts of that international treaty concerns the sharing of nuclear energy and technology internationally. We have done this; we have provided power plants to various countries. We have done it in the form of providing cobalt beam therepy units for medical purposes, and isotopes for agriculture. Surely, such uses of nuclear technology are an important part of our international trade and assistance to other countries.
Canada has always given safeguards high priority. Indeed, the safeguards which Canada announced in December, 1974, are the toughest in the world. They apply not only to the reactor itself; they apply to uranium fuel used in the reactor, to nuclear technology and to the spent fuel, no matter whether it originated in Canada or elsewhere. The safeguards are to last the full life of the reactor, not just the life of the Np treaty which will run out in less than 25 years. They prohibit experiments which could result in a nuclear explosion of any kind. They provide for fallback inspection, and for monitoring of the use of nuclear energy if the country which is a signatory to the bilateral treaty should abrogate or withdraw from the NPT. Likewise, Canada this year is participating in the discussions and negotiations of the nuclear supplying
June 21, 1976

group, sometimes known as the Club of London. Canada is to encourage that group to adopt international safeguards similar to those Canada has asked of other countries. We are playing an important role in those negotiations.
People who think Canada should get out of the business of supplying nuclear technology and equipment to other countries have not considered how much clout or impact Canada would have with the nuclear-supplying nations if it opted out of sales to other countries of reactors and nuclear technology. It is a question of being on the outside and looking in, rather than of being on the inside and trying to influence other countries to adopt the highest possible safeguards to ensure that our nuclear technology and equipment are used for peaceful purposes.
One of the encouraging ideas at Habitat was that of providing clean water to all peoples of the world. Indeed, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), speaking in the House, indicated that if this were to be a priority of countries receiving our aid, our government would surely co-operate in any way possible. When we are concerned about clean water, we may be talking about water containing chemical and mineral impurities which make its drinking unsafe for health, we may be talking of bacteria in water which will make it unsafe to use, or we may be talking about salt water. As the world's population grows-and it was suggested at Habitat that the world's population will double during the next 30 years-more countries will look to salt water as a source from which to obtain pure water. Many countries are already looking in that direction but many do not possess the oil, coal or other resources needed to produce electricity for desalinating water. Such countries may be thinking of using nuclear energy for desalinating water and for pumping or otherwise transporting that clean, fresh water which is important for human life.
I now shall speak briefly about the CANDU system. It upsets me to note that many in our country who have not studied this system, have not visited Pickering or the new plants at Douglas Point or Bruce, criticize the CANDU system. Most agree that Canadians should not be hewers of wood and drawers of water and that we should advance by becoming an industrialized economy using high technology. Yet such people often criticize the CANDU.
In the world today two basic nuclear systems are in use, the American system, used by many countries, under license from U.S.A. and the CANDU system which produces electricity in our country at rates competitive with those produced from non-nuclear sources of power. It can be equally useful in other countries where it is difficult to produce electricity. I think we should not care lessly criticize this important Canadian technological achievement which enables us to produce energy at low cost. For example, a recent study demonstrated that the Lambton generating station, which is coal-powered, produces electricity at 16 mills per kilowatt hour, whereas the Pickering plant, of roughly comparable size, produces electricity for about eight mills per kilowatt hour.
Further, Pickering uses natural uranium, of which we have a good supply. We have ensured that supplies will last well into the future. The spent fuel does not require reprocessing; to produce electricity economically. In other words, in order for the reactor to be an economically
Habitat Conference
feasible proposition, the spent fuel does not require reprocessing.
The safety advantages of the CANDU have been mentioned many times. Significantly, there has not been one accident anywhere in the world involving commercial, civilian nuclear reactors which has resulted in loss of life.
I want to touch on a couple of other points. The Pickering reactor has operated at 75 per cent efficiency. That compares very well with other reactors around the world. It can be refuelled at full power. It does not require a shutdown. That is one of the reasons it has operated so efficiently. It produced more electricity by January of this year than any other reactor in the world. We should not listen to the glib comments of people criticizing the CANDU system without challenging them.
One of the arguments that was made very effectively in the group with which I participated at the Habitat conference was the efficiency we are now seeing with the Pickering reactor compared to coal reactors. Although there is a large capital cost in setting up nuclear reactors, in a day and age of high inflation the cost of the fuel is a relatively small part of the cost of the electricity produced. If we are going to energy systems which are subject to inflation, the nuclear reactors are relatively less subject to inflation after the initial capital investment. It is rather interesting to note that Pickering B, which is a 2,000 megawatt station identical to the Pickering A station which is now operating, will in fact cost less in constant dollars than the Pickering A station. That is an important point to note in the efficient generation of electricity.
One member opposite, I believe it was the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), pointed out that nuclear energy is not a good source of energy for many less developed countries. That is very important. I completely agree. The government's review committee which reviews the sale of reactors and uranium always takes this into account. If a less developed country has coal, oil, gas, hydro or other sources which often require less capital-intensive programs, that is a much better system for them. However, some countries do not have any of these indigenous sources of energy. In those cases, nuclear energy may be a suitable system for them. Of course, they need to have an adequate technological base. They need a large enough grid system to accommodate it. No electrical grid should receive more than about 10 per cent of its power from one station. There are these important constraints on nuclear power stations.
Every country cannot use nuclear energy effectively. In spite of this, we have a growing demand in the world for energy. Many countries will be moving to nuclear energy in the future. This is not just because of the situation we have seen in the past, where it was a sort of status symbol to have a nuclear generating plant, but because of the serious shortages of energy, whether from the increased price of oil or a lack of indigenous coal, hydro and other sources. To Canada, these factors are important. Even more important is the fact that the country is willing to submit to safeguards and inspections of the International Automic Energy Agency and is willing to submit to the bilateral safeguards agreement Canada has imposed which go beyond the non-proliferation treaty.

June 21, 1976
Habitat Conference
We see that the generation of electricity is going to increase around the world in future. Canada has been able to cut back its 1974 estimates from some 40,000 megawatts by 1990 to about 25,000 because of the reduction in demand that we foresee.
I wish to spend a moment on the suggestion by the hon. member of the opposition, that there be a moratorium on all nuclear sales to foreign countries. I have already dealt with this in the context that Canada is exerting its influence through the London Club, the nuclear supplier countries, to move toward higher safeguards to ensure that nuclear energy is used for peaceful purposes.
In some ways the non-proliferation treaty was really a bargain between the nuclear weapons countries and the countries which have a nuclear know-how, like Canada, and the non-nuclear weapons countries. The non-nuclear weapons countries said they would forgo acquiring these weapons if the nuclear countries would provide the transfer of technology so that they could generate electricity and take advantage of the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes. We will have to ask ourselves if nuclear countries like Canada-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. parliamentary secretary, but his allotted time has expired. He may only continue with unanimous consent. Is there consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Maurice Brydon Foster: If the countries with advanced nuclear resources say to the countries which do not have nuclear know-how that they are going to cut off the transfer of this technology, are these less developed countries going to keep their side of the bargain of the non-proliferation treaty? In conclusion, Canada has always worked for the peaceful uses of nuclear energy through the IAEA, the non-proliferation treaty, to which we were one of the first signatories, the bilateral safeguards which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announced in 1974, and through the work of the nuclear suppliers' club of London to ensure that we have the highest possible safeguards in the world.
Our policy is to support the developing countries with regard to their energy problems, with the use of nuclear energy, provided there are adequate and strong safeguards. It is not to say to them that nuclear power is fine for us, but no good for you. The challenge facing Canada and the world is not to opt out of the problems and difficulties, both domestically and internationally, that nuclear power poses. Rather it is to work with these problems to ensure that it is used for peaceful purposes, and to overcome the tremendous energy problems that face us today and which will face us in the rest of this century.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, the motion proposed by the New Democratic Party affords us an opportunity to step back for a moment and reflect upon Habitat. If the House will forgive me not only do I want to do that but I want also to take a look at some of the other what might be called meetings on specific subjects under the aegis of the United Nations through

the years. I recognize that I do not have very much time and that only in general terms will be I be directing myself to the issues raised. Nevertheless I feel that we in this country, and as a matter of fact the United States too, are entering a period where, unless we are very careful, the public urge government to withdraw altogether from the United Nations or its agencies. I think this would be a very great mistake, and it is in this context that I want to say a word or two about Habitat and the United Nations, an organization that is reaching its thirtieth anniversary.
A wise Canadian, John Holmes, in a speech on December 1, 1975, to the Canadian Club had this to say:
Canada's reputation in the UN is based on a long-standing disposition to avoid dramatic postures, look at critical situations as we find them, accepting the balance of forces as facts of life, and then see that what could be done to move us from a real situation to something better, denouncing the wicked, calling upon legions which do not exist to punish them, or demanding a new United Nations is self-indulgent.
Not only do I admire John Holmes but I certainly believe that what he said is true, that we could indulge in a luxury. I could indulge in a luxury today, if I wished, in castigating the national and international press for its coverage of Habitat. Some people who know more about this than I- therefore most people-tell me that it was easier to get despatches from Bucharest when the world was discussing population, that it was easier to get information from Nairobi when the world was discussing trade, and that it was much easier to get information from Mexico City than it was from the Minister of Justice's (Mr. Basford's) cosmopolitan city of Vancouver. I have no way of judging that, but there are many people in the Department of External Affairs and in government generally who have been quite distressed about the coverage of Habitat on the part of the press of this country.
Of course people were, it seems to me, waiting to pounce on the inevitable. As I understand it, the inevitable came in the last couple of days when an amendment was proposed by, of all people, Cuba, to the principles that many of us hoped could have been unanimously adopted. The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) is here today and we all heard his eloquent plea that these principles be adopted.
I wonder why it is that we are unable to judge what might be called the humdrum, or that we are unable to get publicity for such basic requirements as clear water, adequate housing, and a better standard of living for people of the world, yet when a mischievous amendment is introduced equating racism with Zionism, the headlines are stark for all to see, and the success of the entire conference, according to some journalists, hinged on whether that malevolent and extraneous part of the whole is acceptable or not to the majority.
I am glad to say that one reviewer in Canada at least, writing in the Montreal Star for Saturday, June 19, Mr. Terence Moore, had this to say:
It is important not to judge the United Nations Habitat conference simply on the basis of what it said about occupied lands and aggression and resettlement of refugees. Those are subjects of intense legitimate interest and friends and supporters of Israel are naturally upset by the conference's implied condemnation of Israel.
But it has been clear since last November where the great majority of Third World governments stood on Middle East politics.
June 21, 1976

The headline writers should not have been surprised at that intervention at Habitat. We should really judge other parts, and I hope that the motion introduced by my hon. friends of the New Democratic Party will allow us to focus as well upon the positive aspects not only of Habitat but of the United Nations in general.
A journalist said to me even today, "How does Habitat affect your constituency or your province of New Brunswick?" I suppose that after a while in this House one gets used to xenophobia of that kind, and had I more time to reflect I might have been able to give this journalist friend of mine a catalogue of potential lumber orders that could have been processed in the province of New Brunswick, interesting new techniques in building and so on, which obviously the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce would want to promote around the world. Many of these techniques have their origin in the province of New Brunswick and in my constituency.
Must we always measure things, Mr. Speaker? Surely we must not. I pose the question and then answer it. Surely we cannot pose questions having only to do with what is a functional problem of housing and water, or such functional problems as food supply as were posed in Rome, or of pollution in Stockholm, or population in Bucharest, or of how women are treated in contemporary society in Mexico City. In some of these conferences there were political interventions, but this should not surprise the member of parliament. It should not surprise anybody who is an advocate of the United Nations and who realizes how essential is the United Nations to the future of mankind.
I once read what was said, I was going to say by a distinguished Archbishop but I suppose that archbishops do not need any such adjectives so let me just say by the Archbishop of London and leave it at that; others can judge of his distinction. In a sermon or homily he asked that immigration be taken out of politics. As a practising politician I resent, with great respect to the reverend gentleman, the concept that such things can be taken out of politics or public life. This is the place of politics, and I think that is right. It will be of no surprise to anybody that the UN is a place of politics. It so happens that many recent conferences have dealt with the functional problems faced by men at the time of their movement, and I profoundly hope upward movement, toward a better life.
I think it is good news that the New Democrats of Canada have taken the government to task on various parts of Habitat. I prefer not to do that, but not because of any feeling of bon ami toward the government. God forbid that ever happening to me, although I suppose it might in a weaker moment just before Christmas. Otherwise I am prepared to take the government to task on any occasion.
What I am really trying to say is that we should not worry that the world is engaged in the political process. We should not worry that the New Democratic Party has seen fit to try to dissect some problems faced by Canada and the world. After all, this was only the host country at Habitat.
My belief in this aspect is that we must be careful not to become so obsessed with political issues and manifestations of them, amendments to resolutions and so on, that
Habitat Conference
we lose the concept or the real purpose of the United Nations, which is to harmonize-and this is part of the charter-the national interests of the states which belong to the United Nations.
I get increasingly worried about people who would like to step back from the UN and throw it up because they happen to be in opposition to the majority, or even equate the majority with some form of tyranny. I think this is hyperbole that does great damage to the UN as an institution, and also that it is terribly self-serving. Many states, if they have any historical perception at all, could presumably turnabout and suggest that for many years there was a majority in the interests of those states, that are now part of the majority, that was equally as tyrannical. That is a terribly complicated sentence, and I realized that as I got it half out. What I am really trying to ask is, is a majority any more tyrannical because it occurs in 1976 than one which occurred in 1953, 1954 or 1955? Was the majority of the veto, that excluded for a whole generation a quarter of the world's population, a tyrannical majority? I think not.
Canada is in a very interesting position because next year, if present indications go as expected, we will be once again a member of the Security Council, and we will have the opportunity to work very carefully and, as some wise observer of the scene informed the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), the hon. member for Saint-Michel (Miss Begin), and myself the other day, the Secretry of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) will have to have a good hotline down to Port Hawkesbury when Canada sees what becomes of members of the Security Council. Officials of the department will need instructions instantaneously, and perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs will have a hotline in his aircraft when he shuttles back and forth to his beautiful riding.


Monique Bégin: In a gas station.


Mr. Fairweather:: The hon. member for Saint-Michel talks about a gas station, if I heard her correctly. That might be one way, of course, of publicizing the United Nations and Canada's interest in it. It might be one way to inform Canadians of the implications for all of us of the responsibilities that will be on the government and on the parliament of this country when we become a member again of the Security Council, because the gas station, or wherever it is the Secretary of State for External Affairs gets his telephone calls from Ottawa, will be the point of information for the public in that community. This is the dilemma the Minister of State for Urban Affairs has faced too, because there are not enough people in gas stations who understand the aspirations of this country vis-a-vis the United Nations. This is a communications problem that the government wrestles with in its domestic affairs as well.
In any event, when we become a member of the Security Council we will have to do two or three things, and I should like to list them. We will require a much more clear identification of our policy priorities as a nation. We will require more active diplomatic pressure to implement these priorities, and we will have to be considerably more frank than we have been. I am not now gainsaying what the Minister of Justice and the Minister of State for Urban Affairs said at Habitat. I was not there. I must say, how-

June 21, 1976
Habitat Conference
ever, that the Minister of Justice has a very highly developed press section which grinds out material. Our mail boxes are full of it, and I think this is a delightful innovation in the Department of Justice.
We also will require more selective participation in United Nations debates and activities. The voting provisions, yes or no, on major issues according to our assessment seems to me to be an absolutely fundamental essential. It would be a peculiar Canadian experience, just as the patriation of our constitution would be the final sort of identification of our nationhood, if we stopped looking all the time to see what other nations did, and took the initiative on votes because we are peculiarly Canadian. I have no doubt that we are mature enough as a country to be able to do this. I do not say this in any boastful way, but today this is a positive thing for the United Nations.
Then lastly, and I guess I mentioned this in the Port Hawkesbury part of my speech, we will have to focus on improving opinion in Canada and our understanding of our opinion of the United Nations.
I suppose this is an intervention, afforded me because of the initiative of the NDP on this opposition day, which allows me to say that it is a good, plus thing that once again we are going to take up responsibility of Security Council membership. This will mean not only general support for the United Nations, but also that this is a government priority and that there can no longer be any question about that. I am sad to say that this is the case with some other countries, that is, selective withdrawal from the United Nations and its agencies.
I do not want to get in over my head on issues, but I think it is a sad sight to watch members of the United Nations trying to withdraw selectively from the ILO, for instance. Certainly the United States interests have been deeply troubled, but it does not do the United States foreign policy very much good, if I may say so candidly, for them to threaten to get out, take their marbles and go home, and not pay their dues if such a course of action should not occur. It is obvious that I would not at all favour the total giving up, but I think that is an option that could be exercised. We could give up altogether and decide that large conferences, international as they may be, with long and boring speeches and with the relentless pressure that will be on this country when we become part of the Security Council, are not in the interest of Canada. I would hope, despite the criticism by the New Democratic Party, that no one in this parliament would seriously consider that it is in the interest of Canada to withdraw altogether.
The United Nations, as the Charter says, has as its purpose the harmonizing of the interests of nations. It is difficult for parliament to harmonize the interests of this country; God knows it is a relentless preoccupation of all of us to try to harmonize the interests within our country. Therefore I fail to see why anyone would be surprised if the harmonizing of interests beyond the borders of this country should be equally relentless and equally demanding. I am glad to say I have no doubt that Canada will not want to withdraw. We will see that in the area of air law, sea law, housing and water-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was jettisoned in the middle of flight. That is fine. What I was seeking to dp before your short intervention was urgently to invite our country to participate actively. There are signs that we will do this. There are signs that the cynicism about the United Nations can be abated if people of good will realize the difficulties. There are signs too, I am sure, that despite temporary setbacks the general purpose behind this organization will be understood, accepted, and approved by the vast majority of our citizens.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, when I read again the motion of the opposition which was moved by the New Democratic Party member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), I just cannot understand what is the common denominator which inspired this motion, if not a general and fundamental attack, valid or not, against the assistance policy of the government of Canada.
As a matter of fact, why relate the conference on human settlements called Habitat in Vancouver and the sale of CANDU reactors? Why talk about the so-called cynical behaviour of the government and in addition about our supposedly conflicting and bold statements on the subject of clean water?
I frankly cannot understand why criticisms are levelled against the federal assistance program. To begin with, if I quote a short excerpt from the speech made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in Vancouver on May 31 for the opening of Habitat, it is because in my opinion he clearly states the intention of Canada. He said:
The globalization process is speeding up and already a new world is developing. The world-wide responsibilities which our wealth leads us to assume constantly remind us of the fact. No country can remain aloof and conscious of what it has nor keep its possessions secret. Pressures from numbers and needs compel all of them to become more open with others and share more widely the secret of their resources. Failure to account is becoming impossible. Willingly or reluctantly, we are at the beginning of a new era of universal control.
I am quoting in the House from that speech because perhaps very few Canadians and parliamentarians read it and unfortunately could not attend the Habitat Conference since we are constantly sitting here instead of being in our constituencies.
To my mind, the Prime Minister was thus stating quite clearly that Canada intends to help. At the time, the opposition said, and today I speak of the New Democratic Party, as well as all the other parties for that matter: Why good intentions? Again, we are getting empty words: where is the money? Where are the concrete proposals? I heard, to my astonishment, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strath-cona (Mr. Roche) introduce the idea of the Nairobi common fund, the fourth UNCTAD conference in the debate. In fact, from the numerous interventions, I gather there is a general attack against Canada's foreign aid policy. I shall come back to the common fund later on.
June 21, 1976

So, to my mind, the intent is clear. So, where is the money, were is the concrete help? Here, Mr. Speaker, I should like to recall what Habitat is. I am not an expert, but I am very much interested in the matter. Habitat was one conference among several United Nations manifestations. It is one conference in time, not a permanent organization, nor an institution that operates full-time.
It is one conference which attempted to give the people an awareness of one of the most acute problems of our times, a problem that is completely unknown in Canada, unless one has gone from southern Canada and some distance into the north of our provinces or the Territories. Those places are, to my mind, a source of shame to all Canadians. I am thinking here of some of the communities inhabited by the first settlers of our country, in which none of us would want to live, and of which we are ashamed. In other words, Habitat was meant to make Canadians aware of their wealth.
It was a forum in which resolutions developed and not a forum of commercial negotiations. It was a forum of the resolutions crystallizing everybody's goodwill to develop material forms for the promotion of the places where human beings must live, to determine how and with which basic elements they have to be able to survive. Many resolutions have been established, several of which are only recommendations because they are directed to national sovereignties, the others being commitments, at least moral commitments, because they are directed to the international community.
I did not understand the remarks of the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) who was unable to translate into reality . . . Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock? I would like to ask permission to continue at eight o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m. this evening.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock, when we adjourned the debate, I was saying how surprised I was that the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) had apparently failed to translate into reality what the conference on human settlements in Vancouver could bring to Canadians and I just described that kind of conference which is only a momentary event and not a permanent organization. Its goal is to make people like Canadians who live in a very wealthy country aware of the most crucial problems faced by three quarters of the world- lack of housing, lack of basic sanitary facilities in houses or cities and mainly lack of clean water with all the endemic diseases it creates.
Apart from that awareness development aspect, the Habitat conference gave us a large number of resolutions which were not submitted in advance and negotiable, according to the wishes of the international community to which we all subscribed. Three of them could be easily
Habitat Conference
identified and I think important to mention them in the face of serious accusations such as those made in the socialist party motion.
The first concerns us very much as it relates to the audio-visual library received by one of our universities in Vancouver. My colleague, the parliamentary secretary for urban affairs, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has already mentioned it. The two others concerned us but particularly the Canadian assistance and I mention it because I am deeply disappointed by the character of that motion which condemns the whole foreign assistance policy of Canada concerning the Third World. I shall resume them rapidly and I quote the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) who, on June 1 in Vancouver, said bluntly and I quote:
First, Canada is prepared to provide, through bilateral Assistance and cooperation programs, favourable answers to assistance proposals in the field of human settlements that will be submitted by its partners in those programs.
He goes on:
In addition, we will use our influence within multilateral development agencies to encourage the latter to prove favourable as well.
I conclude with a second and last quotation of his text:
Second, we consider as particularly worthy the proposal to establish regional training centres aimed at those having to plan and direct human settlements. For several years Canada has been giving its support to the Asian Institute of Technology located in Bangkok and to its program of human settlements. We think this program deserves continuous support and, in this way, might serve as a pattern for similar programs in other regions.
Finally, as a concrete recommendation, I will mention the one in which Canada had proposed that countries of the planet would all have access to drinking water by 1986. The final recommendation, as I understand it, was much more moderate than the emergency position advocated by Canada. There was agreement so that that goal might be reached by 1990, that is within 14 years. That shows fairly well the extent of the problem.
Coming back to the money issue, there can be no reference to cynicism since we already committed $210 million over the next three years on the last resolution alone. I therefore wonder whether opposition members are ready in the context of budgetary restraint, we had to impose on ourselves and every Canadian to fight domestic inflation which is the cause of specific ills-particularly in the area of employment-whether they are ready to fight in support of the suggestion that the external aid budget, now approximating $1 billion but still 5.2 per cent only of our GNP while it should be around 7 per cent, if they are ready to fight to maintain that in real terms and or increase the amount of money extended by Canada to the third world.
I wonder what kind of arithmetic the socialist opposition is following. But when we commit ourselves to increase n-fold, to give urgent priority to water purification projects to ensure drinking water to all communities in the world, mainly through our bilateral programs maybe through certain international bodies but mainly through bilateral agreements. The sums of money voted by Parliament are limited, they are already committed formally or through pre-agreements in the case of certain projects. Therefore, who is going to pay, where shall the money come from for that indisputable priority, drinking water for every human community on this planet?

June 21, 1976
Habitat Conference
Apparently, it is all very easy when in opposition to level that kind of criticism, but without coming to a single view. When time comes to vote subsidies, suddenly we hear all kinds of subtle criticism, suggesting we throw the money away on military aid which is totally inaccurate. Today we are faced with the horror of a South Africa where officially more than one hundred dead were registered, not even taking the trouble to tell before the world what is happening to 80 per cent of its citizens, who are treated as a minority in a totally shameful way.
Confronted with the deep contradictions regularly apparent among the opposition as to the suggested importance of the help effort, which is in my view an indisputable priority, and the subsidies Parliament has to vote regularly, I feel this is a very serious scandal. The New Democratic Party added in its opposition motion that we are putting our commercial interests above everything in Canada's nuclear sales. Such statement is really gratuitous and stupid. Canada-and I shall not emphasize that point-may not be the best seller since everyone knows that, being committed towards some countries, it is now dealing with foreign economies whose inflation rates exceed 200 per cent and that despite this fact, in the so-called conventional contracts, Canada is obviously not first of all a seller. First and foremost, although it was a seller, Canada is a member of the non proliferation treaty. It was one of the very first members, as soon as the treaty was put into force in 1970. At this time, about 100 countries only approved this treaty. At the same time I can say: 100 countries only and 100 countries, already, because that is a lot. By the way, I regret that some advanced countries in the nuclear field, such as France and China, have not accepted to sign the treaty. I can also say that this treaty has been greatly strengthened in 1975 when it was signed by five EURATOM member-countries, Belgium, Holland, Luxemburg, the German Federal Republic and Italy, and by countries such as the Korean Republic and many others which are not yet so-called nuclear states.
Why did we sign the non-proliferation treaty? Why did we systematically study this treaty? Why did we judge two years ago that it was not severe enough as far as standards for countries are concerned? Why did we take initiatives from which we heard through the London Club? We took all these measures because we are convinced that we must, according to the treaty and according to the principle of human solidarity, share, for pacific aims only, a technology which is often the only energy source which can be used in human settlements. That is why I often think of the spectacular example which is often given, that of the electricity for the town of Karachi in Pakistan. We could also find other examples. So, this is often the only energy source which can be used in human settlements and we have no right to judge that our stability, our democracy and our sufficiency are superior and to refuse to others what we judge as good for ourselves.
I shall end with a few remarks on the accusation that Canada's trading interests come before the other interests of humanity when it comes to selling nuclear reactors, and I shall underline that from now on Canada's policy, as far as its public bilateral development assistance is concerned, will be to refuse Canadian nuclear reactor to countries which are not members of the non-proliferation treaty. Mr. Speaker, before I end-I see that my time is coming to an

end-let me refer to an accusation made during this debate by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), who said that we were not involved in development assistance to the Third World, giving as an example our so-called absence or negativism towards the common fund in Nairobi, during the month of May.
The UNCTAD worked during the whole month of May, following the Manilla declaration of the group of 77, to stabilize, among other things, the basic commodities market in the world. Not only did we endorse the principle of the common fund, but we did actively participate in it. It is evident however that it was a bit utopian to try to delude the developing countries by having them believe that we thought that this was the best and only solution. Politically, we accepted the fund because it had become the very symbol, if I may say so, of the international new economic order. I see that my time has expired-


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss Begin) a question for clarification? Perhaps I did not understand correctly from listening to the translation. What figures did the hon. member use-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Due to the fact that the parliamentary secretary's time has expired, the hon. member must have unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to ask a question?


Andrew Hogan: It is just for clarification.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Andrew Hogan: I just want the figure of the percentage of the Gross National Product which is going to the underdeveloped world. It seemed to me that the translator said 5.2 per cent, and it was probably meant to be 0.52 per cent.


Monique Bégin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to thank my colleague from Nova Scotia for giving me the opportunity to correct a mistake I made.

It is true that I said 5.2 per cent instead of 0.52 per cent, and I would like to thank the hon. member. I am sure that many hon. members in this House, but unfortunately not the majority of us, wish Canada's figure were 1 per cent. I am dreaming of Utopia in this particular field.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I am obliged to our colleagues in the New Democratic Party for bringing forward this motion. Frankly I am confused by some of that wording, and to this moment that confusion has not been particularly alleviated by the speakers from that party.
I wish to assure the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) that I am not one of those who wish to judge the success or failure of Habitat. I do not think that is our responsibility or, still less the responsibility of those who attended the conference and who were subjected to the
June 21, 1976

pressures, and emotions, and effort required to make a reasonable input into such a conference. My only experience which is comparable was a food conference in Rome some time ago. Since that time I have felt that I, least of all, am able to judge the success or failure of such a meeting. I think we should leave that to the future. It is much too early for a final verdict on what took place in Vancouver.
What concerned me very much was the attack, which had some validity, on Canada's credibility which arose from that conference. That is not the same thing as judging a conference in terms of success or failure. It would seem to me that people can say to Canadians with some justification that those who live in glass houses should not be the first to throw stones, or they may say to us, "Physician heal thyself", or we may say to them, "Do as I say and not as I do".
A very good example is the water issue. It is very difficult for me to understand how Canada can retain its credibility in terms of pure, clean, acceptable water, as a preacher of this position, when we have reports daily of the sins we have committed in terms of our own water resources.
I was very impressed with what the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) said, and I believe I can quote him fairly accurately. It was to the effect that developed nations do not follow up their rhetoric with action. I am not particularly happy to be branded a hypocrite, Mr. Speaker. It would not bother the parliamentary secretary, I am sure. She has already intervened without waiting to hear what I have to say, which is fairly consistent with the conduct of members of the government in this regard.
I was not particularly impressed with the fact that our Minister of the Environment (Mr. Marchand)-and I rise particularly because the motion deals with environmental matters-says that our action and interaction with neighbours throughout the world will depend on the government's ability to judge its action or interaction by the votes it may get in the next election. As the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona said, that gained wide press coverage. I think that is unfortunate, though I do not object to them saying that in an election campaign. I think it is part of the fight in an election campaign.
The Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) says he did not say that. I asked the minister that very question in this House in the unavoidable absence of this minister, and he did not deny for one moment that it is what he said. I gave him every fair opportunity, and despite the intervention now of the Minister of State for Urban Affairs, the Minister of the Environment did not deny that statement. I gave him every opportunity to do so. I do not think it brought any credit to our Minister of State for Urban Affairs-and I join my colleagues in congratulating him on his contribution; I was very proud of him, but I was not proud of his colleague when he made that particular reference which was so widely quoted in the Canadian and international press. I was embarrassed as a Canadian to read that our contribution would be dictated by an election result that was some time away. Despite the intervention of the Minister of State for Urban
Habitat Conference
Affairs, I think the low water mark was that reference by the Minister of the Environment.
The motion deals with the commercial criteria with regard to nuclear power, and I should like to deal with that matter as it affects the environment. I think we are going to be judged on our actions by the developing countries. I am afraid of being accused of hypocrisy, and I think one of the things we are going to be judged on is nuclear power and nuclear waste.
The most serious environmental impact of nuclear power in my judgment is in the field of the management of waste produced by reactors. This waste is composed of radio-actinides which have extremely long half-lives-in the case of plutonium 25,000 years. This means that a given quantity of plutonium will be half as radioactive in 25,000 years as it is today. At this rate it would take 250,000 years for a moderate sized quantity of plutonium to become safe.
There are a number of methods of disposing of the waste. We have investigated burying it in salt, and we have investigated burying it in stable geological formations-[DOT] and even shooting it into the sun. At the moment Atomic Energy of Canada seems to be leaning toward the geological disposal of waste in the pre-Cambrian shield.
Aside from the obvious problems associated with even geological disposal of the waste, it is important to remember that, as of today, no waste has ever been disposed of successfully. In the United States liquid waste is stored in steel tanks which, although built to very high tolerances and with double walls, have been known to leak. Substantial leakage of waste could obviously pollute the water table of a considerable area leading perhaps to the closure of an entire community. In addition, waste in temporary storage is vulnerable to theft, which given its toxic nature could have grave security implications.
Another hazard of nuclear power as far as the environment is concerned-and here again we are going to be judged on the way we deal with our environment-is that caused by thermal pollution created by nuclear power plants. Because of the high steam temperatures at which the facilities operate, vast quantities of cooling water are needed-about 50 per cent more than the conventional plant; thus, given present technology, nuclear power stations need to be located near very substantial bodies of water.
All of these considerations may be deemed theoretical, and perhaps they were until the Port Hope incident. They are not theoretical any more but are very, very real. Human error in the past was translated into significant dangers to children who were not even born when the mistakes were made. Therefore I think, and I urge upon my colleagues, that if we are going to be dealing with the less developed countries that the environmental considerations be given a priority and consideration far beyond that given by the government to date.
The economics of nuclear power are increasingly coming into question. In the last three years capital costs, inflation, and the general cost of capital have made nuclear power decreasingly economic even though oil prices have quadrupled during that period. At present trends, oil-fired power stations will be competitive with nuclear stations in the very near future. In fact the Barber report commis-

June 21, 1976
Habitat Conference
sioned for the energy research and development administration in the United States calculates that at about $30 a ton for power station coal, nuclear stations under 600 megawatts are uneconomic. Ontario Hydro estimates that this is about its average cost of coal delivered to its power stations.
Another economic problem of nuclear power as far as less developed countries are concerned is that the current vendors of nuclear stations sell only 600 megawatt or larger units. In a less developed country with a relatively unsophisticated power grid, a 600 megawatt unit represents a tremendous proportion of the total electricity requirements. This can mean that the less developed countries in question will develop an excessive dependance on one power source. In light of the fact that most power stations only operate between 50 and 70 per cent of the time, this leads to immense distortions in the power supply.


An hon. Member:: Who wrote that?


William Herbert Jarvis: The parliamentary secretary shakes his head. Can he tell me where a developed country can purchase a nuclear power station under 600 megawatts on the market place today? It is impossible. A country which purchases a unit that size or greater becomes tremendously dependent on that one single unit. In terms of safety it is probably the biggest issue confronting the advocates of nuclear power. This is a most controversial question, technically, and I claim no expertise.
I suggest that claims for the over-all safety of nuclear power plants are usually based on United States experience. They are summarized in documents such as the Rasmusian report, which suggests that the probability of a fatality from a nuclear accident is extremely small. Apparently the chance of being killed in a nuclear power accident is about as great as that of being killed by a meteorite. Because laymen do not usually readily understand probability theory, and because these statistics may easily be distorted, there is widespread unease about the safety of nuclear power in communities located near nuclear power plants.
Another problem concerns the use of nuclear material by terrorists. Quite apart from the potential which exists for making bombs from plutonium, a potential which is very likely not as great as has been commonly stated, it must be borne in mind that plutonium is a highly toxic element.


An hon. Member:: Who can understand that?


William Herbert Jarvis: If the hon. member wants to participate in the debate, I invite him to take part.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Will the hon. member please address the Chair?


William Herbert Jarvis: I do not know if the hon. member wishes to participate in the debate. I listened to him not long ago and could not understand one thing he said. He made a most inconsequential contribution. Perhaps we are getting even. The hon. member may not be prepared to understand; I do not know.
One pound of plutonium can kill many times over every man, woman, and child on this planet. This worry is magnified by the exponential growth of world plutonium stocks. By 1980 200 tons will have been produced; the figure by 1985 will rise to over 700 tons.
My second point relates to the wording of the motion. The motion refers to "the government's bold statements on such environmental matters as clean water and its inability or unwillingness to enforce minimal standards in Canada, as in the case of the Syncrude plant in northern Alberta." The mover of the motion referred to the Great Canadian Oil Sands plant, instead of the Syncrude plant. I would have been happier if the motion had referred to the Great Lakes as an example, particularly as the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), the mover of the motion, is more familiar with the Great Lakes than with the Athabasca oil sands. I think the example in the motion is most unhappy. However, since the motion mentions the Syncrude plant, my remarks will relate to Syncrude as well.
I accuse the Minister of the Environment for creating a confused situation with regard to environmental matters on which other countries will inevitably judge us. For example, what is the minimal standard if we use the GCOS yardstick? Is it to be 287 long tons per stream day, which is apparently the standard being set for Syncrude? Or is it 40 long tons, a standard which many allege can be reached if sulphur scrubbing equipment is installed in the plant? Further, what is the cost of such equipment? On the one hand we have reports saying it costs $60 million; in other cases companies allege that the cost will be up to $1 billion. Is the equipment any good? On the one hand some people allege that, for a $60 million expenditure, emissions can be reduced to 40 long tons a day. On the other hand some companies say that the equipment is unproven, unsatisfactory, and will never meet that particular target. The Minister of the Environment ought to answer such questions; so far he has not done so.
Who has authority for dealing with such environmental matters? The Minister of the Environment says that certainly the federal government has no authority. Despite the legislative authority of the Clean Air Act and the Environmental Contaminants Act, the minister has said repeatedly in this House and elsewhere that this is simply a provincial matter. Although the federal government is largely involved with the Syncrude operation, the Minister of the Environment has said repeatedly in this House that the federal government has no responsibility with regard to environmental matters. If this is true-and I am speaking theoretically only because I do not agree that it is- why in heaven's name has the minister not agreed with his provincial counterparts on what the acceptable level ought to be?
Surely developing countries will judge us for our inadequacies, since we cannot determine who has authority and, even if there is joint responsibility, what the commonly acceptable standard ought to be. Really, that is the thrust of the motion. We tell developing countries how concerned we are about the environment; we brag of our environmental assessment studies. And in fact we have commissioned environmental assessment studies. One was


June 21, 1976
undertaken with regard to Syncrude. But we do not do what we say we will do.
The Environment Canada comments on Syncrude's environmental impact assessment were so extensive as to merit a further study which is now under way, financed 50-50 by the federal and Alberta provincial governments, and will cost around $40 million to complete. The study is to be completed in 1985 owing to the comprehensive scope of its investigations. Syncrude, however, will begin operations in 1978, which leaves a hiatus of seven years. The spending of $40 million of taxpayer's money will result in a study which we shall receive seven years after the start-up of plant operations. And we say to developing countries, do as we say, not as we do. We tell them how concerned we are about our environment; yet we shall not complete a major environmental impact study until seven years after the Syncrude plant is in operation.
Apparently the NDP are concerned about the Athabasca tar sands. I do not wish to enlarge on what the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) said, but I am concerned about the example to which the motion we are debating alludes. In Alberta the main thrust of the forces opposing Syncrude has been managed by Mr. Grant Notley, the sole NDP member of the legislative assembly. Mr. Notley reportedly has a highly qualified staff of three working for him full time, on a generous research budget provided to him as leader and sole member of one of the opposition parties in the legislature. On occasion Mr. Not-ley's researches have steered him up some blind alleys. For example, Mr. Notley claimed that the GCOS emissions were killing thousands of water fowl in the Athabasca area. The hon. member for Athabasca this afternoon, as have others at other times, completely rejected such claim as being inaccurate. It is unfortunate that the mover of the main motion did not use a better example to illustrate concern for the environment.
I come back to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs and say that I will not judge him on these matters. He and the government will be judged on these matters by others some time in the future. On the other hand, I join my colleague from Edmonton-Strathcona in complimenting the minister on his speech at Habitat. I say to him, sincerely, that I thought the Minister of the Environment made a most unhappy intervention at that conference. Second, so long as we are hypocritical about environmental matters in Canada, it will be difficult to show developing nations the leadership they expect of us in this field.


Andrew Hogan: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks may I congratulate the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) for acting as chairman at the Habitat conference and for performing his duties under conditions which, as many know, were most trying.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Andrew Hogan: The motion the House is debating refers to the cynical attitude the government adopted at the Habitat conference on the question of pollution and the provision of clean water, as well as to what has happened pollution-wise in the Alberta tar sands development. The last point relates to the way this country has sold nuclear reactors to
Habitat Conference
various countries of the world with the attendant pollution and safety problems.
In the debate at Habitat and again today, the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) brought in the whole question of the Habitat conference as it relates to the whole new economic order and the discussions that had taken place in Nairobi. He mentioned that the Vancouver conference was a successor to several important U.N. conferences held in the past few years, notably the food crisis conference in Rome, the population crisis conference in Bucharest, the rights of women conference in Mexico City, and the environmental conference in Stockholm.
There is an old Biblical saying that is familiar to most people: There is faith, hope, and charity, but the greatest of these is charity. The line that I am going to take tonight is that there is food, clothing, and shelter, and the most important and greatest of these is food, even though I realize that the Habitat conference was supposed to be primarily directed to the problems of human settlement. In reality a great deal of the time was spent trying to allay the political by-play or inter-play between the mid-East forces that unfortunately crept into that conference, as it has into so many UN conferences in recent years. Perhaps it was unavoidable.
I listened to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona and part of the speech in reply by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss Begin) who would very well have been talking about the new economic order in the same way as the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. I realize that since the world food conference in Rome we have not moved as quickly as possible. Obviously if we are going to get into a new economic order it involves what was discussed at Nairobi, including commodity agreements, raw materials, preferential tariff agreements between the developed and underveloped world, changing trade patterns, a host of structural changes that need to take place in the underdeveloped world as well as in the developed world in order to bring about a greater redistribution of resources as between the poorer and richer nations. We all know that in the long run that has to be done. A start has to be made.
There is something, though, about which I am becoming increasingly concerned. My fears have not been allayed since the conference in Rome. I refer to the fact that we underplay too much the necessity of foreign aid in the traditional sense.
I was particularly struck by this fact last night in watching the CTV program "W5". There was a discussion by two people, one of whom was Dr. McTaggart-Cowan, a well known Canadian scientist who did a study of the oil spill disaster in Chedabucto Bay. The other was Dr. Schneider, I think his name was, a climatologist from one of the midwestern states. They predicted that we have fed into the computers too much of these historical climatic cycles without any reasonable room for random variations that can completely change the picture with regard to food supplies in the short run as it affects our country and, therefore, millions and millions of people in the underdeveloped world.

June 21, 1976
Habitat Conference
Since the world food conference in Rome, books and articles have been produced with regard to the question of the lifeboat theory, the idea that wealthy countries should help only the most promising of the poorer countries. I asked the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question with regard to the comparison of the GNP. The answer she gave me is correct; it is much less that 1 per cent. She did not state, and I am subject to correction on this, that the close to $1 billion figure she quoted includes $100 million to $150 million for military expenditures in these countries. I do not consider that conducive to helping these countries to obtain food or better human settlement.


An hon. Member:: That should be million.


Andrew Hogan: I should have said $250 million, I think it is. Anyway, I am subject to correction. It may be $150 million. My point is that the distinction needs to be made between military expenditures as a part of the foreign aid program and the real foreign aid program relating to food, shelter, and things like that.
As I was saying, the lifeboat theory is still prevalent. There has been much written about it, probably as a consequence of the world food conference in Rome. The idea is that the wealthy countries should help only the most promising of the poorer countries, since spreading resources too thin could jeopardize chances for survival of the strong as well as the weak. There is the suggestion that wealthy nations should make distinctions between poorer nations in the spirit of "triage", the first world war medical practice of dividing the wounded into survival categories in order to concentrate medical resources on those who could truly benefit from them, and to ignore those who would die even with treatment or survive even without it. Some proponents of these theories cite projections from the Club of Rome's statistical model "The Limits to Growth" to add a seal of technological legitimacy to their modern-day malthusianism.
These apolyptic concepts are provocative, and the threads of truth they contain do have frightening implications. Moreover, momentum for this pessimism has been building, abetted by full page advertisements in major newspapers, articles in important international publications, and a marked increase in the demand for triage speakers on American campuses and television panels.
As a recent copy of the New York Times magazine noted, the campaign has had its impact. Many leaders who have been in the forefront of efforts to help the needy are currently mired in an uncharacteristic mood of inertia. And the lifeboat and triage theories offer a rationale for their passivity.
Yet a close look reveals that the theories are not appropriate to today's realities and need not be for tomorrow's. In fact reasonable and hard headed assessments of available figures suggest that it is well within the power of humanity to produce enough food to prevent masses from starving. The fact that it is possible to refute the current lifeboat and triage theories, however, as Barbara Ward notes, does not mean there is no food crisis. Various food crises and inadequate distribution systems have affected nutritionally the status of millions of children from low income families, and unless dramatic policy decisions are

taken soon this trend, I am afraid, is likely to accelerate over the next decade, with ominous consequences. That in face is the reason why the lifeboat and triage theories must be refuted now.
I was happy to see that in a recent interview Mr. Hopper, Canada's head of the International Development Research Centre, had this to say about the triage concept. He said it is an unworthy concept. It assumes that there is nothing you can do, or that the resources that it is going to take to do it are just so colossal that you cannot afford to expend them. He says that this is a perfectly valid classification in the heat of battle on the battlefield. If I may quote him from an interview in the Globe and Mail for November 3, 1975, he says:
But when it comes to the world food situation, "I don't think we're at anything like that limited capacity at the present time. I don't think we're out of time and I don't think we're out of resources."
He went on to point out that some nations that would be left to their fates are in fact agriculturally very productive-India, for example. He says that the concern should be not to abandon them but to transform their traditional agricultural practices into scientifically based ones that will increase their output of food.
I want to go further than that, Mr. Speaker. I think it is most important to recognize that the basic concept of squeezing the world into a single lifeboat is wrong. The aim should be to build more lifeboats. You then increase food production in needy countries in the longer run, while in the shorter run you supply them with the needed food, so that the many possible and in some cases probable famines that will be facing the world will be readily dealt with.
The view of helpless countries holding out begging bowls for a few kernels of grain is I know the last thing in the minds of all development agencies and low income nations. We all know that in many countries there is nothing politically more difficult to handle and more damaging to a nation's pride than food aid. However, realities are realities, and it does not do to have leaders such as, with all due respect to his memory, the late emperor Haile Selassie who, as we now know, tried to hide the fact of some famine in Ethiopia. Pride can only go so far.
Based on today's technologies, we know the opportunities for major growth in food production are there. Scientific breakthroughs are possible. Some research projects are already approaching fruition and others offer interesting promise. In any event, if we take the lifeboat and triage theories to their conclusion and deny aid to many hungry nations, what ultimately will happen to them? This is the reason we have to get up to the one per cent of GNP that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs mentioned is her dream. It must not be a dream, even in a period of national restraint; it must become a reality in one of the most relatively affluent countries of the world, even though our growth rate over the last few years, in GNP-per capita terms, has gone from second among the nations of the western world to sixth or seventh.
Furthermore, evidence is beginning to accumulate showing that great efforts are being made now at reducing
June 21, 1976

population growth and improving nutrition. These two factors are linked together far more closely than once thought. In many poor areas the best way to lower the birth rate is to provide a family's children with a decent chance for survival by the economic transformation of their society, as well as the provision of food aid in the short run. If half of their children die before reaching their productive years, parents will feel that they have to conceive a great many children-common belief puts the figure at eight-to ensure two surviving sons. So ironically the rate of population growth could be lowered partly by providing food to keep children alive and healthy.
It is hard for Canadians to realize, Mr. Speaker, as became clear at the Habitat conference, what it is like to be in the shoes of those who have to live on $200 a year. It is evident across the country, despite the attempts of officials to break that barrier down, that it is pretty tough for us who are used to restaurants with plenty of food, who are used to three square meals a day and a pretty good roof over our heads, to realize the suffering endured by these people.
If we try to imagine what it is like for a family to live on $200 a year, Mr. Speaker, first of all let us take out the furniture, except for a few old blankets, a kitchen table and one chair, take away the pantry, save for a few potatoes, dismantle the bathroom, take away the house and move the family to the toolshed, and take away all the other houses and set up in their place a shantytown.
My House leader has reminded me, Mr. Speaker, that I do not have much time left, so some of the things I was going to say will have to be left unsaid. I hope on another occasion I will have an opportunity to make some further points. Let me conclude by congratulating the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) on pointing out today that one of the great problems in our country in regard to housing is land speculation. Although we have developed this question before in the House, I wish he had developed it a little more today in relation to the food policy of this country and foreign food aid. Some of our best agricultural land is owned by these greedy speculators, and the provincial and federal governments are allowing them to go ahead as in the fertile Niagara Peninsula.
Let me remind us all of what John Maynard Keynes said after the first world war when he predicted what was going to happen in Germany. I suggest we remember this today. He said:
Men will not always die quietly. For starvation, which brings to some lethargy and a helpless despair, drives other temperaments to the nervous instability of hysteria.
We are seeing that at the present time.
These in their distress may overturn the remnants of organization, and submerge civilization itself in their attempts to satisfy desperately the overwhelming needs of the individual. This is the danger against which all our resources and courage and idealism must now co-operate.


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have this opportunity to engage in this debate and I thank the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert) for introducing it. It gives us the opportunity to talk about matters which I think are very important and which we do not discuss all that often, even though there have been accusations of cynicism. I
Habitat Conference
think we can make them both ways, though it would not be very productive.
The important thing to remember is that we had a fine delegation at Habitat, one that was truly representative. It was not only a federal delegation; it was a national delegation and included all levels of government, non-government organizations, our native people, and women, of whom I wish there were more on the delegation, who acquitted themselves admirably under the outstanding leadership of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) who led the Canadian delegation. I think they did us credit, and I include all the members of the Canadian Habitat Secretariat. I think they did us credit; the people of Canada, the Habitat Secretariat, and Commissioner General Mr. MacNeill did us credit. The arrangements, as all the delegates and all the United Nations people said time and time again, were second to none. Perhaps more important was the fact that the hospitality of the people of Vancouver was second to none. The warmth, the spirit, and the interest was noticed everywhere the delegates went, and this situation was repeated time and time again.
I certainly want to thank those who have paid tribute to the role I played there. It was one of considerable interest.
I must say, however, that the conference did not solve the problems of the new international economic order. It could not deal with those things which the UNCTAD conference at Nairobi did not really resolve. There is still trouble in Ireland, and there is still tragedy in Lebanon. The Middle East problems have not been solved. The United Nations Habitat conference on human settlements was not able to solve those problems which neither the General Assembly nor the Security Council have been able to resolve so far. Many people ask: well, is that not a tragedy? That is not what the conference was about. These are the things that most of the people directed their attention to day after day in tough sessions. This is what the people directed themselves to in the long period of time in preparation for the Stockholm conference.
These people dealt with settlements. They reached conclusions on many of the human settlements issues. Perhaps 90 per cent or 95 per cent of the substance for which the conference was called was agreed upon by consensus. As the Minister of Justice has said, it was not such that we could vote or approve the Declaration of Principles by consensus.
We should not lose sight of the real progress that was made and for which the conference was called. There were no surprises. We were not surprised when issues which some consider extraneous or irrelevant arose. Delegates in most cases were not briefed on them. They did not have instructions from their governments on them. The conference was not really competent to deal with them, but these reflected the real world, and also something else which we Canadians had the opportunity of learning. It reflected that these things which we sometimes consider extraneous and irrelevant are very central to other people. I think that is the lesson we must learn.
There were over 140 nation states represented, plus many observer groups, liberation groups, and non-government organizations. We were getting the full spectrum of

June 21, 1976
Habitat Conference
the world and it has shifted, just as the United Nations has shifted. The conference is suffering from that democratic fault of having the majority have its way, and this was reflected very much there.
If we look back, as we will, and as we are beginning to do now at the Stockholm conference on the environment, we will remember these things. Very few people, except perhaps a few UN watchers or specialists, will remember the difficulties at the Stockholm conference with the recognition of the Chinese delegation, or of the German Democratic Republic delegation not being represented. I forget the details myself. When we look back and forget all the turmoil of the so-called extraneous political matters we remember the substance of what the Stockholm conference was all about. Many things have happened as a result of that. There are very few nations in the world without environmental programs, and at that time there were very few with such programs or even with environmental ministries. The word "ecology" was perhaps known to a few academics, specialists, and scientists, but now it is used by school children, and felt with their hearts.
There are many programs now on the environment under the auspices of the United Nations Environmental Program in Nairobi, for instance, the one begun following the conference regarding depollution of the Baltic Sea. Even the preparatory arrangements leading up to the conference have resulted in progress. Canada and the United States signed the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement as the Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement as a direct result of the interest created in preparing for such a conference because it focused attention on this. Very few people know about the Barcelona agreement for the gradual depollution of the Mediterranean Sea which was signed a few months ago. It involves the nations around the Mediterranean, including those opponents in the Middle East conflict. Even they reached agreement on this fundamental issue which was of human and social concern. This is the way we will look back at the United Nations Habitat Conference on Human Settlements in Vancouver.
I am told there are some 20 territorial disputes going on in the world today. I am sure that in another 20 years there will still be 20 territorial disputes going on. They probably will be different ones, but the work started at Habitat and in the preparatory process will continue, and its impact will continue to be felt. That is what is important and that is what made Habitat worth while.
I have mentioned consensus. We must remember that there were three committees, including Committee Two which dealt with policies, strategies, planning, institutions and management. It brought in a report under Mr. Ansari of Iran which was a consensus report. Committee No. 3 under Mr. Aria of Venezuela dealt with shelter, infrastructure and services, land, and with public participation, and it brought in a report by consensus. The conference dealt with water quality.
It was Canada which led the fight for water targets. It was said here today that we made no financial commitment. No nation there made a commitment for funding in respect of water quality, but we fought for targets in order that there would be piped pottable water to every community by 1990. Canada would have preferred the 1986 date, but perhaps we are a little too progressive and there was a

consensus reached in respect of 1990. For Canada this is important because we forget sometimes that in our own communities we do not have clean, piped water, but we hope to in all Canadian communities by the 1980's.
We are prepared to make commitments through our external programs. This is not cynicism. It would have been the height of cynicism or self-righteousness for us to tell the developing nations what their targets should be, because there were also programs of national action. This was a critical part of the whole Habitat Conference which was made up of sovereign states which must set their own targets, their own goals, and their own priorities. If their priorities reflect that which was reflected by the conference, that is, a high priority on water, Canada is very much ready to respond.
Certainly it took the magic of Barbara Ward to dramatize this for the whole world, but that consistently throughout was Canada's position. In addition, the University of British Columbia, as was mentioned, will be the scene for the unique and innovative audio-visual program which will be for the transfer of information. Not only the audio-visual program itself, but all the other documents and upgrading and enriching it as time goes on, will be of advantage to Canadians and also to other people throughout the world.
There were plans for international co-operation and institutional arrangements, and this came of Committee One under Father Muhoho of Kenya. It is true that a consensus was not reached on a statement of principles, but it is rather striking that but for perhaps ten or 15 words there would have been a consensus. It was with sadness that I noted this was all that prevented us from reaching a total consensus.
It is this planning for international action which should go to the setting of priorities and the preparation of programs to which Canada will respond as we do already through our CIDA people. In this way we exchange internationally technology, know-how, and resources. Many things are still to come as a result of the conference.
The level of consciousness throughout the world was raised immeasurably in this whole area of human settlements. Country after country had programs which were going on before Habitat. Some made them a national effort. Through the activities of many, many people in the forum under Mr. Van Puttan of The Hague, and perhaps fortunately with the help of people like Barbara Ward, Margaret Mead, Buckminster Fuller and Mother Theresa, there was a consciousness that permeated every facet of Habitat, and those people who were interested became fully aware of what the basic problems are in the world, where our priorities and commitments should lie. So it was hardly a waste.
Many steps forward were taken. We did not solve the problem of human settlements, I might say also. We just started the process. This was the second stage of a process. There was a long preparatory process. Habitat was the time when we made our commitments, and now is the time of implementation. There will be a time of monitoring too. There will be monitoring at a national level which we will do here in Canada, I hope in the fall when there will be
June 21, 1976

meetings involving our delegation and the non-governmental organizations, and there will be international monitoring through the United Nations both on a global and on a regional basis.
In so far as our own concerns about human settlements are concerned we face some issues very squarely. There is the question of land which really reflected the Canadian reality. It exposed us. That is fair enough because it was a national delegation. I must say I take exception to the reference to particular names. The name was raised of Mr. Teron, the secretary to the ministry. He really fought very hard for a very liberal position in those committees.
There were others present there who represented Canadian reality, the mixed economy and the federal nature of our country. That I consider a great assist because now it has exposed the problems for Canadians to see, for governments to see. I now am making contact with the ministers responsible in the various provinces across the country so that we can face that problem squarely together for the very first time.
There are jurisdictional problems, and there have been problems presented before. However, there has been a reluctance to sit down together to do something about it. I do not care if we sit down together or work in parallel, if the municipalities sit with the provinces or if we all sit together, or whether or not the private sector is there, the fact is that it has to be approached with urgency because obviously the problem is there and it will not go away. We have come to realize that certainly land is not a commodity but is a resource. This is the way in which we have to face it. Regrettably the debate today and elsewhere focused on the windfall profits in land, which are a problem. We have ways to deal with them through taxation. The provincial governments have ways to deal with this matter through taxation, and I guess also the municipalities.
We have to examine the matter much more thoroughly. However, that is only one element in the high cost of land and housing. There are many other factors. It is an important element, but it is not the most important. We have to sit down and look at it in the totality. Our job is not just to recapture profits for the community, which we do in many of our programs now; we also have to reduce the problems in respect of serviced land so that we can get housing at a lower price.
We have made our commitments in respect of water. We have to work very hard to meet them. We are making progress through our municipal infrastructure programs, and even this morning we had further meetings on how we could move into the area of remote communities where the greatest problems are.
There is the whole question of energy conservation, the design of our communities, and the need for proper urban transportation. This problem certainly has developed, and is one to which we certainly will have to give much greater priority as a result of this conference. This is something to which we are addressing ourselves now.
Then there were the problems of the Third World. We have problems in Canada. All developed nations have problems, or perhaps the industrialized nations, because some of those less industrialized are perhaps more developed as societies. But we can hope. We have the resources
Habitat Conference
and the skills, and all we need are the political will and the priority to make them work. But in the Third World they do not have that luxury. When you are dealing with the squatter settlements of Asia, Africa, Latin America, and even in some North American areas to some extent, we see problems of immense proportions.
We talk about children and families living in refugee camps in Palestine and elsewhere. In this regard we have immense problems to which we must address ourselves as a world community. When we look at the villages in Asia, Africa, and Latin America which have never known clean water, where the women perhaps spend five hours a day hauling water, never really clean water, when the same water is used for cooking, drinking, washing, laundry and for defecating, end where virtually 100 per cent of the people suffer from water-borne disease, our problems fade into insignificance.
I do not believe our answer is to be able to provide housing for all the people of the world. If we can get that one first priority of clean water in each community then we have made immense progress. Then we need some decent sewage disposal, health services, and education, and then people will start building their own homes and their own communities. Then they can have a piece of land which they can call their own. Then they can have tenure of land, some pride and some stake in the community. Then things will happen. Then the problem of population, and not until then, will start to fade because then, as one of the hon. members opposite said, the families who have eight children, two of whom survive, will realize that maybe if they have two or three the two or three will live, and they will have the education and the will to do the proper family planning.
Those are the things which also come home to us as Canadians and as members of a world community. Organizations like CIDA and others have now focused in on the problems of water, sewage, and of human settlements, as has the World Bank and as have other international institutions. We must really face these issues squarely. We must realize that Habitat was not to cure all the problems of the world. It made immense progress in those areas it was intended to address.
I believe I have responded to many of the questions raised by the hon. member for Broadview, or certainly my colleagues have in the area of nuclear waste and in the area of the environment. I did want to deal particularly as I have with the question of land where the incremental gain being recaptured is only one element in the whole land picture, as I am sure he realizes quite well. I am sure that because it was a federal delegation, and because the provincial ministers were present, there was a disposition to meet on this subject. There is no commitment, but I will be in touch with my provincial colleagues to address this issue together as quickly as we possibly can.
The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) indicated that the Minister of .Justice, the leader of the Canadian delegation, reserved Canada's position on these important issues. I think he will agree in all fairness that he made it perfectly clear that there was a lot of area for compromise and for agreement and consensus. There was only one area which prevented us and all other nations from supporting it, and that indeed was unfortunate.
14722

June 21, 1976
Habitat Conference
Other members have zeroed in on other points of concern. I note that the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) mentioned the question of rhetoric as opposed to action. Of course none of us can afford this kind of selfrighteousness. Conferences are made up of words, and politicians use words. So do non-governmental organizations which sometimes do not have the responsibility for implementation, so I do not think this is a case of the kettle calling the pot black. It is a matter of realizing our responsibility in this respect and making commitments, as nations did.
The hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) of course mentioned the question of press attention. This was raised. It was rather a disappointement because I am told by UN hands and by the press people generally that the press arrangements were the finest ever made for such a conference. Yet editors thought it best simply to focus on those highly contentious issues which were not central to the conference, those about which it is easier to write perhaps, and which attract more attention.
Having said that, I think the Vancouver press and the British Columbia press generally were very responsible and covered the conference in great depth, as did radio and television. Many journalists took a serious interest in the whole issue of human settlements and reported it very well and in depth. Indeed I am rather pleased to see the press reaction now, a week or so later, which did not take an interest in the conference before but in doing an assessment now is doing it wisely.
The hon. member for Perth-Wilmot (Mr. Jarvis) spoke about the danger of self-righteousness. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan) was cynical about our commitments with regard to water. I think that a healthy degree of cynicism is good, but so is a healthy degree of naivete. I would not like to be out of balance either way.
The hon. member for Fundy-Royal spoke about politicization. I should like to repeat that this was not surprising. We hoped it would not happen, but this is the real world and it did happen. As a matter of fact it might be unproductive because the Third World is not monolithic, and because sometimes it detracts from the substance of these conferences, and more and more people are coming to realize that it is best to keep the specialized conferences as much to the point as possible.
We cannot believe for a moment that other problems will go away or that they are indeed extraneous. They are not extraneous to us as a world community, they are problems with which we must deal very seriously because if we forget the little children in the Methari Valley in Kenya, the children in the refugee camps in Palestine, or those children who have not survived the Warsaw ghetto, then indeed as a world community we are in great difficulty. I ask hon. members to assess this conference properly, to see what happened at Habitat, to look at the accomplishments, the plusses, and to hope for more of them in the future, but also to see what the alternatives are so that nations can get together and air their problems.
Even if we do not like the real world, we must be exposed to it. It is much better to have those differences on

the table with the cards face up so that we can deal with them rationally and reach solutions. We in Canada cannot isolate ourselves from the world and its problems, and this was another benefit of Habitat because it brought them home more closely to us, more closely to the people of British Columbia and especially of Vancouver who really had a close-up view of the entire conference.
I respect the cynicism of the hon. member for Broadview, but I do not share it. I think that we accomplished a great deal at Habitat, and I think the world made a great step forward there. We will look back, not in 20 years but in two or three years, and see major action taking place as the result of this conference, as we have seen major action taking place as the result of the conference on the environment at Stockholm.
As I said, Habitat reflected the reality and the despair of the world, but also the hope and the highest ideals of mankind. I appreciate the fact that having a big heart and good-will is not enough-there must be commitment, there must be action to follow. But I am proud of Canada's role as host of Habitat and as a delegation at Habitat. I think all facets of the Canadian presence contributed well and did Canada proud.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to ask the minister a question, if you will allow it. Can the minister tell us what specific plans he has for a follow up to Habitat. He just touched lightly in his address on the subject. The non-government organizations which attended Habitat are most anxious to have follow up meetings across the country, and I wonder if the minister would tell us now what plans he has to promote the national program of action which came out of Habitat in a series of seminars on a regional basis across the country, perhaps culminating in a national meeting in the winter of 1977.


Barnett Jerome Danson: It is not only the non-government organizations but the non-organized governments that must get together now. I think we must leave sufficient room for assessment so that non-government organizations will be encouraged, as they are being encouraged, to meet, assess and monitor us, politicians. I do not want to give specific dates but I hope that not too late in the fall there can be a national meeting of non-government organizations. We have to decide if that is not too early, if perhaps we should not allow a longer time range to give more time for assessment. Certainly action in this direction has been started. I do not expect miracle answers overnight, but the process has to start quickly and we need the co-operation of the provinces and municipalities, which I am sure will be happy to participate.
In so far as external programs are concerned, I am aware of the fact that CIDA is looking at these new programs to respond to them. I think we will look at our energy conservation programs, and urban transport will get greater priority, all of this within the context of what are real economic restraints. I think this puts a different complexion on them, but I believe that this follow up and monitoring must start very quickly even on an international plane. The secretary general will be reporting to EcoSoc in Geneva this August, and then he and I will be reporting to the General Assembly in New York in the fall. We hope we can reach agreement on the institutional arrangements so
June 21, 1976

that international action can start. The UBC project is now under way and going to work immediately so that the very valuable information which was collected from many countries will not be dissipated immediately after the conference.
I can assure the hon. member that we will not let grass grow under our feet. This will not be fast enough to satisfy him or me, but we will certainly try as best we can.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that only 30 minutes are left in the debate I have no way of forcing my preference over other members who want to speak,, but what I have to say will only take seven minutes in order to allow equal time to the remaining four speakers who want to speak.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Dean Waldon Whiteway: I agree with the minister. I find that I myself am not guilty enough of ethnocentricity. I find that I am not guilty of measuring the standards and values of other nations based on the values I hold in this country to be right, good and equal for Canadians. I think that if more of us were guilty of ethnocentricity in reverse, we would perhaps be a little more concerned about some of the conditions we discussed, that were discussed at Habitat, and that were mentioned by the minister tonight.
Even though there are problems abroad, that does not in any way wipe out the real problems facing Canadians with respect to housing. There are people in this country who have a great hope, and they hope that one day they will be in a position to be able to own their own homes. That hope exists among young people in spite of the failures of the minister and the government. These are the days when old men dream dreams of how things used to be, and young men have visions of despair. Why has this hope turned to despair? Why are young people having to give up the right or the possibility of owning their own homes?
Just in passing, I was disappointed with the answer the minister gave me this afternoon in the question period. I was disappointed that he did not level with me and this House with reference to the one year mortgages which are a rip off to first time home owners in this country. The minister chose to evade the question.
I hope that there is still time for repentance, that the minister will read his answer, come to his senses, and tomorrow with tears streaming down his face stand in his place and right the wrong, and tell the people of this country what he intends to do with reference to the situation which has arisen with the bait and switch of one year mortgages.
In the time left to me I would like to bring to the attention of the minister the situation in the United States where, primarily in the area of housing, they make use of tax incentives, housing credit assistance, and cash subsidies, with the emphasis on tax incentives. I am wondering if the minister has given consideration to this and whether he would give thought to moving in this direction and providing tax incentives on interest paid on mortages- perhaps over 8 per cent or 9 per cent, but that could be decided upon-and perhaps to avoid double taxation, tax
Habitat Conference
credits for taxes paid on municipal property to be deducted from revenue, primarily personal income tax.
I think that the advantages of this would be numerous. It would ease the burden of interest rate fluctuation, particularly high interest rates, on the taxpayer in a visible fashion; stimulate demand for home ownership; assist new families purchasing homes by allowing higher interest costs to be deducted from the generally lower incomes of younger families in the early years of family formation; and assist in building long range stability within the housing field. This scheme avoids tax upon tax, which I have already mentioned, and which has been part of past schemes. Home ownership ought to become a reality.
Just 50 years ago in this country education was considered to be a privilege, and now we consider that to be a basic right. I want to say categorically that I believe it is a basic right of expectation of every Canadian to own his own home or to have the option to own his own home. However, the option to own one's own home applies only in a certain context. We want to come to grips with that. It is not good enough, day after day, to give us the kind of verbiage that the minister gives us so well. It is not good enough to articulate the problems and then wring your hands in despair and say it is not possible.
Sir, Canadians from one end of this country to the other cannot understand why it is, with our vast resources in land and natural resources and with our hundreds of thousands of acres of land and timber, that our economic system does not allow people to own their own homes. It is not good enough that we cannot put our interest rates in order and that you, sir, cannot put your House in order to bring this about.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I hope the hon. member is not blaming the Chair for all these weaknesses.


Dean Waldon Whiteway: With those words I will conclude by saying that I challenge the minister tomorrow, sometime during the question period or perhaps in a statement on motions, to put right the wrong he made during the question period today, and the wrong which was stated by his parliamentary secretary in his absence last week.


Mr. F. A. Philbrook (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to join the debate on Habitat, 1976, which I believe was the largest United Nations conference ever held. It is certainly a credit to the UN, to the great city of Vancouver, to the Government of Canada and its delegation, and especially to the Minister of State for' Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) for his devoted leadership.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank A. Philbrook: As we have heard, some praise Habitat for its results and some criticize, but I believe that the most important thing about it is that it happened. I do not think any reasonable person can deny that a new initiative had to be taken on such a high priority subject as human settlements. Human settlements, of course, mean much more than housing. They mean such things as land and space, water and disposal, a stable climate and an agreeable environment.
95570-31)4

June 21, 1976
Habitat Conference
I also congratulate my friend, the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), for raising this subject, although I am afraid I cannot agree with his skepticism about it.
I would like to speak for a little while about one particular subject, as did the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), who is also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, and that is the subject of Canadian policy with regard to nuclear sales. Human settlements depend not just on structures and resources, but also to a very large extent on that basic commodity, energy. There is no question that, as a result of the recent changes in the world energy situation, many countries must turn to sources other than oil to meet their increased requirements. It is the obligation of the world community, including Canada, to help them to do so. There are a number of sources which must be adequately explored and developed, including indigenous energy resources such as coal and hydro, which in many cases were not considered at all seriously in the days of cheap oil. That has only come about recently.
New technologies, also largely ignored until recently, will have to be examined urgently and carefully. Nuclear energy, especially nuclear fission, however, is the major technological option available today. It is by no means applicable in all cases because of the scale of power requirements and power grids, and because of the massive investments in capital required. Nuclear technology is highly complex and sensitive, and only a relatively small number of countries have the technological resources to manage it adequately.
The government recognizes these limitations in deciding on export sales. It is, however, the responsibility of Canada as a member of the international community to make energy resources available to other countries, and in those cases where nuclear energy is the most appropriate, to share that technology.
Such sales, however, are only authorized under the most stringent international safeguards against the diversion of Canadian assistance to non peaceful uses. Canada is prepared to forgo sales where these guarantees are not available, and is acting vigorously in all international forums to raise the world standard of guarantees to levels which give the greatest protection against diversion to explosive use.
In general, Canadian export sales decisions are not, as charged by the opposition, based on an overriding commercial motivation. The government welcomes Canada gaining national benefits through world acceptance of CANDU, but this is not the central element in reaching decisions on nuclear exports. Nuclear transfers are motivated by the responsibility to help with the world energy situation on a number of fronts, including, but by no means restricted to, nuclear. Sales are made only on the basis that the facilities Canada supplies are built to the best and safest standard and are operated with the best protection for the environment. They are only authorized when there is a high degree of assurance that the facilities will be used for agreed and purely peaceful uses. Having said that in generality, there are a number of questions posed recently on the specifics of this particular subject. I should like to quote a few of those questions, and some of the answers which are widely appreciated.

I can think of about ten different questions that arise: the diversion of spent fuel; the return of spent fuel to Canada; Canadian nuclear export policy in general; the non-proliferation treaty as a pre-condition of sale; justification of Canada's reactor sales to non-NPT countries; a moratorium on nuclear exports; CANDU licensing safeguards; bilateral inspections on nuclear safeguards; CANDU licensing negotiations, with Italy in particular; safeguards in uranium sales, and finally, environmental considerations.
We should look at one or two of those questions, Mr. Speaker. First is the question about diversion of spent fuel or misuse of spent fuel. It has been alleged that the CANDU reactor is particularly suited for the purpose of diversion if a country desired to do so. Regardless of verification techniques, how can the government be supporting the sale of such a potential bomb maker to countries like Argentina and the Republic of Korea? The answer is that both Argentina and the Republic of Korea have a nuclear power plant from other sources. Canada is not supplying reprocessing equipment and technology. All nuclear reactors produce plutonium and there is no essential difference in this respect between CANDU and light water reactors exported by other suppliers.
The quantities of spent fuel available in Argentina and the Republic of Korea will be considerable, quite independent of the CANDU reactor to be constructed in these countries. The CANDU facilities will be under stringent safeguards, including a Canadian veto on reprocessing. This may hopefully lead to an upgrading of safeguards on reactors sold by other suppliers.
Let us look at another question. Why is it that Canada does not insist on what appears to be the ultimate measure of safeguards in terms of restricting the use of plutonium by the Republic of Korea by having all the spent fuel from the reactor returned to Canada? The answer is that this option was carefully considered by Canada and it has been decided, as we have noted in the House previously, that on balance such a requirement would not be the best to serve the interests of Canada.
Apart from the serious environmental problems that such a course would create, it would not prevent a country, intent on violating an agreement, from retaining the fuel either by directly abrogating the agreement or by noncompliance. In the event of abrogation of the agreement, that country would be left with a significant stock of spent fuel stored for cooling which is essential before shipment, as well as fuel in the reactor and fuel about to be inserted in the reactor. Since this quantity of material would be more than ample for any immediate production of plutonium, the margin of protection against diversion would not be nearly as significant as the question indicates, at best it would mean a reduction in available stocks over a very few months.
Canada does have the clear right to prohibit reprocessing of fuel from the reactor and has given clear notice that it is not willing at this time to agree to it being carried out. In the government's view this stipulation, together with the inspection mechanisms in place, provide an adequate level of protection against diversion.
June 21, 1976

Perhaps I should raise one final question, the third out of those ten, and that is on the general Canadian nuclear export policy. The following question has been posed: in light of the criticism by such a well-informed critic as Ralph Nader that nuclear exports to Third World countries are an example of "criminal responsibility", how can the government continue to maintain that it is pursuing moral objectives in selling CANDU reactors to Third World countries? In particular, how does the government respond to criticism that less developed countries do not have the technological capability to manage such complex technology safely?
The answer is we believe that in speaking in the very extensive debate in this House on March 23, we outlined the government's policy very clearly. The government does not maintain that nuclear power is, in all cases and at all times, the only or even the most desirable energy alternative for all developing countries. It is recognized that likely only some Third World countries at any particular time need or are fully able to operate such a sophisticated energy source. What we are saying is that in the cases where the need and the ability exist, this energy should not be denied.
The moral problem is a complex one and should be examined in all its dimensions. I cannot accept the suggestion that Canada should fail to observe its international obligations to help developing nations achieve economic progress. Surely the way to meet the concerns raised is not to cut off access to nuclear technology but to provide the means and techniques to ensure its use, with safety, and under safeguards.
I might note in this connection that Canada's approach in marketing the CANDU system is to ensure that the reactors are not only built to Canada's high standards, but are handed over to operators of high technical competence and run under international safeguards earlier outlined in this House.
The other seven questions can certainly be answered with an equal amount of thoughtfulness.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say that the world must continue to address itself to all basic human and social concerns such as settlements and all means to that end, no matter how challenging those means may be. A fortunate people, like Canadians especially, cannot afford to shirk that responsibility.
Some approaches, such as nuclear energy, will themselves give rise to new concerns and new questions such as the questions which I have just reviewed. We are answering today's questions and we must answer tomorrow's, but answer them we will.
Canada is in the forefront of such progress of benefit to all mankind. A great deal of the credit for this goes to our federal government and especially to our Minister of State for Urban Affairs. I for one shall be pleased to continue supporting him and all the efforts of our government both at home and abroad to take care of the needs of people. Habitat was an important step toward that goal.


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, in the brief time that I have to devote to the subject of debate tonight there are some areas I should like to discuss, though possibly not in the context of the motion.
Habitat Conference
I should like to start with the question of a pure water policy and the environmental concerns that were expressed. While I have some very serious reservations about the Habitat conference they really do not lie upon the shoulders of the government for I honestly believe that the minister set out in a very forthright fashion to produce something that nations around the world could be proud of, and set out to do a job that the United Nations and Canadians would be proud of. I think he was frustrated in that.
Some of the Third World countries set political priorities; that was the way they viewed it, and in my view it was unfortunate. The minister made reference to a developing situation at the United Nations some years ago which concerned the German Republic and China, but those are not the countries that are creating problems today at the United Nations; instead it is the countries that need our help. In my view those countries are going to have to be dragged through the doorway to that help, and they are going to resist every inch of the way. They used Habitat as a political forum, and I think that unquestionably they are the ones which are going to suffer rather than the countries devoted to human settlements.
Having said that, Mr. Speaker, I should like to move to the question of pure water. This is an area of great concern, and perhaps the classic example of this concern is demonstrated by the series of questions I placed on the order paper in 1974. On December 11, 1974, I placed on the order paper the following question:
What is the estimated tonnage for the next five years of human waste that will be dumped from vessels plying the Great Lakes?
The Department of the Environment replied:
The estimated quantity of human sewage, including the usual 32 gallons flush water per person per day, is 7 million tons for the next five years.
I put the question on the order paper because the then minister of the environment had indicated that, in her view, it was not necessary to take action with regard to the amount of human sewage being dumped in the Great Lakes from Great Lakes vessels. She felt that the five-year moratorium provision was fine.
My second question of that date reads as follows:
What is the estimated average cost per commercial vessel for the installation of holding tanks for human waste?
The department's response reads as follows:
The estimated average cost per commercial vessel for the installation of holding tanks for human waste ranges between $23,000 for new tugs to $74,000 for new lakers and between $28,000 for existing tugs to $81,500 for existing lakers.
If the federal government had wanted to clear up a serious difficulty, it could have provided subsidies. For smaller vessels the subsidy, amortized over five years, would work out at between $5,000 and $10,000, an insignificant sum to pay for something which would help to clean up the Great Lakes. I use the word insignificant because, in terms of total pollution of the Great Lakes, the quantity of human sewage dumped from vessels is relatively insignificant.

June 21, 1976
Habitat Conference
The third part of my order paper question reads:
What improvements for the holding or disposal of human waste in Great Lakes ships are anticipated in five years time and at what cost?
In 1974 the then minister had said she was not prepared to do anything for five years. In part, the answer of the department informed me that in five years time I could anticipate:
... Construction of approximately 12 shore-based reception facilities, strategically located, and designed to receive commercial ships' sewage for subsequent discharge in a manner which ensures adequate treatment. The anticipated total cost of these facilities... is $2,500,000 assuming that, existing wharf space will be made available at no charge.
I wonder how far $2.5 million would go, even if paid as a partial subsidy, toward the installation of sewage holding tanks in Great Lakes steamers.
Lastly, I asked in my order paper question:
To what estimated percentage degree does the dumping of human waste from such vessels contribute to the pollution of the Great Lakes?
According to the department's answer, approximately .3 per cent is attributable to ships' crews.
When you consider that .3 per cent of pollution is attribuable to ships' crews, but that in five years Great Lakes ships discharge seven million tons altogether into the Great Lakes, it is clear that the total volume of human sewage dumped into the Great Lakes in five years is in the order two and one third billion tons. That is shocking.
The minister indicated that we have a clean water policy. Let me say that the people of Kootenay West are most interested in that policy. I hope the Department of Regional Economic Expansion will agree with British Columbia to provide in the valley a pipeline to carry pure, potable water for all communities along the Columbia River or, assist the province and municipalities concerned by providing for pumping stations to pump water from the Columbia River into holding areas where the water can be purified for human consumption and industrial and agricultural uses. At present the area cannot expect to develop unless it has available considerable additional volumes of clean water.
The water is available. Unfortunately in the Columbia River below the High Arrow Dam one sees the pollution effects of a pulp mill and also of a lead smelter. Would that not be an excellent program for DREE? What an excellent contribution the department would make to providing the pure water advocated by the government. The government could help us in two areas; one is in my riding; the other is the Great Lakes.
I am concerned about the question of nuclear reactors. I suggest that anyone wishing to debate that subject will open up a can of worms on my side of the House. We have heard many statements on the subject from the government benches. Perhaps the most flowery and inconsequential statements are made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen). There is beautiful rhetoric, adding up to nothing, except pending disaster. In my view CANDU sales are an example of fiscal irresponsibility. The government is ignoring its responsibility in the nuclear field to all countries of the world. Expert after expert has offered testimony showing that CANDU is a financial calamity, a nuclear catastrophe and should not be

considered. I contend that if the government were concerned more about pure water and less about heavy water, it would have accomplished a great deal more.
We have seen the Minister of State for Urban Affairs (Mr. Danson) beating his breast and expressing concern because people in the poorer countries of the world must drink lousy water. Heaven knows, I have seen it myself and could not agree more. I suggest it is time the government wound down its CANDU policy and wound up its pure water policy.
I now come to the tar sands. I am greatly concerned because Alberta has claimed sole responsibility for eviron-mental controls with respect to the tar sands. I saw the same attitude displayed two years ago in British Columbia. I saw evidence of pollution connected with a DREE project in my riding. When I wrote to the provincial government, asking what they were prepared to do, they said, in so many words, "You are a federal member; keep your nose out of this." I say that since federal funds are used in DREE projects of that kind, the province's attitude was irresponsible. I could say much more; unfortunately I see my time has expired. May I call it ten o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being ten o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to section 11 of Standing Order 58, the proceedings on the motion have now expired.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since there has been no public announcement of the business for tomorrow morning, is there someone here who is an acting House leader, who can tell us what the business will be tomorrow morning, or can confirm that it will be Bill C-88?


Mr. Drury:: Mr. Speaker, yes, it is to be Bill C-88.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At eleven o'clock in the morning?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under the provisions of Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
June 21, 1976

A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, for the last three or four weeks I have been calling on the government to direct the Auditor General to conduct a complete audit into the financial fiasco, or complete financial breakdown, of the Air Canada finance branch in Winnipeg. I was hoping, after what happened last week, that the minister would take action. Unfortunately the government had sluffed me off and referred the entire matter to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. In no way can the committee conduct an audit into the financial fiasco at the finance branch of Air Canada in Winnipeg. Nevertheless, I shall welcome seeing Air Canada representatives appear before the standing committee as I wish to discuss several matters with them, and will be glad to hear their comments.
May I allude to a statement made to the Winnipeg Free Press on June 17 by Michael H. Cochrane, vice president of the Air Canada finance branch. He denied union allegations that mismanagement had contributed to the airline's record $12.5 million deficit last year. He said two major audits by private firms in the last year had thoroughly studied Air Canada accounting procedures and found them satisfactory. That statement is completely false. There was no detailed accounting whatsoever by any accounting firm in the finance branch.
He went on to say that the audits were conducted by Clarkson and Gordon Ltd. for the Estey inquiry into the airline last year, and by Coopers and Lybrand for the airline itself for 1975. The deficit, he said, was caused by a major decline in passenger traffic, rising fuel bills and other escalating prices.
In the Coopers and Lybrand report in the 1975 financial statement of Air Canada they state:
Our examination included a general review of the accounting procedures-
The general review did not consist of a detailed study into the airline billing at the finance branch, Winnipeg.
Also, under the terms of reference from the Estey report, Clarkson and Gordon were required primarily to review the Winnipeg centralized payment system, the Montreal payment system, the Dorval purchasing system, certain local branch purchases and the system of authorization for expenditure. The review did not include payrolls and did not examine, except in a very summary fashion, the subroutines related to specific disbursements.
As a result of this review Clarkson, Gordon & Co. prepared a description of the disbursement systems and submitted this description to the commission, a brief summary of which is included in Chapter 5 of the Estey report. They did not go into detailed billing whatsoever.
I discussed this with the employees of the finance branch in Winnipeg. They told me that no outside auditors came into the finance branch to do a detailed study. Some employees recalled outside auditors dropping by in 1972. However, there have been no outside auditors doing any review since 1972.
Adjournment Debate
Also in the Estey report it is recognized that, under the Financial Administration Act, the Auditor General is eligible to be appointed as auditor or joint auditor of the corporation, but such has not been the case in the past. It is certainly time that it was done, especially in view of the charges by the CALEA union in Winnipeg. Also, in the Estey report it states, and I quote:
There is no doubt that the final fiscal responsibility for Air Canada resides in Parliament when all other resources fail and therefore Parliament is entitled to the fullest and clearest financial reporting.
That is all I ask for, a clear, precise report from the Auditor General. The government has a responsibility to send the Auditor General there in light of the serious charges by the CALEA union in Winnipeg.
I have cited many cases of mismanagement over the past two weeks. One was that there are no longer any enforced controls for travel agents reporting ticket sales. As of October, 1975 there was in excess of $96,000 worth of unreported travel agent ticket sales, which represents a minimum of $2,208,000 unpaid for transportation. There is no mention of this in the Coopers and Lybrand report or in the Clarkson, Gordon report. They did not touch on any of these matters at all, so that Mr. Cochrane's statement that they have had a real in depth audit made is absolute nonsense.
I have also pointed out that Air Canada's own internal auditors endeavoured to audit the refund bank drafts account in 1975. This account is not less than $2.5 million per month, about $30 million a year. They finally gave up, and this account remains unaudited since 1972. Therefore over the past four years a $120 million account has been in question. The Clarkson, Gordon statement in the Estey report makes no mention of that whatsoever.
I have also been pointing out that Air Canada has been writing off debts from corporations as large as $186,000. How can it allow a debt for air travel to accumulate to the amount of $186,000? It is rather obvious that these two firms have not been doing any detailed study whatsoever in the finance branch in Winnipeg. There is no mention of that in the Estey report or in the Coopers and Lybrand statement in the Air Canada report for 1975.
I have also pointed out in the past that Air Canada has been breaking IATA rules and regulations. They have issued bar vouchers for Tours Mount Royal to the tune of $27,384. All that Air Canada collected from this travel agent was $9,445; they wrote off $17,938. This is illegal under IATA rules and regulations and is another matter that the Auditor General should look at.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret that the time allotted to the hon. member has now expired.


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just spoke had labour conditions, the lockout of Air Canada finance branch employees put on the orders of the day. Well, he discussed only the auditing of Air Canada accounting books. If that was the matter he wanted discussed tonight we would certainly have had someone from the Department of Transport come down to answer the very important matter he raised.

June 21, 1976
Adjournment Debate
But the matter he raised for the late show was labour conditions, the lockout of Air Canada finance branch employees and the possible resumption of mediation. Well, I do not understand, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member who personally asks to debate a specific issue should debate an entirely different matter. I do not understand his attitude at all. I understand that he is interested in what is happening in Winnipeg since he is the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (M. McKenzie) but when one wants to raise a point and receive an adequate answer I think one must stick to the point one wants to have discussed and not raise another in a debate like tonight.
So, with respect to the problems of the Air Canada lockout I think it can be said-and the hon. member knows it; if he does not, he should-that a-

A senior departmental mediator has held several meetings with the parties in an effort to resolve the dispute which led to rotating strike action by the union members and more recently a temporary shutdown and readjustment of the work in the finance branch operation at Winnipeg. Over this past weekend, officials of the department have been monitoring the situation, and the mediator was in contact with the parties and arranged to commence further mediation sessions in Ottawa on Tuesday, June 22, 1976. Because of the difficulty in arranging transportation between Winnipeg and Ottawa, it is now necessary to reschedule the meetings for Wednesday, June 23, 1976, provided transportation can be arranged.
Departmental officials are keeping in close contact with this situation and every effort is being made to assist the parties in the resolution of this protracted and very involved dispute. Recently, on June 18, the minister sent a telegram to the President of the Canadian Airline Employees Association which reads as follows;
This is in reply to your telegram advising that you find Air Canada's action of June 16 inexcusable although you recognize the company has exercised its legal rights under the Canada Labour Code. You are aware the union acquired the right to strike and the employer the right to lockout on October 22, 1975.
Apparently my time is up, Mr. Speaker, but I still want to mention that it is not fair to raise a question and then call another question at ten o'clock.


Mr. Paproski:: You have to be pretty sharp and know what is going on over there.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary knows that the adjournment motion is a very special procedure. There are no points of order, and if he wants to raise the matter I suggest he do so tomorrow afternoon after the question period.


ENERGY-PROPOSAL FOR LOCATION OF URANIUM PROCESSING PLANT IN SAKSATCHEWAN-PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN SITE DECISION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I undertake to stick directly to the topic I raised in the House on June 17. You will recall that on that date I asked for an assurance from the minister through the parliamentary secretary, who was standing in the place of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie), that before a final decision is made on the establishment of an uranium processing plant there would in fact be a full public inquiry. The parliamentary secretary said in reply at that time that Eldorado Limited "when it does make a final decision as to the location of the refinery will have a full public information program". Today in the House the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources again argued for public education on the question of nuclear power. It is all important that those who might be most directly affected have the right to know the full circumstances of the proposal and to make their concerns known as well.
What I was trying to elicit from the parliamentary secretary was an assurance that before the decision is made there will in fact be a full opportunity for representation and a full opportunity for education.
I have had the opportunity of travelling in my constituency in the area which is now under consideration by Eldorado and the provincial government, and I have heard repeated expressions of concern that the decision will be made before an opportunity is given to the public for input, and also before a full explanation of some of the safety factors is given.
If nuclear power refining is as safe as the government maintains, we should have a full public inquiry so that the concerns of the citizens in the area can be laid to rest. As I said, there is to be substantial investment, as this is a capital intensive process. It is anticipated that something in the area of $50 million will be invested. This will be of great economic benefit to the area but, notwithstanding that fact, it is only fair to point out to the parliamentary secretary some of the concerns that are being expressed, and possibly he will take these under advisement and relate them to the minister and Eldorado.
First, before the decision is made hearings should take place. Secondly, only after the environmental impact assessment, which is undertaken by the federal Department of the Environment, is completed and has been made public should a decision be made. The hearings should not simply consider the site of the proposed plant, but whether the refinery plant should in fact be established in the province of Saskatchewan.
Some concerns have been expressed and I would hope that Eldorado, before making its final decision in respect of the location, would in fact deal with these concerns. The public education process should take place before the decision is made and not after.
In regard to the matter of safety, I think the people in the area should be satisfied before a decision is made whether they are getting involved in a situation that has been determined in advance over which there is some concern about safety considerations. These concerns have

June 21, 1976

been expressed to me as first being in respect of radiation. Any level of radiation is known to cause biological damage. Therefore setting "soft standards" can be somewhat arbitrary. Simply because radioactive material is emitted from an industrial source at a level that is safe does not mean that it cannot cause some harm. Apparently no solution has been found to the problem of long-term storage or disposal of the highly radioactive fission products from nuclear reactors. Then there is the question of possibility of theft of the product from the refining plant.
An explanation should be given to the public in respect of the whole area of possible accidents. The arguments of the industry about safety are predicated on a level of fail-safe technology, in the absence of human error, which has not been demonstrated in any other similar venture. The next question is in respect of opposition abroad. We have the example of the recent referendum in California. One third of the people there voted for a moratorium on the development of nuclear power. The people of California have had substantial experience with nuclear power, and I believe the number of people who expressed some concern is significant.
As I say these are the concerns which have been expressed. I simply bring this to the attention of the parliamentary secretary. With the experience of the Port Hope situation I want to know whether this is perceived as being a problem or whether this is a completely different situation. This should be made quite clear to the people in the proposed site area. I bring this to the attention of the parliamentary secretary so that these matters can be dealt with in advance of a decision rather than afterward.
There is also the question of health hazards to workers. I think this is an area which also should be fully explained by Eldorado so that people who might be employed in such a plant would be aware of the situation. Another very important consideration, I think, is the benefit to the province. I think this is an area of public information which should be entertained by the government. I realize this is a capital intensive project. Since there will be something in the area of between 150 and 200 employees it is not a labour intensive project.
These are my remarks and I simply ask for elucidation. What I am hoping to obtain from the parliamentary secretary is assurance that he will in fact undertake that there will be a public inquiry before the final decision is made in respect of the location. I hope he will be able to give an affirmative answer to that.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, in responding to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) I want to assure him that there is considerable economic benefit to the province of Saskatchewan from the establishment of a uranium refinery and conversion facilities in that province. Indeed I do not believe the provincial government would allow this uranium, which is being mined in increasing quantities, to be refined outside the province if it were at all possible to prevent it. In that connection there has been full consultation between the Saskatchewan government and Eldorado Nuclear Limited. As a matter of fact there has been a great deal of consultation with Sedco and the Saskatchewan Scientific Council as well as the government Department of the Environment
Adjournment Debate
and other federal government agencies on this subject. At this stage they are evaluating several sites in the province to determine the best possible site from an economic point of view. That is one priority. A second priority is the environmental impact of the plant.
I should caution the hon. member that we are talking about a plant which I believe is to come on stream in the next four to six years. In fact the exact capacity of the plant is not known at this time because firm commitments for production from the new mines coming on stream in Saskatchewan have not been determined. In any event, when this has been decided, the plant will be the most modern possible. The company has indicated that when they get closer to a decision on the actual site preferred, they will have public consultation.
I believe that the environmental impact studies will also require public consultation. Surely it is desirable from every point of view to have as much information available to the people, expecially in the immediate area where the plant will be located. I will make representations to Eldorado to ask that there be good public consultation before a final decision is reached on the question of the location of the uranium refinery in Saskatchewan.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY-AREA IN WHICH JOBS WILL BE CREATED THIS YEAR
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the question that I am dealing with tonight is one which I put to the minister on May 26, the day following his non-budget. At that time I asked the minister if he could identify where the 250,000 jobs would be created in the current year, and lo and behold the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) helped out the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) by saying "In Canada", and then the Minister of Finance added that he thought there would be an opportunity during the course of the budget debate to get into this point more fully.
I pressed the matter, stating that there had been a suggestion of auxilliary work being created through such studies as the one carried out by the Economic Council of Canada and I asked whether the minister could be more specific, where exactly do they see the 250,000 jobs being created, is it mainly in the private sector, the government sector, or a bit of both; in short, have they make-work programs in mind?
In his second response the Minister of Finance passed it off to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) and said he thought that that minister would deal with the question, again during the budgetary debate. Unfortunately no minister has dealt properly with this very vital question in Canada today. I think the most basic tragedy in the nation is the fact that we have some 700,000 people out of work. When you read the budget you find that the minister's own figures indicate that that may be aggravated this year in that it is likely that 300,000 jobs will be needed this year, and yet the budget contemplates the creation of only 250,000 jobs to satisfy those who will be looking for work.
14730

June 21, 1976
Adjournment Debate
Essentially the government's fundamental problem is that it cannot make up its mind if it intends to count on the private sector to produce the jobs that are needed in the country, or whether it must have public participation to create these jobs. Certainly our belief is that the private sector can produce if the government would renew the confidence that is essential in the private sector to get on with creating the jobs that are needed. This is something that we have emphasized time and time again, but unfortunately we find that the present administration's response is really in response to the problems that it itself creates, and it comes up with the solution that it must participate still further in creating the problem by, according to it, creating the solution.
This minister is very fond of referring us to the United States and of stating, as he did on May 26, that we must wait for world markets to upturn in order that, somehow or other, we can get up to a higher level of prosperity in this country. I would point out to the minister and his parliamentary secretary that the U.S. has in fact turned its economy around in a much more imaginative way than we have in Canada. It has done it essentially by counting on the private sector to produce the type of real growth to which I am referring tonight.
In short, I hope the parliamentary secretary will give us a further explanation as to what the government plans, not just for the immediate future, not just for between now and March 31 next, but what it plans for 1977 and 1978, to ensure that there will be a lower level of unemployment in this country than we see at the present time.
Having talked with some backbenchers on the government side, I believe that the hard fact is that they have no plans. They are drifting, and they are hoping, but that is not good enough. Other nations have shown, through imagination and through proper industrial strategy, that there are ways to create job opportunities and to relieve unemployment.
With the resources we have there is no reason to believe that we cannot do likewise, and certainly for the minister, in response to my question on May 26 and also in response to the questions of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), to indicate that it is the export trade turn up upon which we are counting, and nothing else, is not satisfactory.
I would like to conclude now, and I hope that the parliamentary secretary will shed a light as to where in fact these 250,000 jobs are going to be created. If he cannot, we must assume that the minister himself had no idea of what he spoke on May 25.


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for York-Simcoe (Mr. Stevens) stated when he began his speech he did ask questions. I looked at the questions he
raised on May 26, and he is quite correct, he did ask questions, but I think he stopped short in looking at page 13845 because on the next page there were questions raised and answers given.
At the risk of being repetitious I should say that the hon. member should have paid attention to the speech which was given in this House by the Minister of Manpower and Immigration (Mr. Andras) which regard to job creation, a subject with which he is very much concerned. I will try to be very brief, but I will be going over the same answers which were given, with possibly a little more detail.
In the section of the budget speech dealing with the international economy the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) pointed out that, and I quote:
The international economy is launched on recovery from the depths of the worst recession since the great depression of the 1930's. The output of the industrial nations making up the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development stagnated during 1974 and declined sharply at an over all annual rate of 5 per cent during the first half of last year. This decline, fortunately, was arrested by mid-year, and with the United States in the lead, the prospect for strengthening recovery seems well-assured.
As a result, one of the main sources of strength in the Canadian economy in 1976 will be our growth in exports. This growth will influence the gains in employment on an industrial and regional basis.
In terms of particular industries, we expect that the recovery in our exports will have a major impact on the goods-producing industries including manufacturing, mining and forestry. Both output and employment declined in these industries in 1975 as our exports feel sharply. Manufacturing employment should lead the way, followed by mining and forestry. However, the major portion of employment growth during the year will emanate, as usual, from the%services industries. Personal, business and community services industries will create the largest number of new jobs followed by wholesale and retail trade and transportation, communication and storage. Little growth is expected in the various levels of government employment during 1976.
In terms of the regional aspects, we expect all regions to benefit from the recovery. However, given the expected demand for our exports, strong output and employment growth should be registered in those areas which send goods to foreign markets. These include areas that export manufactured goods including automobiles and other durable goods, mining products including coal, and non-ferrous metals and forestry products including lumber, newsprint, pulp and paper.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to special order adopted by this House on June 7.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.31 p.m.

Tuesday, June 22, 1976