1977-12-19

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for unanimous consent of the House of Commons to introduce a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. At least 50,000 Canadians are going to be without jobs this winter unless this government introduces the employment tax credit legislation which was promised two months ago by the Minister of Finance. Since there is no possible excuse for further delay, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Battle River (Mr. Malone):
That this House instruct the Minister of Finance to introduce legislation by tomorrow, December 20, implementing the employment tax credit promised on October 20, on the understanding that such legislation will be dealt with in all stages before this House rises for Christmas.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Mr. Allan Lambert, the chairman of the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability-the same Mr. Lambert who a while ago recommended $60,000 salaries for deputy ministers and now wants to cut back the public service-said in a radio interview this morning that the reference made by his commission to putting a means test on social programs was a matter beyond the terms of reference of that commission, which raises the question: Why did the commission make such a statement? I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom):
That this House deplores irresponsible statements that call for means tests on, or the cutting back of, the social programs which have been put into effect by the Parliament of Canada, it being the view of this House that the time has come to increase the basic rate of the old age pension, making it available at age 60, and that action should be taken immediately to increase the basic amount of the war disability pension as a matter of good faith toward Canada s war veterans.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion pursuant to the Standing Order can be done at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, I too have a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and I know it will receive sympathetic consideration. Various matters of concern to veterans having reference to the basic rate of pension, widows' pensions, prisoner of war compensation and other matters reflect the urgent need that these matters be dealt with immediately. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras):
That the Veterans Canada Annual Report 1976-77 be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs forthwith.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, it was agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The motion of the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe can be presented to the House pursuant to Standing Order 43 for consideration at this time only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

December 19, 1977
Bank Act


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. It is moved by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe, seconded by the hon. member for Labelle:
That the Veterans Canada Annual Report 1976-77 be referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs forthwith.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. As we ship out of this country a far too large proportion of our primary products, to be processed to their final stages of production in other countries, which thereby gain the many advantages of employment, profits and taxes which accrue from this further processing, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Frontenac-Len-nox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack):
That the government require those who export our raw materials to process a far higher proportion of them in this country, and make available generous tax incentives, in addition to the DREE grants, which have proved to be inadequate, in order to induce the building of the additional factories which will be needed.
Such a policy will retain in Canada many of the jobs we are today making available to workers in other countries, and make it possible to offer far more permanent jobs to our people, instead of the temporary, make-work kind, which is all the government seems able to offer our unemployed.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion can be presented for debate only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BANK ACT
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to move a motion under Standing Order 43 regarding an urgent and pressing matter. Canadian chartered banks are becoming deeply involved in making financial assistance available to the military dictatorship in Chile, particularly the Royal Bank, the Bank of Montreal, the Toronto-Dominion Bank and the Bank of Nova Scotia. In view of the concern being expressed by all church groups, reflected in the statement by Archbishop Edward Scott, primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, that these loans represent aid to an oppressive and inhuman" regime in Chile and give banks a considerable interest "in the staying power of the regime", I

move, seconded by the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin):
That this House of Commons not pass Bill C-16, which extends the current Bank Act until April 1, 1979, unless assurances are given by Canadian chartered banks that they will stop providing financial assistance to the military dictatorship in Chile.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion can be presented only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TARIFFS
Mr. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the disruption imposed on the B.C. steel fabricating industry, supporting a work force of 2,000 or more people, with the imposition of a 30 per cent duty last September on wide flange steel beams pending the anti-dumping tribunal decision on the appeal of Algoma Steel, and particularly in view of the regional antagonism already in place concerning protective measures for eastern Canadian industries at the expense of the outback regions of Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke):
That the government take immediate measures to return this duty to 10 per cent in order to protect this $30 million B.C. industry that provides more than 2000 man-years of work for British Columbians.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion can be made at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. To avert a feud between the federal Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang) and his counterparts in the four western provinces as to ownership of abandoned rail rights-of-way, and in view of the fact that the Hall Commission recommended provincial ownership of such rights-of-way, and that the provinces are in a much better position to manage those rights for the benefit of affected residents, I move,
December 19, 1977

seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski):
That the Minister of Transport notify western provincial governments that he is prepared to immediately negotiate with them and with the railroads to ensure that ownership of abandoned rail line rights-of-way be under provincial jurisdiction.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion at this time requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to raise an issue of urgent and pressing necessity. As it is over a month since the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), promised that he would personally review the application of Mr. Danglo Shumuk to immigrate to Canada, and as continued incarceration in the Soviet Union can only further contribute to Mr. Shumuk's ill health, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Meadow Lake (Mr. Cadieu):
That this House call on the Secretary of State for External Affairs to use all means at his disposal to persuade the Soviet Union to permit Mr. Shumuk to emigrate to Canada where he has relatives willing to care for him.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion at this time requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF DEADLINE FOR REACTION TO GREEN PAPER-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the strong desire the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Campagnolo) has expressed for public input and reaction to the green paper; and in view of the fact that the deadline which has been set for such input is two weeks before the annual meeting of the sports federation of Canada, which will be the first time the various sport governing bodies will have had an opportunity to meet and react collectively to the green paper, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek):
Oral Questions
That this House requests that the minister extend the deadline for reaction to the green paper from January 14 to the end of February 1978.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for discussion at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Harvie Andre (Calgary Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board, I would like to direct my questions to the Prime Minister. The Lambert Commission in its parliamentary report tabled Friday stated that the lack of any effective financial management control over government spending is as much due to the sheer size of government as it is to the tremendous growth in government spending over the last few years. The report indicates that a pause or freeze probably would not be sufficient. Given the fact that the Prime Minister turned down a proposal by the President of the Treasury Board to eliminate five departments, does the government have any other plans or proposals to reduce the scope of government activity such as transferring some of these to the provinces, municipalities or private sector?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I, of course, cannot agree with the premise of the question about any proposal by the President of the Treasury Board. It can only be that the hon. member is misinformed. Insofar as constructive suggestions are concerned, I would point out to him that just a year ago today there was the established programs financing proposal which we made to the provinces and which they accepted, transferring tax points and resources to the provinces to the tune of more than $2 billion, if my memory is correct.


REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF CROWN CORPORATIONS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Harvie Andre: That transfer of $2 billion still resulted in a 10.3 per cent increase in government spending. The Lambert Commission also pointed out that there are now some 54 wholly owned crown corporations and over 300 other corporate bodies of which the government is either total or partial owner. In fact, the Treasury Board figure used was 367 when that report was published. Last Tuesday it was 386 and it is still growing. The government

December 19, 1977
Oral Questions
does not even know how many crown corporations it has. The Lambert report observed that such crown corporations merely serve to remove or complicate ministerial responsibility and parliamentary scrutiny over government spending. Can the Prime Minister indicate whether he or the government have any plans to reduce the numbers of Crown corporations? After all, if the government does not know how many it has, it cannot be of great harm to government policy to divest itself of a number of these Crown corporations and put them back in the private sector, especially those operating in commercial areas.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that is a very general proposal the hon. member seems to put forward. When the government does anything to reduce the spending of Crown corporations, or to reduce their financial exposure, we are unable to get much co-operation from hon. members opposite.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Give it a try.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The House leader asks me to give it a try. Before the House now there is a bill on the Canadian National Railways, which will have the effect of saving the government $100 million. I would ask the opposition to co-operate and pass it in all stages tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ALLEGED OVERLAPPING OF DEPARTMENTAL RESPONSIBILITIES-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO RECTIFY
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister in regard to the same report, page 5 thereof. The report indicates overlapping and a lack of clarity in the roles assigned to the respective central agencies. I am thinking of the Treasury Board and the Privy Council office confronting departments with confusing lines of accountability. We do not need the final report from the Lambert Commission in order to address ourselves to this particular problem. What plans does the Prime Minister have in order to reduce this overlapping and clarify the issues so that department heads will know what they are doing, what they are accountable for, and parliament will have even further control?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should remember that when the Lambert Commission was set up, it was not only an issue of this government, it was against the opposition and critics of the other side. We were attempting to get from Mr. Lambert and his colleagues a recommendation on a better functioning government. I recall the Tories, in particular, were objecting to this initiative. Now that Mr. Lambert is coming in with these preliminary reports, which begin to clarify the matter, already we have taken initiatives. I have written to Mr. Lambert in this respect in order for officials to sit down and commence
[Mr. Andre.l
discussions, in advance of its final report, on possible lines of direction for further progress.


PROPOSED IMPROVEMENT IN FORM OF ESTIMATES AND PUBLIC ACCOUNTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated to the Prime Minister, we do not need the formal report of the Lambert Commission in order to eliminate the overlapping and to reduce the lack of clarity. I think the Prime Minister could move in that area right now.
With respect to the form of estimates, including the budget and the public accounts which are always placed before parliamentary committees, in the opinion of the Auditor General the form is not satisfactory and, therefore, the necessary investigations which are required cannot be put forward because of the confusion. Is it my understanding that the Prime Minister will bring about a new form of estimates, budgets and Public Accounts in order for parliament to have a higher degree of control regarding the public purse?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is not making a very complete proposal. As I understand it, he is commending the government for having set up the Lambert Commission to look into this problem; but certainly it is premature for the hon. member to draw conclusions on behalf of the commission before the commission itself draws those conclusions.


LAMBERT COMMISSION-DATE OF FINAL REPORT
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker,
I was not talking about the commission. I was talking about the thoughts of the Auditor General who indicated that the estimates, public accounts and budgets are not in proper form whereby parliament really has control over government spending.
My last question is in regard to the final report of the Lambert Commission. Unquestionably we will need this report before the government will be able to bring in its mini-omnibus bill on Crown corporations. Has there been any indication given to the government, or to the President of the Treasury Board in particular, as to when we can expect the final report of the Lambert Commission?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will inquire.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice in the absence of
December 19, 1977

the Solicitor General, who is no doubt preparing his appeal papers again. The McDonald commission's counsel, Mr. Howard, is quoted as saying:
One of the purposes of the royal commission is to hopefully restore any confidence that may have been lost in the RCMP.
Given the fact that the commission has decided now that no representatives of political parties may be present and no representatives of civil liberties groups may be present, and given the fact that there is public interest in getting the truth as a result of this inquiry, does the Minister of Justice agree with the sentiments expressed by counsel for that inquiry that the purpose of that inquiry is to restore confidence in the RCMP, and if he does not agree that that is the purpose of the commission, will he make representations to see that the commission's counsel is removed so that one representing the public interest can be appointed?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: The purpose of the inquiry is set out in the order in council establishing it and one of the terms in the order in council is that it is necessary to have confidence through the inquiry in the security forces.


KEABLE INQUIRY-REASON FOR APPEAL OF DECISION OF QUEBEC COURT
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: With regard to the most recent decision, which again has struck down the government's case as to the constitutional question concerning the Keable inquiry, that in fact that inquiry is properly constituted and within the constitution, can the minister advise us whether under the provisions of the Federal Court Act, section 41(2) this government does not feel it has sufficient protection with regard to the Keable inquiry, and is that the reason there will be an appeal from this most recent decision?


Stanley Ronald Basford: All that was decided the other day was that there would not be a suspension order until the merits of the case have been argued early in January. As to the second point, obviously we have argued that section 41(2) is not sufficient; it relates solely to national security, and what is being argued in court is a federal-provincial constitutional issue.


ALLEGED INABILITY OF MCDONALD COMMISSION TO PROVIDE ANSWERS TO SOME QUESTIONS-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: At the initiation of the McDonald inquiry, the matter of operation Cathedral came up, and introduced in evidence at that commission was a telex with a portion blanked out. Also at that commission no questions were asked with regard to where the telex came from, who inspired it, etc. In view of the fact that we have been told in the committee of the House that the appropriate place to ask questions is at the McDonald inquiry, and in view of the fact that there is now some evidence that that inquiry will not provide answers, will the Minister of Justice undertake to provide those kinds of answers which probably we will not be getting from the McDonald Commission?
Oral Questions


Stanley Ronald Basford: The terms of reference of the McDonald inquiry are perfectly clear, to inquire into the practices and procedures of the security service in carrying out its mandate. The McDonald inquiry has full powers to ask all questions, either in camera or in public, that it chooses. It has set out to perform that task and it is not up to me to tell this independent inquiry how to conduct its affairs.


RESPONSIBILITY FOR ALLEGED CHECKING OF MCDONALD COMMISSION MEMBERS AND COUNSEL
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: I have a brief supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. Was it on his advice or was he consulted about the process of having commissioners and counsel of the McDonald Commission checked and presumably approved by the RCMP?


Stanley Ronald Basford: No, Mr. Speaker.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Gilles Caouette (TGmiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. On November 28, I asked him a question dealing with the problem of lost time or waiting period for the unemployed in northwest Quebec because their return cards were rejected by the Montreal computer. The minister answered that all requests were made within a 24-hour period. As a result of an inquiry, it has been shown that those cards are not checked nor put in the computer within 24 hours. I would therefore like to know whether there have been some developments in this connection?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, last Friday I answered the leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada who asked me that question on Tuesday last. The answer is correct. The mistakes were made by the claimants, not by the department or the commission.


Mr. Caouette (T£miscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Given the fact that, after verifications have been carried out we know that mistakes have actually been made by the representatives of the Unemployment Insurance Commission themselves and that the computer cards are not processed within 24 hours, as the minister has indicated, since a mini-SRI computer has already been removed in northwest Quebec, would the minister accept to reinstal mini computers of this type in remote areas such as in northwest Quebec?

December 19, 1977
Oral Questions


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his representation. I will have to look again into this question.


CANADIAN INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT AGENCY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. He is in receipt of a letter from AEI Telecommunications of Winnipeg with regard to AEI's complaint that CIDA is going to give a telephone switching contract to a French firm when AEI can handle the same work in Canada. It is a $6 million contract. Has the minister had an opportunity to investigate this complaint?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: 
FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the minister's news release that he will be meeting tomorrow with the fisheries ministers of Atlantic Canada I would like to ask the minister if he has now read the proposal for the development of the fisheries in our area as put forward by the governments of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia, if he is now prepared to take a more positive attitude toward that proposal and if he will also extend an invitation to members of parliament as well as the press to be present at tomorrow's meeting.


Hon. Rom6o LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first question is yes, I have read the proposal. Incidentally, it is not from just the governments of Newfoundland and Nova Scotia; it purports to speak for two other provinces, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. The plan which is documented in the proposal has not been made public. I do not feel free to discuss it until it is made public at the meeting tomorrow.


REQUEST FOR REPORT ON DISCUSSIONS WITH FRANCE AND UNITED STATES ON OWNERSHIP OF RESOURCES
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance of the fisheries resources on Georges Bank and in the St. Pierre-Miquelon area to Atlantic Canada would the minister indicate whether any progress has been made in

discussions as to who will own these resources and whether he would consider putting these items on the agenda with the six other items which he has indicated will be discussed?


Fabien Roy: Mr. Speaker, in both cases negotiations are under way between the government of Canada and the two countries involved, France and the United States. I do not think that further public discussion, except the discussions which are being held with provincial representatives and with representatives of fishermen and processors, would be useful at this time. However, if during the in-camera session of this meeting with the provincial ministers this subject comes up, I am sure we would be quite willing to give them the latest information we have.


MEETING WITH MINISTERS FROM ATLANTIC REGION- POSSIBILITY OF PROPOSALS CONCERNING EXPLOITATION OF 200-MILE LIMIT
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: 
TRANSPORT
Mr. Paul E. McRae (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport may I put a question to the parliamentary secretary. I am pleased that the minister saw fit to at least spread the increase in the seaway tolls over three years although I am sorry there is any increase at all. Can the minister give the House some assurance that a good portion of this additional revenue will be used to improve
December 19, 1977

service on the seaway, particularly for research into making the seaway a 12-month operation?


Mr. Charles Lapointe (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I think a good part of the answer is to be found in the release issued by the minister on this subject last Friday, and I think this decision to stagger the increases in the rates of the Seaway Authority is a good one. It has been made thanks to the representations of the hon. member for Welland, the hon. member who has just asked the question as well and several other hon. members in the House. As to making the seaway a 12-month operation, I think we have discussed this rather at length recently when the president of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority appeared before the committee on transport and communications.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister concerning the progress report of the Lambert Commission. This report states that we are long past the point of no return in the size of the government and indicates that the enormous rate of growth of government is not sustainable. Since the Anti-Inflation Board guidelines recommended a one per cent growth in the civil service, why has the government found it necessary to hire private employment agencies to fill civil service jobs and why is contract hiring being used to circumvent the Anti-Inflation Board guidelines?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must point out to the hon. member that for two years now the growth in the public service has been less than one per cent. The hiring of outside consultants is a practice with a very long history in this country. It is done now, as it was previously, in order to bring certain expertise to bear which does not exist within government service.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is it the position of the Prime Minister that the hiring of contract civil servants is not in addition to the replacement of people who are needed on a full-time basis?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that. I am saying that the hiring of people on a contract basis does not enlarge the civil service which has tenure and which is going to be around for a long time. They are hired on a contract for a limited time to do a specific job. This is more economical than taking somebody into the civil service with full guarantees of permanence, pension rights, and tenure which do not extend to those on contract. The government uses the contract precisely
Oral Questions
in order not to bind itself for a long time to people who might be needed to do a job for only a short time.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Prime Minister. A weekend news item indicates that the Prime Minister is to visit NORAD headquarters next week. The right hon. gentleman indicated he has requested a briefing on the United States air force proposal to eliminate air defence command which proposal was described by a Canadian general stationed at NORAD as "under-handed, devious and full of half-truths?"


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any such proposal and I do not think any has been made yet. I know that the United States reported to us in the PJBD meeting that they are going to study this problem but no proposal has been made to us yet.


NORAD MEETING-POSSIBILITY OF DISCUSSING UNITED STATES PLANS FOR FIGHTER REPLACEMENT
Allan Bruce McKinnon: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As Canada is making a choice in the next few months of a $2.3 billion new fighter aircraft, will the Prime Minister seize this opportunity to find out from the United States officials what their plans are for their fighter replacement in NORAD? Will he also inform the House if he is to be accompanied to this important defence meeting by the Minister of National Defence and if not, why not?


An hon. Member:: Who is going to carry the skis?


An hon. Member:: Barney can't ski.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, while I am at NORAD I will be counting on the Minister of National Defence to defend the country for those few days. He has been to NORAD before and has been involved in several meetings of NORAD and NATO. I will be going there to benefit from the groundwork he has laid.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As we now have the November figures for various plants in Canada with respect to lay-offs of 50 people or more showing that the trend to lay-offs in the manufacturing industry is continuing with 2,752 further lay-offs reported in November,

December 19, 1977
Oral Questions
would the minister indicate whether he has had an opportunity to review this latest list and if so, does he have any comment on how this dreadful trend in our manufacturing industry might be arrested?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, there are many ways in which the trend could be arrested such as passing Bill C-l 1 long before it was passed in this House so that the Minister of Finance could bring in the job-creation legislation which the Leader of the Opposition asked for today.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The minister must at least be familiar enough with finance to know that all the taxation measures in Bill C-11 were effective as of March 31 this year. My further question touches on the specifics of certain of the lay-offs which are reported as being due to technological changes. For example, Harding Carpets in Guelph laid off 74 employees. Could the minister indicate if he has checked this type of problem to see how we can arrest such lay-offs?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member missed the point completely in my previous answer. The Minister of Finance could not work in his department and concentrate on new measures at the same time as attending the House to answer questions put by the hon. member on Bill C-l 1. With regard to my knowledge of financing, I have never yet been out $4.5 million in any effort I financed. With regard to what the department is doing in paying attention to manufacturing jobs the EDB and the enterprise development program are concentrating on the maintenance and securing of permanent jobs in the manufacturing sector.


FINANCE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, may 1 put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister. Speaking about the need to relieve the unemployment situation in this country, would the Prime Minister indicate if he has taken up the suggestion of my leader and may we expect the employment tax credit bill to be introduced today or tomorrow? If it is, the Official Opposition will certainly ensure that it gets speedy passage within the day if it is in the context that has been represented.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, how can the Leader of the Opposition or the hon. member undertake to pass in all stages a bill they have not even seen?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If it is as represented.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They have taken 21 days and the House needed closure in order to pass a tax bill which was cutting taxes.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question. The Prime Minister apparently missed the question asked by the hon. member for York-Simcoe. The question was simply this: Given the fact that the Minister of Finance has had at least two months to prepare a very simple bill, will the Prime Minister give an undertaking to introduce that bill today or tomorrow so that it can be passed as quickly as possible and those Canadians who would fill the 50,000 jobs created by the bill would not have to wait another two months simply because this government cannot bring simple legislation to the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is a rare delight to hear the opposition imply that the government's legislative projects are so good that it is prepared to vote for them before even seeing them. With this kind of co-operation, if it is sincere, I can assure you we shall be making tremendous progress when the House resumes after Christmas. If the opposition really wants to show good faith, I might point out that there is presently before the House-it will be given first reading today-a bill which would cut $100 million from government expenses. Its passage would mean we could use this $100 million to create jobs. If the opposition wishes to show that it is serious, and passes this bill in all its stages today, then we will proceed-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It will be interesting to see what the Prime Minister would use that $100 million for-perhaps a trip to Vail, perhaps something else.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: What we are talking about now is not something trumped up for today's order paper. We are talking about a bill which was promised two months ago, a simple bill to which a companion piece has already been introduced in the Ontario Legislature; it is one which could be introduced by any competent government. The minister has told us it would provide jobs for 50,000 Canadians-that might not mean much to the Prime Minister, but it means a great deal to those Canadians who are out of work. We want a simple answer-whether or not the right hon. gentleman will ensure that this bill will be introduced today or tomorrow so that if it corresponds to the undertakings given by the Minister of Finance we can pass it in order to provide those 50,000 jobs for Canadians rather than have them wait until after the Prime Minister's holiday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That is the third repetition of the question put by the hon. member for York-Simcoe. Now it has been repeated a second time by the hon. gentleman.

December 19, 1977


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Ir6n6e Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In October the Canadian government announced that many federal departments would be moved to various provinces as a continuation of its decentralization program started more than five years ago. Could the Prime Minister tell the House where the discussions with the government of Quebec on the implementation of some decentralization projects at the provincial level stand at this time, and more specifically, the mapping branch in the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources which was to be moved to Sherbrooke? Are negotiations leading to an early agreement and if so, when can we expect the work to begin?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I suggest it is too soon to say that an agreement is on the verge of being concluded between both governments. The proposal of the federal government is firm and I think we can notice that the Quebec government is relenting. I believe that Premier Levesque said publicly that he was prepared to bring some amendments to the Official Languages Act. Mr. Speaker, it seems that in addition to the disturbing "civil liberties" and "freedom of choice" aspects of the legislation, the PQ government is beginning to recognize the economic drawbacks of this law and that it would be prepared to introduce some flexibility into it. But I cannot speak of imminent agreements for the time being.


FINANCE
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My question is directed to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. A number of Canadians, including members of church groups, are concerned about at least four of our chartered banks investing money in Chile. Their position was summed up by the Archbishop of the Anglican Church of Canada when he said: "Loans aid the oppressive and inhuman regime in Chile and give the banks an interest in its staying power." Has the government met with the chartered banks asking them to cease lending money to Chile and, if it has not, does it intend to do so?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not know of any meeting which has taken place on that subject. I will inquire.
Oral Questions


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: My supplementary is directed to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. At the United Nations several weeks ago Canada condemned Chile's record on human rights. At the same time, a Bank of Montreal official was quoted as saying: "The Export Development Corporation has no qualms about guaranteeing anything in Chile in terms of loans made by banks to that country." Would the minister clear up this inconsistency and bring the government's commercial policy into line with its moral statements?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: There are two different considerations here. It is not, really, for us to judge the moral commitments of a country. The other thing concerns creditworthiness; if we are to lend money we have to judge a country's creditworthiness.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Deputy Prime Minister concerning the Lambert Commission Report and, in particular, the suggestion made on page 23 that multi-year program forecasts or cost-benefit studies or performance data used by the Treasury Board be made public for the use of the committee at the time estimates are being considered. When the main estimates are tabled in February, would the Deputy Prime Minister consider tabling that kind of data also so that the committees studying the estimates would have this information before them particularly in view of the decrease in the number of votes over the years.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will consider that suggestion and it would please me greatly if it were possible to comply with the hon. member's request.


SUGGESTED DEBATE PRIOR TO FINAL REPORT OF LAMBERT
Walter David Baker: I thank the Deputy Prime Minister for that forthcoming answer. The Lambert Commission Report tabled last week was just a progress report; the commission is going on to make a final report. Before that report is brought down would the hon. gentleman consider setting aside a limited period for a special debate so that the commission might have the views of members of parliament to hand as it examines the strengthening of parliamentary controls over estimates? In the meantime, would the government consider referring the progress report to the

December 19, 1977
Oral Questions
Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, and undertake, as well, to refer the final report to that committee so that it could look at the recommendations with respect to parliamentary control in the light of our standing orders which, as I think the government House leader would agree, are quite inadequate at the moment for the task to be done.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As to the suggestion that we might allow a limited amount of time to debate the subject, I can say that in principle I am in agreement with respect to the desirability of arranging for debates which might arise unrelated to legislation. It is on this basis that I justified the value of the debate today and tomorrow on external affairs. I believe a more extended use of that principle would have to be based on the practice of repricocity, so I shall probably be asking the opposition to accommodate me on certain other points if these special debates are to be arranged.
In connection with these special references to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, I think it would be a good idea to hold discussions with the chairman of the committee and other hon. members to see whether they would regard the study as a profitable activity for the committee. It is certainly worth considering.


MANPOWER
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In view of the serious level of unemployment which persists in the Atlantic region despite the short-term jobs created under the Canada Works program, may I ask when an announcement will be made with respect to "slippage funds"-money which has not been used up by other programs-and when we may expect an announcement with regard to the third phase of the Canada Works program due to begin in the spring of next year?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: We shall be commencing to use the slippage funds very soon. As to the hon. member's question about the third phase of the Canada Works program we are contemplating a slight change; we are considering using some of that money for the creation of more permanent jobs. I want to examine that in some detail with the department before announcing when we will embark upon phase three of Canada Works as such.


Jack Marshall: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the Canada Works program is spread over a five year period, so that people can know what their continuing objectives should be, would the minister announce the remainder of the program for the next four years? Information is coming to members of parliament on a daily basis, and

people would thus be able to take advantage of a phased objective for their communities under the Canada Works program.


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely for that reason that we are looking to projects which create more permanent type jobs, such as the Gull Island project or the spruce budworm harvesting project in Nova Scotia. It is projects of that nature which might make more effective use of Canada Works moneys. On that basis we would cut down on money used to create temporary jobs, but I do not think anyone would really object to that. We are trying to make that kind of use of the money and to get the information to members of parliament.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State (Environment). It has been reported that a group of federal civil servants working for Revenue Canada in Toronto were not told, until six days after their building was covered with soot from a fire in a nearby hydro transformer, that this soot contained high concentrations of a dangerous chemical, PCB. Therefore, what has the minister's department done to ensure that this building is safe to work in and also to have the employees medically examined to see whether their health has been threatened in any way?
Finally, in this general connection will his department now proceed to remove immediately the dangerously high concentration of PCBs released into Prince Rupert harbour some time ago and not wait until the matter of jurisdiction over, and responsibility for, this spill is finally resolved?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, my department has been working with the Ontario government who have been in charge of the PCB spill in Toronto. I can get him a more precise report on the questions he has asked.
With regard to Prince Rupert, action has been taken there and the spill is in the process of being totally cleaned up. To my knowledge there has not been any environmental damage from this particular spill.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport I direct my question to the Prime Minister. Does the government have a rationale for bypassing the very strong desires of the prairie provinces to
December 19, 1977

obtain authority over the dispersal of lands from abandoned railway rights-of-way?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should know that the government has always a rationale behind its policies. With regard to the recommendations in the Hall report, the Minister of Transport has never denied any consultation with his provincial counterparts.


Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Could 1 ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport whether the minister has any obligation which is statutory to bypass the provinces and to give this land to the municipalities; and while he is on his feet would he also say whether or not he would table the agreement between the federal government and the railway companies regarding the dispersal of land from abandoned railways on the prairies?


Charles Lapointe: Mr. Speaker, I cannot make such a commitment without first consulting the minister.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. In an interview published in last week's Newsweek the Prime Minister, speaking of the constitution, appears to reject a unitary state or a loose federation of quasi-independent states but favours flexible adjustments in our present constitution. What are these more flexible adjustments to the constitution which the Prime Minister has in mind, since he rejects a quasi-independent state in confederation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, for a short indication of that I would refer the hon. member to the Speech from the Throne, where three or four major changes in the constitution were proposed which would still leave a constitution with a federal structure and which we think would improve considerably the present state of affairs.


William Gordon Ritchie: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Further on in the interview the Prime Minister seemed to favour a Swiss type cantonal arrangement. Is the Prime Minister convinced that the Swiss arrangement would be suitable for Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. If the hon. member refers to the article-or to the transcript, I am not sure what appears in the article-I remember being asked by the interviewer if the Swiss approach was not closer to what we were looking for
Oral Questions
than, I believe he said, the German, the Brazilian or maybe the Russian approach to federalism, and I indicated that I thought it was.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Environment) and is a follow-up to a question I asked earlier of the minister responsible for federal-provincial relations. It is with regard to federal responsibility for pipeline construction in the province of British Columbia. The responsibilities to which I refer are those in the area of Indian affairs and the Alaska highway. Since the minister is responsible for discussing these matters with the province of British Columbia, and having had some meetings with that province, could he report whether there will be a study on the socioeconomic impact in that particular area before the bill is presented to the House and further action commences?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, perhaps this question should more appropriately be addressed to the Deputy Prime Minister, who has had these kinds of discussions on behalf of the Government of Canada. So far as the socioeconomic aspects which relate to Indians are concerned, in the hon. member's area these are being handled by the Indian affairs department. My responsibilities are related to the environmental aspects.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I am not having very much success in determining who is responsible. Could I direct my supplementary to the Deputy Prime Minister. Have there been any meetings with the province of British Columbia and, if so, how many? Has the minister taken part in these discussions, and who in the government is responsible for safeguarding particularly areas of federal responsibility, such as the upgrading of the Alaska highway and the socioeconomic impact on the native people and other residents in that critical area? Some 540 miles of the pipeline will pass through the province of British Columbia, an area of direct federal responsibility.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the hon. member that I had a meeting in Victoria on Thursday last with representatives of the government of British Columbia in which a variety of pipeline related matters were discussed, including the socioeconomic impact of the pipeline in northern British Columbia and how the costs which may be associated with the pipeline could be met, whether from the pipeline or from other sources. The conclusion of the meeting was a realization that we needed to refine our information on certain matters prior to further negotiations or discussions which may take place at the ministerial level.

December 19, 1977
Oral Questions
With respect to the pipeline generally and who is responsible, obviously the construction of the pipeline will interface with, or the pipeline itself will impact upon, a large number of government departments and agencies. It is for that reason that the government has decided to create a single agency which will be responsible for all aspects of the pipeline. We hope to have the legislation setting up the agency before parliament shortly after the Christmas break.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Stanley Howard Knowles: 
Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence who recently made a statement in Victoria concerning expansion plans for CFB Esquimalt, leaving his officials in Ottawa completely in the dark. For the benefit of the House and of his officials, can the minister explain what he had in mind when making that announcement?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the expansion plan is part of the base development plan of which I am advised by my officials. I do not have the details at my fingertips, but I will be happy to go into further detail on that. I know that one item is a new hospital there and

another is sports facilities which are required. I would be very happy to disclose the basis of that plan to the hon. member at any time convenient to him.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the minister and the officials have gotten together because when I asked the question in committee, they were completely in the dark and knew nothing about it. Where are the funds for this expansion to be found? Are they in existing estimates or in estimates yet to be presented to us?


Barnett Jerome Danson: Mr. Speaker, the base development plans are planned over a long period of years. Some of the funds are actually allocated. Some are in the system for approval within the department and by Treasury Board. Others might have to be deferred. One certainly has to work within the budget of the departments and the long range plan. Esquimalt is certainly one of our important bases and we want to make certain it is maintained at the level that is required.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order having to do with the business of the House which applies directly to the Secretary of State. Some time ago the Secretary of State indicated that he would be having a meeting with the main Francophone groups outside of Quebec on December 20, which is tomorrow. Since then he has written to all members indicating that this meeting will take place tomorrow at ten o'clock.
Over the weekend an item in the newspapers indicated that a major announcement on government policy having to do with minority groups, covering a five-year span and an expenditure of $75 million, would be made tomorrow morning at this meeting. I would have thought that if it is to be a major thrust of government policy that is announced tomorrow morning, the Secretary of State would today have made a statement on motions in the House. Perhaps he would indicate whether this is to be a major policy of the government and when he will be making an appropriate statement to inform members of this House.


Mr. Roberts:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I would like to involve myself in a semantic question of what is major and what is minor. I was conscious, of course, of the debate on foreign policy which members on all sides of the House, particularly those on the other side, are anxious to conduct over the next two days. I was not overly anxious to encroach upon that debate.
The statement that I will be making tomorrow, which is one to which I have invited all members of the House, is really an elaboration of the speech which I gave in the House during the debate on the Speech from the Throne. It seemed to me, taking into account all those circumstances and considering the needs of the House in order that members may debate foreign policy, and so on, that this would be the appropriate way in which to make the announcement.
December 19, 1977


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the question period I directed certain questions to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment concerning his press release of December 16 which indicated that the economic prospects for Canada's Atlantic fisheries would be the main point of discussion at a federal-provincial meeting in Ottawa tomorrow, and that the meeting would be open to the press. I asked the minister if the meeting would also be open to members of parliament. I presume the minister did not hear that part of my question. In view of the importance of this conference, I believe it should be open to the elected representatives of the people and I wonder if the minister would now clarify his position on this important matter.


Mr. Speaker:: This is really the second non-point of order having to do with business outside the House. It does not relate to any disorder or matter that would prevent or inhibit the House from carrying on with its business. If the minister were to make that indication now-and that probably ought to have been the case with respect to the last point of order-it would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. LeBIanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, the parts of the meeting which will be open still have to be determined by agreement with the other participants. I have suggested that some parts, especially where we will be giving a briefing on an assessment of the stock conditions and the prospects for the coming years, should be made available and part of the information package. I have no difficulty with observers being present. I suppose the number would have to be limited by the size of the room. Other than that, I have no great difficulty.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my point of order arises from the statement made last Thursday by the Minister of Finance. At that time he said:
When we started Bill C-l 1, the hon. member said that second reading was to be three or four days, and it lasted three weeks. Thus, I cannot rely on him very much.
When I attempted to raise that as a question of privilege on Friday, Your Honour, quite rightly, pointed out that as a matter of privilege I should have raised it on Thursday, the day it occurred. I hope that at the first opportunity the Minister of Finance will set the record straight, as I know he does not want such a misrepresentation to remain in Hansard.
The matter has been slightly complicated. When I made the statement again on Friday, the Minister of State (Small Business) interjected, "It is true", referring to what the Minister of Finance had said. I would call upon the Minister of State (Small Business) to correct the record today, because surely he would not wish such an untruth to remain in Hansard.


Mr. Abbott:: Mr. Speaker, I did notice the remark I made. If I said that the hon. member was unreliable because of some discussion he had with the Minister of Finance, I would be completely out of order in saying so. If I said he was unreliable
Electoral Boundaries
because of his general conduct in this House or in committee, I would probably also be in error because I have not seen him at all times-only from personal experience. So I withdraw the remark.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(1), 1 have the honour to table, in both official languages, the report of the committee on the concept of the ombudsman.


RAILWAY ACT
Allan Joseph MacEachen: for leave to introduce Bill C-l7, to amend the Canadian National Railways Capital Revision Act and the Railway Act and to amend and repeal certain other statutes in consequence thereof.


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

Allan Joseph MacEachen: for leave to introduce Bill C-l8, to amend the Anti-Inflation Act and guidelines.


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

Jack Marshall: for leave to introduce Bill C-412, respecting the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Humber-Port-au-Port-St. Barbe).

December 19, 1977
Oral Paper Questions
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to replace part of my wonderful district, that part included in the district of St. George's which I gave to my hon. friend, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In order to replace a very important part of my district, I want to include the provincial district of Port-au-Port.


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

Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 21(2), the government notice of motion standing in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council is transferred to and ordered for consideration under government orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That when the House adjourns on Tuesday, December 20, 1977, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, January 23, 1978, provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and
That, in the event of Mr. Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for all purposes of this order.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: 197, 354 and 453.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. McKenzie: 1. What is the total number of persons under contract to the National Research Council and how many are retired public servants?

2. What was the total amount in (a) 1975 (b) 1976 paid to those under contract and how much of this was to retired public servants?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: In so far as the National Research Council of Canada is concerned, the answer is as follows: 1. 51, of which six (6) are retired public servants.
2.	(a) $183,910 of which $68,201 was paid to retired public servants in the fiscal year 1975-76. (b) $230,559 of which $97,808 was paid to retired public servants in the fiscal year 1976-77.
Note: "retired public servants" has been interpreted as being someone who has worked for NRC and who left at age 55 or over.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	How many persons in the category (a) ES (b) LA (c) MD (d) DD (e) RES earn $40,000 or more?
2.	How many receive overtime pay in addition to their salary?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (President of the Treasury Board):: 1.	(a) The number of persons in the ES (Economics, Sociology and Statistics) occupational group earning $40,000 or more, as of September 30, 1977 is zero01, (b) The number of persons in the LA (Law) occupational group earning $40,000 or more, as of September 30, 1977 is 62(1). (c) The number of persons in the MD (medicine) occupational group earning $40,000 or more, as of September 30, 1977 is 161(1). (d) The number of persons in the DD (Drafting and Illustration) occupational group, earning $40,000 or more, as of September 30, 1977 is zero(,). (e) The number of persons in the RES (Research Scientists) occupational sub-group of the SE (Scientific Research) occupational group earning $40,000 or more, as of September 30, 1977 is 17<'>.
(1) Departments and agencies in Schedule 1, Part 1 of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, indeterminate full-time employee only.
Source: The Master Output Support File Computer Listing number El928, prepared by the Personnel Applications Center, Department of Supply and Services.
2.	An unrepresented employee in the executive category and in the upper levels of the administrative and foreign service and the scientific and professional categories who is not eligible for overtime payments when required by management to work excessive hours or to work (or travel) on a day of rest or on a holiday may be granted leave with pay (management leave) in an amount which in the opinion of the deputy head is appropriate. Therefore overtime pay as such is not applicable.
December 19, 1977


Mr. Leggatt: 

GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs) moved:: That this House takes note of the present state and future prospects of Canada's relationships with the other nations of the world.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I know that other members share my satisfaction that it has been possible, in view of the heavy schedule of the House nevertheless, to arrange to schedule this debate. It is something which I have been in agreement with for some time, as have House leaders opposite. I welcome this chance to have a wide-ranging and constructive discussion on many aspects of international affairs.
I realize what I am doing at the moment will be done very informally, but I know I have the agreement of hon. members opposite in suggesting, while we would not necessarily pass a motion to this effect, that the House be asked to convey to our distinguished colleague, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), the foreign affairs critic for the Progressive Conservative party, the best wishes of this House and our hopes that he will have a speedy recovery.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In a single speech or in one debate it is not possible to cover all aspects of international affairs. I have decided this afternoon to confine most of my remarks to those issues in the international realm which impact most directly upon the people of Canada, and also those which have caused the greatest amount of concern in recent months. Meeting both of those criteria, very obviously, is the question of the world economy and the new economic order, as it has come to be called, throughout the international scene.
Some weeks ago I gave the House a rather comprehensive report on the various activities taking place in such organizations as the International Monetary Fund, the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, and a number of similar agencies. Therefore, it is not my intention today to deal
External Affairs
with these in any great detail. However, by way of recapitulation I should like to refer briefly to three subjects which I am sure will be touched upon by other speakers from both sides as this important debate proceeds.
First, I refer to the summit conference of last May, in London, and the events which have flowed from it. Among those are the north-south dialogue, or the search for the new economic order, as well as the multilateral tariff negotiations. All of these-and particularly the focus which was brought to them by the summit-illustrated once again the interdependence of the world and the growing necessity for us to consult with one another, not only in the developed world but also with the Third World. This is necessary if we are to find solutions for what are generally described as basic structural changes in the world economic system.
There is now general agreement, given the precarious nature of the economic structure at the present time, that resolution of a satisfactory nature will not be found unless we recognize that old solutions imposed on new circumstances will be inadequate. Therefore, the search is on in a wide range of fora in order to determine how we must approach these new developments.
In the case of the summit, there was general agreement that we must resist what are obviously the growing forces of protectionism. Canada, more than any other developed country, recognizes that there is a fine line which we must follow between ensuring that existing industries and existing sources of employment are reasonably protected, while at the same time doing those things necessary to ease the general pattern of world trade to make access to foreign markets better for us so that we can, from a comparatively small domestic base, expand in a manner which will be necessary if we are to meet the increasing demands upon the economy and if we are going to be able to support the general standards to which our people are entitled.
Before returning to the multilateral tariff negotiations, I should like to refer to a very serious concern of those who met at the summit, including the government and the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau). That is the tremendous problem of world unemployment, particularly in the developed world. It is a phenomenon which has not shown up previously or, at least, to the same extent as at present. It is one of the permanent structural changes to which I referred a few moments ago which will require new initiatives and new techniques.
No one contends that there are any easy answers. However, during this past week the OECD held a high-level meeting in Paris. It was attended by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen), among others. It was attempting to see what kind of international action or impact might be brought to bear on something which, happily, in this country has not so far created serious unrest of a dangerous kind but which in some countries, including some with long democratic traditions in Europe, is of real concern in the sense that it is posing a threat to the very democratic foundations of those societies.

December 19, 1977
External Affairs
Of course, we will have to deal with these matters in the domestic context also and undertake whatever measures we can devise jointly, or as a government, in order to do what is possible within the framework of our own responsibilities and capabilities. But in this, as in so many other matters these days, it is becoming increasingly apparent that we will have to rely more and more on international instruments; and, of course, one of those is the multilateral tariff negotiations.
Let me say very briefly-because undoubtedly there will be from other speakers, if not in this debate then in subsequent weeks, a full explanation and an ongoing discussion and debate on this question-that what might be described as crucial talks, in terms of the multilateral tariff negotiations, are coming at what is admitted on all sides to be a most inopportune time and certainly one vastly different from what was in existence in 1973 when the Tokyo Round was launched. Since that time we have had the incredible and dramatic changes brought about by the OPEC decisions and what has come to be called the energy crisis, and we have had a whole series of other international events which have sharply dampened the enthusiasm of many developed countries for the kind of across the board tariff-cutting mechanisms which appeared in 1973 to be highly advantageous to all.
Yet, as I said a moment ago, those who met at the summit in London, and also those who participated, including myself, at the OECD meeting in Paris subsequent to the London summit, concluded without reservation that there was no alternative but to press ahead with what will, we hope, over time be a comprehensive improvement in the over-all tariff structure.
I should mention, also, at this point that of course most of the emphasis quite naturally tends to fall upon tariff reductions or changes. But for Canada, as for many other countries, an equally important if not more important aspect of the MTN is the whole question of non-tariff barriers. This, too, is being addressed in what I think hon. members will find is a comprehensive and far-sighted way. No one has any illusions that this process will be either easy or quick. It will take a very long time, and indeed it is quite possible that we may not proceed with a single action but may provide for periodic assessment along the way. In other words, no one in Canada, either from the optimistic or the pessimistic side, should expect or anticipate that there will be some dramatic, overnight change in the present scheme of things. Obviously, this question has to be approached with great caution and great care.
In addition to that, of course, we in this country must also examine what we can do domestically in those cases where transitional or other forms of adjustment assistance are required to ease any potential burdens that may emerge when the final listings are made and the exercise is over. But I repeat that I believe we are embarked, as a country, on the wise course.
After all, it has become something of a cliche in Canada to say that we must export in order to survive. It follows almost automatically that a climate receptive to export or, for that

matter, a climate receptive to imports from around the world, is highly advantageous for Canada, particularly in view of the quite dramatic changes that have been taking place in the last 10 years to 20 years which have seen very large organizations of countries coming together. I refer to organizations of countries such as the European Economic Community, the ASSEAN group, and many others. This means that Canada, with 23 million people and a comparatively small manufacturing and production base, must look outward and must avoid at all costs an international community which is inward-looking, if we are going to have those export opportunities.
There is a great deal more that could be said and will need to be said, and a great deal more consultation will have to take place with provincial governments, with various industrial sectors and, indeed, with the Canadian community at large, before final and definitive decisions are taken with regard to MTN. But I thought it important, in the context of this debate, to emphasize to hon. members that Canada is taking a very strong role and considers it important for the country that we have as one of the central pieces of our foreign policy this total involvement to the maximum extent possible in various international organizations which, in the last analysis, will have a tremendous, if not decisive, effect upon how quickly we emerge from the current depressing and unfortunate circumstances in which not only we, but all the industrialized countries, find ourselves.
In this connection, Mr. Speaker, it is parenthetically interesting to note that, while one can never be sure until these events are concluded, there is considerable encouragement in the news coming from Venezuela, where the OPEC countries are presently meeting, which seems to suggest that we are likely to see a freeze on oil prices at least for the next year or so.
I might add that we in Canada have been active, along with other western governments, in making representations to the OPEC countries in an effort to persuade them that that kind of posture is the one which best serves the world community at the present time and which also, of course, in the long run serves their interests. This whole issue of the world economic situation bears very heavily on Canada's relations with its major friends and trading partners in the international community. I am referring to such countries as the United States of America, the countries of the European Economic Community, and Japan, as well as others.
I would like to take a moment now to deal, once again very briefly, with our current state of relations with various countries which I have mentioned. Turning first to the United States, I am happy to be able to tell the House that in my judgment-and it is one, I believe, that is widely shared- Canada-U.S. relations are in better condition today than they have been for a very long time in the past. I am by no means assuming, accepting or suggesting that the government deserves all the credit for this situation, but I am happy that we have been able, during these past 12 months in particular, to undertake certain projects and discussions with the United States which have helped to create a set of circumstances
December 19, 1977

which I am happy to report are most encouraging and helpful at present.
The Prime Minister has twice visited President Carter since his inauguration, and my own relationship with Secretary of State Vance is most friendly and co-operative. We have had many meetings in the last eight or nine months, not only on matters affecting Canada-U.S. relations directly, but also we have been able to co-operate most effectively in concerting our efforts in terms of a number of international initiatives. Also, many of my colleagues who have direct relations with departments and agencies in the U.S. have been able to have close relations and make co-operative arrangements.
I am also pleased to note that members of the House of Commons and of the other place have substantially increased their negotiating position and their discussion arrangements with their colleagues in the U.S. Congress. Here I pay tribute to the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp), who has been one of the leaders as a senior member of the House, and indeed members opposite have participated with him in this most worth-while undertaking.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I should say that, quite frankly, we in this country frequently tend to ignore, or at least to forget, the fact that there is a duality in the American system, and that while you can have good relations in so far as the executive branch is concerned in Washington, it is of equal importance that the parliamentary and the congressional parts of our systems also have frequent and, indeed, almost day to day contact. We have set up in the past year-thanks, again, to the hon. member for Eglinton and others-an arrangement whereby that is going to be possible to a greater degree than ever before.
I do not want to take the time of the House to detail the literally hundreds of issues which have arisen and which have been resolved quietly and, indeed, in most cases without publicity over the past year. We are all aware that in a relationship as intricate as that between Canada and the United States there are tensions which develop daily and irritants which arise daily which must be disposed of. Happily, the vast majority of them are without any serious consequences. However, I would like to mention just three areas in support of my claim that relations with the United States are in very good order at the present time.
There is, for example, the fact that we were able to conclude the northern pipeline treaty, which I think by any assessment or measurement indicates a high level of co-operation between the two countries. I am also happy to say to the House that despite early forecasts of failure, negotiations with regard to the maritime boundaries-probably one of the more complex issues to arise between us in the last 25 or 30 years-are now moving along very satisfactorily. Certain matters have now been established in principle with regard to joint management of fish stocks and the like, and the two negotiators felt sufficiently satisfied with the progress they were making to
External Affairs
request from their governments an additional month, until January 31, 1978, in which they are reasonably confident they can conclude the negotiations satisfactorily.
Of course, as I said a moment ago with regard to the OPEC meetings, one can never be certain on these matters until the ink is dry on the agreements. Nevertheless we have come a very long way since January of this year when there was very little to assure us that there could be this kind of agreement without, at the very least, a third party intervention.
The other point with regard to the United States which demonstrates the way in which we have been able to work together is the announcement made over the weekend by my colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Lang), with regard to the agreement arrived at on phasing in the St. Lawrence Seaway toll increases. Once again, here was a case where each country accommodated the other in a manner which I believe met the objectives of both, and it was not necessary in this case either to fall back upon the legal mechanisms and provisions in the treaty for renegotiation and the like.
Therefore, while we will always have certain difficulties and tensions with the United States, I think it is important for us to state at this time that the United States continues to be not only our best customer, by a very wide margin, but also our closest friend and, in the long run, the country with which we find we can co-operate-for a whole range of logical reasons- most successfully and most beneficially in terms not only of economic matters, to which I referred a few moments ago, but also of advancing efforts toward a more permanent peace in the world. On the vast majority of occasions we find ourselves, in this respect, with no difference of view from the United States as to goals, even though on occasion our techniques may differ somewhat from theirs.
In this overview of our relationship with various countries in the world, I would like to turn now to the European Economic Community and in the process to say a word about the nuclear negotiations which have been going on for a very long time now, but which, I am happy to report, appear to be at least within reach of being settled satisfactorily for all sides.
Before I deal with the nuclear question, however, let me just say a word about our relationship with the Community in general. It is just about a year ago today that I, along with my Community colleague in the Canada-Community Committee, inaugurated the first meeting in relation to the so-called contractual link, the familiar name which has been applied to the special relationship between us.
In the past year this committee has proved to have had considerable value, if for no other reason than it has given us a forum or an opportunity in which to discuss various problems which arise between us, not the least of which in recent weeks, incidentally, has been the matter of the quotas which we found necessary to impose and the decisions which we had to take with regard to such things as textiles and footwear. Prior to the establishment of the committee, these matters had no home, as it were, in terms of a negotiating base. Therefore, if for no other reason, the committee is a worth-while instrument.

December 19, 1977
External Affairs
There have also been some slight improvements in terms of the economic relationship between Canada and the Community, but I think it is reasonable to expect that any substantial increase in trade must await the resurgence or the reactivation of the economies of the western European countries. As things stand at the moment, there is a tremendous amount of slack in the economies of these highly industrialized countries. I am thinking of steel, as just one example for Germany and for the United Kingdom, but there are many more. Therefore, as long as that condition continues to exist, it is not very likely-nor, indeed, is it possible-for them in many instances to increase substantially their imports from Canada.
Nevertheless, I believe-this appears to have been borne out by businessmen, who visited the Community recently, and by others-that a good relationship exists, that there is a commitment on both sides to work more closely together, and that over time, if the business community in Canada seizes the opportunities, there is no doubt in my mind that we can, in fact, increase significantly the amount of exports to the Community.
However, one must always bear in mind, in these matters- as I said a few moments ago in relation to the MTN-that if we are going to get additional exports from Canada into the Community, we must also be prepared to look at the areas of trade in which they are interested and which we may be able to employ in order to help with this two-way traffic.
Again I do not wish, to take the time of the House with a detailed elaboration of all the matters which relate to the contractual link and to the whole range of new opportunities and new potentials which exists for us. However, I do want to say that as I travel about Europe-and, incidentally, other parts of the world as well-it is obvious to me, as I am sure it is to hon. members in all parts of the House who have had a similar experience, that we in this country must-this applies to the private sector in particular-find new techniques and a more aggressive approach in terms of selling in unfamiliar territory.
For a very long time the majority of business was conducted between Canada and the United States. There were exceptions, but it is clear that the Canadian business community-I repeat, with some exceptions-needs to revamp its thinking, to employ new techniques and to get to know what the real opportunities are in various places. These opportunities exist not only in the Community but in many parts of Africa, in Latin America and in southeast Asia as well.
Having said these few words about the general relationship with the Community, let me turn to the nuclear question which has involved, for me at least, the most difficult set of negotiations which have taken place during the present year. It had been my intention, as I informed the House a few days ago, to wait until the agreement had been either approved or rejected by the Council of Ministers before indicating to the House what the situation is. However, I also gave a commitment to the House that I would disclose the details of the agreement at the appropriate time. Since we will be adjourning tomorrow, I suspect, and therefore are likely to be in recess

by the time the Community's decision is known, I feel I ought to advise hon. members to the maximum extent possible just exactly what is involved in the agreement and emphasize the current state of play.
First, let me say that the agreement has been accepted by the government of Canada. It has been accepted because it meets all the requirements of the 1974 policy. I am not going to try this afternoon-I am sure hon. members will appreciate this-to go into all the technical points, but they will be available to anybody who wishes to see them and I am sure they can be tabled at the appropriate time. However, there are two or three highlights which I think will give hon. members a clear view of what has been arrived at.
I say that it has been agreed to by the government of Canada. It is not yet approved by the Council of Ministers in Europe and we have no assurance that it will be. I can tell hon. members that there are countries within the Community which are taking strong exception to some of the requirements and it is not inconceivable that they may decide not to accept them.
Basically, to repeat the first point I made, the agreement will meet all the requirements of the 1974 policy. The second point that it is important to understand is that all Canadian material going into the Community will be under full IAEA and Euratom safeguards as they relate to all supplies within the Community, wherever located. In short, the basic foundation of Canadian policy that Canadian nuclear supplies will not be used for anything other than non-explosive nuclear purposes has been fully met.
The third point that I think hon. members will be pleased to hear is that no nuclear supplies from Canada will be used in French reactors unless and until the French government accepts IAEA and Euratom safeguards. In this connection, I am pleased to tell the House that we have been able to obtain agreement from the government of France that they will accept such safeguards covering Canadian material. Furthermore, we have insisted, and France has agreed, that any plutonium derived from Canadian-sourced material also will only be used in terms of the civilian nuclear program. The fundamental point about which I have been asked many questions in this House is that the French government has accepted IAEA and Euratom safeguards and has agreed to proceed to apply these. Unless and until it does, and unless these are in place, no Canadian material will be used in any French reactor.
The next point that I should like to touch on is the question of the transfer of sensitive nuclear technology, another question on which several questions have been raised in the House during the past few months. Once again, there will be no transfer of sensitive nuclear technology from one country to another within the European Community unless the receiving country has a bilateral agreement with Canada that such transfer is permitted. Not only, therefore, do we have the IAEA kind of safeguards, but in addition it will not be possible-and we will use France as an example-to acquire
December 19, 1977

any Canadian technology unless and until a country has negotiated a bilateral agreement with Canada.
The next point, which is very familiar to members and which I think is known, proved to be the most difficult of all the negotiations, with the possible exception of some of the bilateral questions with France. 1 refer to the question of reprocessing. I think it is necessary for me to attempt, on this highly complex subject, to give the House a layman's assessment or explanation of what exactly is in play in connection with this very important issue.
Basically, there are two points of view in the world community on the issue of reprocessing. One, articulated most recently by President Carter of the United States, is that reprocessing is not a necessary part of any civilian nuclear development program. It ought to be emphasized that the President and the government of the United States have not excluded the possibility of all reprocessing for all time. What has been said by the President, with which we concur, is that because reprocessing tends to lead to proliferation in the amount of plutonium, and since it is inevitably linked to the fast breeder reactor, therefore we need to know a good deal more about it before we plunge headlong into the development and creation of these fast breeder reactors, and it is also necessary to take a hard look at how reprocessing is going to be done, the nature of controls, and such questions.
There is a second school of thought, and equally legitimate,
I am told, by the scientific community-although there are differences of view amongst different people, and this is not a subject lacking in emotion. One may take the view of the President of France, the Chancellor of Germany and all the leaders of the European Economic Community, or what I might describe as the energy-short industrialized countries of the world, many of which have virtually no other sources of available energy at the present time; at least, that is their contention and their view and it is not my position to argue with them, although 1 see the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) sort of doubting the truth of that comment.
I have looked sufficiently hard at such countries as Germany, and have learned to my satisfaction that they would be hard pressed at the present time to totally abandon any civilian nuclear energy program. This is a matter of opinion. I repeat, they feel strongly that in terms of reprocessing it is an essential and necessary element of their civilian program. Their argument is defensive, at least on the surface, to the layman. I will come back to why the layman's judgment in these matters must sometimes be questioned. The point is that reprocessing provides up to 60 times the utilization of the same amount of uranium as does the straightforward, conventional use of uranium through enrichment and nothing else.
Countries which have seen their economies badly battered in the last four years as a result of the OPEC action and the general price rise in fossil fuels are, in effect, saying that they want to utilize to the maximum extent whatever fuels are available and that they cannot simply turn their backs on a
External Affairs
process which will give 60 times as much utilization as non-reprocessed material.
Those, highly oversimplified, are the two main arguments. It is a mistake to say they are mutually exclusive. This mistake is frequently repeated by a great many people. Europeans, on the one hand, are not going headlong into reprocessing and fast breeder reactors. Indeed, even in the most optimistic scenario we will probably be pretty close to the year 2000 or beyond before there can be any significant change from what we have at the present time. I repeat, to this point they are not committed to any argument. At the same time, it is a misrepresentation to say that the United States is completely opposed to reprocessing or to fast breeder reactors.
I might point out that within recent months the United States has done a number of things, all of which impacted to some degree on Canadian policy and were part of the whole question of negotiations. First of all, the United States did continue with a high level of research on certain aspects of the matter we have been discussing. The United States resumed shipment of enriched uranium to Europe. The United States provided uranium for India, and the United States made an arrangement with Japan so that its pilot reprocessing plant could proceed.
All these things have happened since the original declarations about reprocessing were made, and all came to a head at the London summit when the energy problem was discussed in all its aspects. As a result of that very thorough discussion and assessment, a decision was made to find out not just what one group or another thinks, not merely to accept the layman's sometimes emotional response, but to have a thorough and complete scientific and other types of assessment of the so-called full fuel cycle.
This decision, taken in May, changed something else. It was concluded initially there, and subsequently by Chancellor Schmidt and our Prime Minister during the Chancellor's visit to Canada, that it ought not to be an assessment confined to the so-called suppliers' club, or nuclear club. As a result, INFCECP-was expanded and invitations extended to other countries, including some in the eastern bloc, for example, the Soviet Union, and to others such as in Latin America, so that it is much more broadly based. It was, therefore, judged that it would be more credible in terms of its results than if it had simply been the small club of nuclear suppliers arriving at a conclusion among themselves.
These are the elements, together with these two options, which come into play in our discussions with the Community as to all the circumstances in which we would be prepared to resume shipments. I emphasize that the embargo, now a year old, is beginning to exact very serious penalties and impose heavy strains on our friends in the EEC who are also our allies, part of the western alliance and members of NATO. We can scarcely regard them as being, in such a context, suspect.
Furthermore, bearing in mind what I said about our wish to maintain good relations with Europe, an obstinate and unrea-

December 19, 1977
External Affairs
soiling resistance on our part to the resumption of shipments would clearly be taken as an unfavourable act; indeed, it has already been so interpreted in some quarters. Yet at the same time we were not prepared to negotiate a situation in which the Canadian safeguards were ignored, either in terms of the other elements to which I referred earlier and where there have been significant improvements over the 1959 agreement, nor for nuclear supplies without any restraint in terms of reprocessing.
The dilemma, therefore, boiled down to whether or not, given the existence of the study and Canada's participation in it, given the significantly different points of view, there was a way in which we could properly ensure that the ongoing needs of the present reactors in the Community and the identifiable needs for a little while to come could be met. The resolution flowed basically from the agreement and from the principles agreed upon by the Prime Minister and Chancellor Schmidt in July of last year, that we would undertake to resume supplies of uranium to the Community under all the conditions I mentioned earlier for the period of the INFCECP study or for two years.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Without a veto?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I will get to that question very soon. It is estimated there will be the time of the study, plus one year, in which to negotiate a subsequent agreement. In essence, that is the situation. We would be willing, in the case of Europe, to do what I have said. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands asks, "Without a veto?" The answer, if she wishes to interpret the word "veto" in the negative sense, is yes. The word "veto" is a regrettable one to be used, in any event. It has been assumed that we would say no, whereas, of course, what was meant, particularly in the case of the EEC and friendly or allied countries, was that we would have the right to say either yes or no.


Charles Joseph Clark: Oh!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: There is a great deal of difference. If hon. members are suggesting that we ought automatically to say no, they are taking the position that no reprocessing ought to be done in any circumstances. I emphasize that in the view of the government, such a judgment cannot be made now. So we are suspending that judgment for the period of the study, or for two years, whichever is the shorter. We shall then be in a position to negotiate, I hope, a longer term agreement which will not only involve Canada and the EEC, but Canada and the whole world community. In the meantime, however, it is not just a question of carte blanche. In the first place, the reality of the situation is that very little of the nuclear supplies either presently shipped or likely to be supplied in two to three years will be reprocessed.


Charles Joseph Clark: Is that a guarantee?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: One cannot be completely certain. I think the scientific people would tell us, on the basis of the technical competence which exists today, it is likely that only a very minimal amount could be done in two to three years. So in real

terms there is no great change. What we have done is obtain an agreement with the Community that no reprocessing will be carried on without prior consultation with Canada.
There will, of course, be some who will make a great deal out of the fact that consultation is not the same as consent. My answer is that we are dealing with friends and allies; we are not dealing with people we would normally suspect. If hon. members opposite wish to take that point of view, they should tell Britain, West Germany and all those other countries that somehow or other we do not trust them. What we have said is: All right; if you agree that before any Canadian material is reprocessed there will be worth-while consultation with us, we shall resume shipments under certain circumstances and conditions.
There was, of course, another element here which we had to take into account, namely, that there was already a good deal of material in Europe, material which had been shipped many years ago but which was still being used in one form or another and which could not, in normal circumstances, be made subject to any retroactive agreement whether a veto was in operation or not. This being the case, what we managed to do in the case of the Europeans-and I am by no means sure it will be acceptable-was to get an undertaking from the Community that none of the previous material, none of the material shipped prior to 1974, would be reprocessed unless we were consulted in a worth-while way.
Remember, any new material to be shipped is not likely to be reprocessed until well into the 1980s, and perhaps later than that. Therefore, by getting retroactivity through invoking clauses which existed in the 1959 agreement requiring consultation, we now have a position whereby all the material in Europe will be subject to consultation. Furthermore, we have undertaken with the Community not to act merely in a customer-supplier relationship, but in addition to the INFCECP study we shall conduct our own examination of the way in which this system of consultation works in connection with reprocessing. So by the end of the study, when the time comes for us to seek long-term arrangements with the world community, we shall have experience upon which to rely.
I emphasize once again that all the elements of this package I have described conform to the 1974 policy statement. The alternative facing those who would have wished a continuance of the embargo is to place one of the major groupings of countries in the western world in a position of serious deficit in a period when they have willingly entered into an agreement to study the implications of reprocessing in the fast breeder reactor program. We have simply said we shall do nothing until a study has been completed.
The second element is that we cannot go on indefinitely mining uranium and keeping it in stockpiles. There is an economic side to it. It was not in any sense a dominant issue, but I have no doubt that if we had, in an unreasonable way, refused to resume shipments to the Community there would have been criticism on the other side that, because of what is essentially a narrow question of disagreement, we had in fact caused problems for our friends and difficulties at home.
December 19, 1977

The next question which arises is: What will happen in the case of Japan? At the present time, as I think I have mentioned in the House, I have signed an interim agreement with the United States on one of the major problems which existed in the case of Japan, namely, that of double-labelling. I am not going to take the time of the House to deal with this intricate subject, except to say that 1 believe the Japanese had, and do have, a reasonable point. If they are going to be subject to American controls when the enrichment is done in the United States on the same material, it is extremely difficult, if not impossible, for them to adhere to a set of separate and distinct Canadian controls. So we do have a basis now for resolving that particular issue.
I have indicated that in the case of Japan we would be prepared to offer to them the same kind of arrangement, although the circumstances may be somewhat different in that case from that which we have sought at least to negotiate with the Community. I emphasize once again that this has been an extremely difficult and complex negotiation, but I am prepared to defend what we have decided upon, if it is approved by the Community, as being the best possible arrangement under the circumstances, and the widest one given all of the elements which are in play.
I do not know how much time hon. members wish to give me, but I should like, if I may, to turn at this stage to something else of importance.
[ Translation]
Now, Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak very briefly about our relations with France. Of course, I do not need to remind you that relations between Canada and France are based on historical, linguistic and cultural affinities as well as on the development of an economic and political cooperation that I consider very important.
However, those naturally harmonious relations are going through a difficult period, particularly since Mr. Levesque visited France last November. It is partially caused by the domestic situation in Canada and the ambiguity shown since then by the French government concerning the internal situation in Canada. After the visit of the Quebec premier in France we asked the French government for more details on its policy concerning relations between Canada and France and the proposal for France-Quebec annual meetings at the prime minister level. Since then we have received written assurance from the French government that its policy concerning Canada remains unchanged and that it will not interfere in the Canadian political debates and will respect the Canadian constitutional framework. We took note of this assurance and I for one consider that the issue about the Levesque visit in France is closed. However we shall continue to remind the French administration of the necessity to consult us before signing agreements with provincial governments, just as we shall continue our discussions on the issue of prime ministers' annual meetings.
External Affairs
We are also concerned by other aspects of our relations with France. For instance, their intention to prohibit the importation into France of young seal skins. I met my French counterpart, Mr. de Guiringaud, in Brussels, specifically to discuss this issue two weeks ago. In the meantime, we have sent to the French administration a memorandum to demonstrate that this species is not in danger and that it is scientifically proven that the slaughter means used are the least traumatic for the animal and that allowances have been made within GATT for those products. I hope that the French government will recognize the validity of our argument and will change its intention of banning young seal skin imports into France.
The issues of the delimitation of the territorial limits between Canada and France near Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon and our fishing relations continue to present some difficulties. The fact that early this year France and Canada proclaimed a 200-mile economic and fishing zone gives an even greater sense of urgency to the question of an agreement on the delimitation of our marine boundaries, and in that regard the recent 1976 English-French award with respect to the English Channel had the effect of reinforcing Canada's legal position. The government of Newfoundland maintains that there cannot be negotiations with France before the question of federal-provincial jurisdiction has been dealt with. That is why we want the province to participate in the negotiation process and a firmer stand by the federal government should normally help reach that objective. The interim fishing agreement reached on December 30, 1976, will expire at the end of this month. On December 9 last we agreed ad referendum to extend to 1978 all the 1977 arrangements, except for the size of the quotas that were negotiated earlier in Ottawa.
Finally, I would like to point out that last week Canada denounced the 1933 France-Canada trade agreement effective March 15, 1978. We made that decision reluctantly and only after trying unsuccessfully for over a year to reach a compromise with France. That agreement no longer had its raison d'etre. For example, the Canadian champagne industry was being penalized unfairly vis-a-vis foreign industries, and we were forced to take this step to protect that industry.

With the indulgence of the House, Mr. Speaker, since I understand that this is the first time in 17 years that we have had a two-day debate on external affairs, I should like to touch on one or two other matters. One of them has to do with Canada's attitude toward South Africa. As the Prime Minister indicated in the House some two weeks ago on December 5, Canada, along with a great many other countries, has been re-examining the attitude it ought to take beyond what has already been done by the world community in response to those actions which in recent times have been undertaken in South Africa to which we in Canada take the strongest possible objection, and with which we-and I am sure this extends well beyond the Government of Canada- are in major disagreement.
2000

December 19, 1977
External Affairs
It is true, of course, that in other countries of the world there are clear violations of and disregard for human rights. There, too, Canada is expressing its concern, as are all members of this House.
South Africa, however, stands alone. It is the only country which as a basic part of its government structure-whether it is constitutional in the legal sense is beside the point-has a declared and unequivocal policy. It stands apart as a country which makes decisions affecting human beings on the basis of race and colour. Therefore, over time it is not surprising that the attitude of the vast majority of the countries of the world has become harder, particularly during these past months when we have seen an increase in the amount of repression, rioting and especially in the disturbances which followed the still unexplained death of a respectable and respected black leader of South Africa, Steve Biko.
Along with others, Canada has been asking what further steps we ought to take in order to display and to demonstrate our disapproval of the present regime and our disapproval of apartheid. We strongly believe that what must come in South Africa is the destruction of that kind of system, the introduction of the principle of one man, one vote and of the normal democratic process which all of us in this part of the world take for granted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I am, therefore, announcing today that Canada is phasing out all its government-sponsored, commercial-support activities in South Africa.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: For example, we will as quickly as possible withdraw our commercial counsellors from Johannesburg and close the office of the consulate general in that city. We will also withdraw our commercial officers from Cape Town. We will, of course, maintain our offices in Pretoria for normal business, because we do not feel that the breaking off of diplomatic relations at this time is advisable. We still wish to have an opportunity to do what we can in order to impress upon the government of South Africa the necessity for change. We also want to have an opportunity to talk to respected leaders who are opposed to apartheid in South Africa.
In addition to this phasing out of our commercial activities, we will also withdraw all Export Development Corporation government account support from any transactions relating to South Africa. This involves, for example, export credit insurance and loan insurance, as well as foreign investment type of insurance. This is a step which is not as complete as what may very well come in time. We are examining the implications and the possibilities for other such actions. After consultation with the Canadian companies concerned, we will be publishing a code of conduct and ethics for Canadian companies operating in South Africa, designed to govern their employment and similar practices. This will be done as quickly as possible.

The fourth measure is related to South Africa's former membership in the Commonwealth and which we now propose to change. From a date to be announced, we will require non-immigrant visas from all residents of South Africa coming to Canada. We have asked the appropriate officials to examine the impact and the capacity that is open to us to renounce the British preferential tariff. It is still in effect even though the Commonwealth membership of South Africa has long since ceased to exist.
In addition to all of these measures, we are very much concerned about two other aspects of South Africa and South African operations, namely, the activities of Canadian companies in Namibia. Once again, we have asked the officials of the Department of Finance and others, as quickly as possible, to look into all the implications of possible tax concessions and, to the like which these companies may be obtaining and which are being provided by what is essentially an illegal regime in Namibia, by our standards and by our demonstrated conduct at the United Nations.
We are also establishing possible codes of conduct for further investment by Canadians in Namibia. It may be asked-I am sure it will be-why these measures are not introduced immediately. There are two reasons: first, we want to be very sure that we do not penalize Canadian companies which may have been active in that country for legitimate and perfectly acceptable purposes. Nevertheless, there is unquestionably an incongruity in a situation which permits an illegal regime, by world definition, to be participating with Canadian companies in the manner I have outlined.
There is a second reason why we are withholding, for the time being, any further action. We continue to hope that a means will be found of ensuring that there is a peaceful and satisfactory solution for Namibia, one that will bring about equality-one man, one vote. We hope this can be done through negotiations and the process in which Canada is participating, which relates to the five western members of the Security Council talking with the government of South Africa and the other parties concerned.
In the process of making this statement and of expressing my hope for a peaceful outcome in Namibia, it is also Canada's hope and wish that the black leadership there, as elsewhere in South Africa, will show its own high level of responsibility. We hope it will do everything reasonable and possible to bring about transition by peaceful means, rather than plunge another region on that tragic continent into the kind of bloodshed we have seen repeated over and over again in recent years.
There is one final point. We will keep the whole South African situation under review. We are moving now to make sure that our own embargo against sales of arms to South Africa is on all fours with the recent declaration of the Security Council which placed an international embargo on arms shipments. This is the first time in the history of the United Nations that such an embargo has been imposed on a member state. I believe this is a step in the direction which it is
December 19, 1977

inevitable and appropriate for us to take. I re-emphasize that we will keep the whole South African situation under review.
I could take time to discuss in considerable detail such questions as Rhodesia. I will simply say, in the interest of saving time, that we are very closely in touch and in tune with the efforts now under way, particularly those of the Anglo-American initiative to once again bring about a peaceful transition in Zimbabwe, or Rhodesia, whichever you wish to call it. We are looking with great interest at the most recent steps taken by Prime Minister Ian Smith. We can only hope that he has made fully legitimate commitments and that he is, indeed, prepared to take all the steps necessary to ensure a peaceful transition there. The situation is extremely complex. There are two major factors: Mr. Nkomo's forces located outside of Rhodesia, and the issue as to how they are to be dealt with in any negotiation. That continues to be a serious issue.
In so far as Canada is concerned, we have made no commitments as of this moment with regard to Canadian participation in any possible settlement arrangements for Rhodesia. We have said, provided the circumstances are right-and if, indeed, the provision of a peacekeeping force with a Canadian component in it would serve to bring about this peaceful transition-that we would then be prepared to look at it most sympathetically. Indeed, we would not be the party that would stand in the way of bringing about that resolution. So far no request has been made, no specific proposal has come forward. The same is true in the case of Namibia.
There will be many other speakers who will touch on the subject of human rights. I had planned to make a rather lengthy explanation of the Canadian position at Belgrade and elsewhere, but I hope hon. members will not criticize me for not doing so because of the time I have used already. Those members of parliament who have been observers with the delegation feel a high level of statisfaction with the position Canada took at Belgrade. We have not been reticent in denouncing what we regard as basic and direct violations of human rights. We are hoping there will be a successful conclusion to that conference which will lead to other discussions and a general opening up of the entire question of access.
There are four points which I can state quickly. We feel very strongly, in the west, that citizens of a country, whether it be in eastern Europe, Latin America or Africa, should have the right to speak out against their governments or their establishments without the fear of reprisal. That is a very simple and straightforward principle to which most parties subscribe. Also, there should be the maximum amount of movement of people; for example, for family reunification and family visits. There is no reason why this should not be permitted on a worldwide basis with a minimum of intervention by the state.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
External Affairs


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The same is true with respect to the exchange of printed information. We hope our stand, along with the stand of others, will bring about that kind of exchange.
In order to translate the policy declarations, there ought to be exchanges in the educational, scientific and cultural fields without any inhibition or restraint. I am sure many members will speak out on human rights. Among them will be those who are as concerned as I am about the fate of Anatoly Shcharansky. With regard to that particular case, we have indicated to the Soviet Union-as well as in relation to others who may be under some form of detention as a result of their attempts to monitor the carrying out of the Helsinki Act-that we consider any action taken against these people at this time could pose a serious threat to a successful outcome at Belgrade. Also, it could threaten and undermine the whole thrust toward detente.
I am sure hon. members would not want me to end without expressing a few words of great satisfaction at current developments in the Middle East. I cannot imagine anything that could bring to all of us more joy than the dramatic breakthrough of the past few weeks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: When I was in the Middle East approximately a month ago, it was clear that there was a significant change of attitude. It had not shaped up at that time. I questioned very much, even for the few days before the decision was made, that either of the leaders genuinely felt they would be meeting in person so quickly. Yet there is no question that the yearning for peace was evident. I do not think "yearning" is too strong a word. Many have asked what we in other countries can do or ought to do at the present time. I have only one piece of advice: we should do the minimum possible to impede the principals in their very strong commitment at the present time; we must give them all the encouragement we can.
Already the hope is realized that the courage of President Sadat will be met by the generosity of Mr. Begin. This is starting to come together. No one should delude himself that there are not any significant, deep-seated, almost Biblically historical animosities and tensions which must be cast aside. Never in our recent history have the signs and the portents been so great for peace.
This is why, among other things in relation to the United Nations, I have expressed criticism about what has been happening at the United Nations in these past weeks with regard to various resolutions which serve no useful purpose in terms of what is being done at the present time, but which will have a detrimental effect by dragging into this very delicately balanced situation extraneous issues and unnecessary complications. Before another year is out, and before this kind of a review takes place, I think it would be good and wise to have once a week-


James Aloysius McGrath: Do we have to wait another 17 years?
2002

December 19, 1977
External Affairs


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, we will not have to wait another 17 years. In any event, I hope next year we will be able to view with considerable satisfaction that at long last, going back perhaps 2,000 years or more, we have seen one of the great historic events of our time occur in one of the troubled parts of the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: In conclusion, I remind hon. members of something which occurred to me in an indirect way the other day. There are two things which sum up the situation as the end of 1977 approaches and we look at this battered planet. As Charles Dickens once said, "It was the best of times, it was the worst of times". In many respects, that fits our circumstances today. On the one hand there is much hope and the prospects are good and bright, yet on the other hand there is much meanness, anger and bitterness. The challenge for us all is to bring these to the point where, as Dickens said, the best of times surmount the worst of times.
As the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) will appreciate, at Beaumont Hamel, the great Newfoundland cemetery, it occurred to me a short time ago, despite everything that has occurred in the period since the Second World War, this is now the thirty-third Christmas we have managed to get by without having a major global conflict. We have had all manner of tragic bush wars, and some, like Viet Nam and Korea, that were massively bigger. At least we have learned enough to move tentatively along this course toward a more lasting and permanent peace. I suppose it can be said that we should be grateful for small blessings, namely, 33 years in which we have not been dumped into a nuclear holocaust. We can all hope that in the thirty-fourth year and beyond we will be able to say the same thing against an even more permanent foundation of true peace in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I can be permitted, on behalf of all hon. members of the House, to say to the hon. minister that it is the practice of all of us to consider a speech both in terms of its content and its delivery. I think I can say without fear of contradiction that we recognize we have just heard a very well delivered statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I would like, also, on behalf of my colleagues and, most particularly, on behalf of my colleague and seat-mate, the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner), to express our appreciation to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) for his very generous and deserved words in respect of the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe whom we hope to have back in his place in the House as soon as the session resumes in the New Year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I should say that we have a certain sympathy for the minister because he has been presiding over the Department of External Affairs during a time of uncertainty as to just who is in charge of precisely what parts of the department. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) was in active competition for some time with respect to responsibility for matters relating to the north-south conference. Now he seems to have been moved out of that, but he continues to show up as the negotiator for Canada at international pipeline negotiations and other matters which might more normally fall within the terms of reference and responsibility of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Then of course, we have the peripatetic Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer) who we gather has responsibility for relations with Francophone countries-we gather on this side of the House, largely to keep him out of Canada. We can certainly approve of that part of the motive, although we are beginning to worry, particularly as we read more current press reports, about precisely what impact his presence outside Canada is having on our relations with other countries.
Nonetheless, we do sympathize with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. His state of mind after becoming minister of that department must have been like the feeling one would have if one had been invited to a grand dinner and was only served the soup. The minister might claim that that has been good for him. I regret to say that it is not good for the country to have a situation of uncertainty over who is responsible for our foreign policy. It is certainly not good for the morale of those Canadians who work within the Department of External Affairs not to know which minister is their minister and, perhaps more important, not to know what their responsibilities are in relation to the responsibilities of the emissaries that might be sent out from time to time from the office of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
So without dwelling on this subject any longer, and without making any personal comments to the minister, let me say that from the point of view of members on this side of the House, we will be pleased when he or his successor as secretary of state for external affairs has the opportunity to exercise jurisdiction over all the department and not have pieces of it crumble away to be dealt with, with various degrees of competence, by other ministers or, worse, by people who are not members of the government of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: There are one or two matters to which I want to make quick reference in response to some of the words of the minister. I will not let pass without comment the generally optimistic, one would almost say sanguine view, that the minister took with regard to the nature of international economic development. It is fine to be optimistic-perhaps it is a condition of this time of the year-but I think all of us recognize that other countries, certainly the U.S.A., evidence much more concern over the direction of the impact upon their own future of some of the developments that we now see in international circles.
December 19, 1977

Without getting into the matter under the title of this debate, I think it is important for us to make very clear that we on this side of the House are not at all sanguine about the degree of planning or even the degree of analysis, relative to our international economic situation, which has been undertaken by the Government of Canada. We think there is a tendency to talk about problems and avoid the very real and dangerous implications for Canada that are developing now as other countries develop their technology, their productivity, their capacity to compete far more effectively than we have in this country.
I think, also, it would be well for me to make reference, in passing-since the minister raised it-to negotiations relative to the maritime boundaries. We are pleased to hear that they are proceeding well, although I think the minister will agree that his comments are subject to interpretation that those negotiations are now proceeding so well that the negotiators have had to ask for another month in which to complete them.
I want to make the point, one that members of this party have made before, that it is very likely true that those negotiations would have proceeded much more effectively had there been much more representation on the Canadian negotiating side from members of the Canadian fishing industry who are themselves knowledgeable about fisheries boundaries and about their importance to the country.

Mr. Speaker, judging from the remarks of the public and the media, it seems we are now witnessing in Canada a tapering of interest in external affairs. I believe this is due for a large part to our concern over our serious domestic problems which are related to both the unity of this country and the economic situation in general.
Canada's international dimension has never been more important for our future than it is today. We have played throughout the year a role both important and respected as a medium-sized power in world affairs.

More recently we have had our attention drawn to a number of what can only be called failures in Canadian international policy. Because I think it is an important part of the debate in this House, I want to deal for a moment with some of the failures and some of their causes. Many of our international failures have the same root causes as the failure of this government at home. The first cause is that this government has lost respect by stating high principles and then abandoning them in practice. I intend to come back to a long list of examples, including a new example given to us today by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
The other cause is the attempt of this government to try to change reality to fit its own theories. That is what went wrong with its management of both the language policy and the economic policy in Canada. It is also what went wrong in the attempt by this government to fundamentally change our defence relations with NATO and our economic relations with the United States. As the House will recall, the Prime Minis-
External Affairs
ter for some time had a theory that we could move away from NATO, and for the first six years of his government we did, with very harmful consequences to the morale of our armed forces and to our reputation among our allies. That negative attitude toward NATO has now been suspended, but suspended partly because of the general tactic of this government of changing its positions as elections draw near, and partly because our European allies, quite properly, made it clear that if Canada would not accept obligations in NATO we could not expect co-operation on economic matters.
The second theory of this government which failed was the idea that we could substantially shift our trading relations away from our major partner, the United States. That was manifest in the so-called "third option", the contractual link with the European Economic Community. I was interested to hear today the minister's latest definition of the virtues and values to Canada of the contractual link. It appears that the contractual link now means there is a place where Canada can sit down with other nations and talk. That has happened after a year. The minister says, from across the floor, that it is important. I agree it is important, but it probably would have been less expensive simply to rent a room somewhere.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Even the minister said that the economic consequences of this so-called contractual link and the economic consequences for which the link was formed, are, to use his own word, "slight"-they have had a slight impact. I think that, unhappily, is a generous assessment of the impact of the contractual link on Canada. That was one manifestation of the government's view that they can move away from the United States. The other, much less defensible, was a series of minor affronts to the United States of America. That is a topic to which I intend to return later in the debate because it is a practice that the Prime Minister, sadly, returned to very recently in this House.
Time does not permit a full assessment of the cost to Canada of changing our traditional and necessary policies to suit the theories of the government, but the net effect has been to diminish our reputation and to cause others in the world to think of us as a capricious country, a kind of dilettante among nations, rich enough that we can ignore reality to pursue some kind of whim. That uneasy reputation for Canada was deepened by the practice of this government so often, abroad as at home, of saying one thing and doing the opposite. In terms of foreign policy, we had two instances of that last week and we probably have seen a third instance of it today.
I want to deal a little later, and some of my colleagues will deal a little later, with the references the minister made regarding a pending agreement with countries in Europe concerning nuclear questions. I very much want to see the document which the minister says is available. I am sure that in the interests of this debate being an informed debate, even though the agreement has not been signed and agreed to by the

External Affairs
European partners-but because he has described it as a statement of government policy-the minister would agree that it would be very helpful for us to have it tabled today so that we could study its details and know therefrom precisely what the government of Canada is proposing to do.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I think I can give you the highlights.


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister says he thinks he can give us the highlights. That would be helpful. We would want highlights which would cover any deal which might cause problems. If the minister would undertake to give us those today, it would be very helpful for my colleagues who want to take part in the debate tomorrow.
In passing, I would like to make one or two comments about this matter. Having listened to the minister, it seems to me that we now have one standard which will apply to nations in Europe and a different standard which will apply to other countries in the world.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No.


Charles Joseph Clark: The minister says that is not the case. We will want to examine the precise nature of the agreement. I suppose what concerns me and the House most particularly about this kind of thing is that a year ago the government of Canada was prepared to enter into an embargo when it did not hurt, and it was ready to defend principle when it was easy to defend principle. However, now that that principle is tested, the government caves in on the first evidence of its being tested. That is a very worrying kind of concern for all of us.
However, let me go back to some of the other instances in which we have seen too much of this government stating one position in principle and then abandoning it in practice. One instance clearly concerns Canada's relations with the United States. There were several years of calculated indifference to American interests. On one celebrated occasion when the Prime Minister was touring the Soviet Union, he went so far as to suggest that in his view the United States posed a military threat to Canada. After that, and after an unnecessarily provocative visit to Cuba by the Prime Minister at a critical moment when Cuban forces were involved in Angola, the government of Canada used the occasion of the American bicentennial celebrations to advertise a new harmony between our countries. That advertisement was carried on by some of the statements of the Secretary of State for External Affairs this afternoon. However, in the wake of all that last week, gratuitously and deliberately the Prime Minister ended all that talk of harmony with the kind of offhand insult he regularly directs toward some of his fellow countrymen.
What was the reason for that? The reason was that Ambassador Tom Enders of the United States was making speeches about freer trade which incurred the displeasure of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan). The fact is that the statements by Ambassador Enders have been much closer to the actual position of the government than the picturesque outpourings of the Minister of Agriculture. Indeed, the statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs today on the

question of freer trade was much closer to the position stated by Ambassador Enders than the position of his colleague in the cabinet. If the Minister of Agriculture wants to be sick and tired of anyone, perhaps he should be sick and tired of his colleagues in the cabinet.
The point here is that this is not a minor debate in parliament. This is a matter which has very important implications for our relations with a country which all of us acknowledge to be the most important ally Canada has. It would have been far more responsible, if the Prime Minister cared about maintaining good relations between Canada and the United States, for him to discipline his own minister, rather than to undermine the credibility and the effectiveness of the ambassador of the United States. As the Ottawa Journal wrote the following on Saturday and I think deserves to be put on the record of the House of Commons:
The issue is whether Mr. Whelan was "speaking on behalf of the government" of Canada when he said he was "sick and tired" of Mr. Enders. Mr. Trudeau's earlier "yes" stands unexplained and unrepudiated.
The editorial continues:
It is impossible to believe that Mr. Trudeau did not know what he was doing both in giving assent to Mr. Whelan's views and in trying to play an insulting intellectual game in the Commons ... What he was doing was not in Canada's interest.
The views expressed in that editorial are those with which most of us can agree. Unfortunately, that practice by the Prime Minister is not at all new: it is entirely consistent with the attitude of this government to talk about good relations with the United States and then to act in ways which undermine, unnecessarily, those good relations.
The second instance of the government saying one thing in principle and doing the opposite in practice concerns the arrangements known as the Arab boycott. Fourteen months ago the Secretary of State for External Affairs-new at his job-announced a policy to require Canadian firms to report, and I quote the terms of his own speech, "all instances of their complying with boycott provisions." That was the promise. Now the practice is to limit that requirement to compliance with explicit boycott provisions; in other words, to quote an example which has been attributed in the newspapers to the minister: It is quite all right with the government of Canada for Canadian firms to boycott ships that stop in Israel, so long as the boycott is not an explicit provision of contract.
That is to have no policy at all, which is bad enough. What is worse is the hypocrisy-I would have to call it, looking at its record, congenital hypocrisy-of this government which pretends to oppose all boycotts when in fact it acquiesces in most of them. Again, in January, the government promised to publish the list of Canadian firms which agreed to boycott provisions every six months. That was January. This is December. No report has been published, and another promise by this government has been broken.
Today it appears that the government is backing away from nuclear safeguards. We will have to look at the details, but on the basis of what the minister said it appears that prior to today this country required an advance veto on the reprocess-
December 19, 1977

ing of spent fuel by consumer countries. However, now, concerning European Community countries, we have abandoned the advance veto and require consultation only. This means that if Canadian rules are broken, our only remedy is to cut off future supplies-and that may well be too late. It will be action taken after the damage is done, because today the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated his intention to give away our power to act before the damage is done.
The irony of this dilettante record in foreign affairs is that it was accomplished by a government which claimed some special competence in international matters. Perhaps that was part of the problem, because part of what went wrong in foreign policy, as in so many other fields, is that the political operatives in the Prime Minister's office were granted a power which was well beyond their competence, and that caused chaos and confusion in the conduct of international affairs. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, the worst thing about what the government has done in foreign affairs is that it has destroyed the work of Lester P. Pearson. Our party is committed to regain for Canada the respect of the international economic community, which respect must come from clearly stated convictions and competent leadership. Essentially, foreign policy is the means by which we try to maintain our independence and our liberties. Even though it must reflect our domestic concerns and aim at maintaining our security, it must also reflect the character, values and ideals of our country. As a medium-strength power, we are not called upon to recreate the world in our image. However, Canadian policy can aim at attaining an international context in which we can pursue our own interests and promote our own ideals.
When we look at the world today, we note that there is no lack of serious problems. Some concern specific areas, like the Middle East and South Africa; others concern the whole world. A brief list could include the arms race, nuclear proliferation, food and energy shortages, the widening gap between developed and developing countries, the evolution of China and China-U.S.S.R. relations, and various economic problems, among which are world inflation, unemployment and an unbalanced international monetary situation.
We cannot, as a country, address all these problems on our own, but they can be met through Canada acting in alliance with other nations with which we share common approaches. That should occur not only in the types of arrangement the Secretary of State for External Affairs indicated today, but also through NATO, through the Commonwealth, through the Francophone community.
I think we have to accept-certainly it is the position of this party-that NATO must continue to be seen as a filler of Canadian foreign and defence policy. Our national security is dependent upon there being no war between the super-powers. The key area where the stability of the super-powers needs to be maintained is Europe. We have a role to play here, a role
External Affairs
out of self-interest in our own security but a role, also, as a country which subscribes to certain values that are in conflict in the world. We must be prepared to play our part in defending and maintaining those values.
Moreover, as this House knows, Canadian participation in the alliance provides the basic diplomatic infrastructure for more general consultation and economic co-operation between member states. Naturally, sir, we are similarly committed to the principle of continental defence for North America.
In this party, we have always advocated a very active role for Canada in the Commonwealth, a role particularly relating to matters of aid and development, but also in the unique consultative mechanism which the Commonwealth provides based upon the common heritage of its members. Similarly, we think it very important for a country like Canada to continue to pursue efforts to develop links with countries of the Francophone community. That is, perhaps, the most dramatic way in which Canada can give evidence, internationally, of the richness and diversity of our Canadian heritage. There are important opportunities in both the political and commercial areas for Canada to pursue policies related to strengthening our ties with the Francophone world.
I want to speak briefly today about Canada's role within the United Nations. We think our role in that international body must be based upon active participation in the areas where we are competent, such as in matters of food production, the sea, telecommunications, economic development co-operation and international peacekeeping. In order to be more effective, Canada must'give more priority to co-ordinating the activities of federal government departments, provinces and non-governmental organizations affected by international decisions.
Certain reforms to the United Nations are essential. I think all of us accept and honour that institution in terms of what it sets out to accomplish. We are blind to reality in the world, however, if we fail to realize it is going to be necessary for us, as a respected nation in the body, to speak of the need for reform in some of the functions of the United Nations. There is growing public skepticism-particularly in the western democracies-about the ability of the United Nations to deal with conflicts which arise daily or to enforce decisions that have been taken.
The minister made a very strong speech, at the General Assembly this fall, highly critical of many aspects of the United Nations. It is Fine to make that kind of speech, but he is the minister responsible for the foreign policy of this government and it would be much more helpful if Canada took positive initiatives within the United Nations to help reform the organization.
I should like to suggest to the minister and the government that the following initiatives should be included. There should be strict rules for the giving of United Nations' aid so as to remove it as much as possible from the political arena. In order to maintain the credibility and strength of the organization, we think there has to be a restructuring of the finances of the organization.

December 19, 1977
External Affairs
We think Canada could take the initiative toward the phasing out of the Committee on Colonization unless that committee is prepared seriously to examine decolonization by various countries which have not undergone sufficient scrutiny in the past, including countries in southern Africa and behind the Iron Curtain.
This party believes it is of fundamental importance to restore respect for the United Nations, particularly in the western democracies. We must make dramatic moves, and we must be among the leaders to move to reverse the growing cynicism toward that world body and to strengthen commitment to the purposes inscribed in the charter.

As concerns international development, I believe that for the rest of this century, our greatest challenge will be to establish new relations among wealthy countries and developing nations. Experience has already amply shown that traditional resource transfer methods have not succeeded in creating a true development momentum. Low productivity is at the heart of this problem. In the interests of wealthy and poor countries alike, we must boost productivity throughout the world, and the best way to meet this objective is to stabilize the price of goods, lower tariff barriers, increase capital flow to developing countries and improve technological transfers.

The Secretary of State for External Affairs spoke of some of these problems. I think it important for us to bear in mind that, despite the interest that Canada, both at the government level and among individuals, has indicated in international development in recent years, our performance has been sluggish. Our aid has declined from .56 per cent to .46 per cent of the gross national product in the past year, rather than moving toward the .7 per cent of GNP as requested by the United Nations. Committed Canadian leadership could help significantly to develop better negotiating attitudes in international forums searching for new arrangements in the field of trade, commodities and credit which would lead to an improved sharing of the world's wealth.
Mr. Speaker, I see you are about to rise. I wonder if I might have the consent of the House to continue?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Carry on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Because so many members want to speak in this debate, and because there have been certain discussions,
I wonder if Your Honour would ascertain whether the House would be willing to suspend private members' hour and allow the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) to carry on.


Mr. Caflk:: Mr. Speaker, it is true there have been some informal discussions in respect of this matter. It would be quite agreeable to this side to suspend private members' hour for this evening.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I feel I should ask if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent to suspend private members' hour?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps, before I give the floor to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), I might give notice to the House of the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 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 Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen)-Royal Canadian Mounted Police-Alleged illegal operations of Bank of Montreal in Vancouver-Request for report of investigation; the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert)-Manpower-Bilingual positions-Reason some employees do not receive bonus; the hon. member for Montreal-Bourassa (Mr. Trudel)-Canadian Broadcasting Corporation-Reason publicity of federal department not broadcast.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Jamieson:
That this House takes note of the present state and future prospects of Canada's relationships with the other nations of the world.
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of myself and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I express appreciation for the indulgence of the House in allowing speeches to be a little longer than usual.
I was speaking about some of the areas in which Canada's committed attitude toward international development could lead to very real improvements. I think we have to recognize that international co-operation in the world today is no longer a matter of wishful thinking; it has become a prerequisite for peace and stability. Economic growth, in this context, must have as its goal the provision of minimum standards for all peoples in the world. We are not merely advocating the redistribution of a static world income. The higher incomes that are sought by some of the poorer countries through commodity arrangements and better access to the markets of
December 19, 1977

rich countries would signal the potential of significant growth in world economic activity, with the poor nations sharing much more equitably in the increment of that growth. That, in our view, is the basis of a realistic policy for Canada to pursue with a new, integrated international development strategy.
My colleagues and I think there are several important changes which have to be made regarding the operation of the principal instrument of Canadian international trade activity-CIDA. CIDA now has responsibility for over $1 billion a year, and the agency is simply not receiving the kind of administrative or cabinet leadership it requires. For a start- one which we hope will be made immediately-we think there should be an independent management study of CIDA's operation. I wish to emphasize that it should be an independent study.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We also think the government should give the most serious possible consideration to the likelihood that CIDA would be very much improved by having a minister with special responsibilities to supervise CIDA, one who would co-ordinate aid, trade and monetary policies, report to parliament and increase public participation. It is noted with some irony in this House that we have a Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mrs. Campagnolo), but we do not have a minister of state responsible for an agency which is spending in excess of $1 billion a year-and spending it in a way which has caused controversy among Canadians, including those well informed about, and sympathetic to, the needs of international development.
We think, also, there should be modifications to Canadian tax law and other steps taken to encourage Canadian companies to participate in international trade and to form consortia to help develop the economies of third world countries. At the same time, we think those ventures would bring substantial benefit to Canadian industry.
There are several other matters to which I wish to direct attention. Like all hon. members, we on this side welcomed President Sadat's courageous peace mission to Israel and we are following with cautious optimism the discussions under way in Cairo between Egypt and the representatives of Israel. Events appear to be moving rapidly, and it seems that Prime Minister Begin was pleased with the reception accorded him in Washington over the weekend. Now, as he heads for Cairo and his own meetings with President Sadat, I am sure that all members of this House wish him well in these critical negotiations which appear to be proceeding with real hope for a reasonable peace settlement which takes into account all the critical factors in a complex but fundamentally important area of the Middle East.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: As the minister did, I want to turn to the question of South Africa. As all hon. members know, this
External Affairs
party has consistently opposed apartheid as a profound violation of human rights. In the interests of equality of opportunity within South Africa and peace and security on the African continent, we believe the South African government should move toward the establishment of equal rights and political liberty for all persons, regardless of colour.
There is a great deal to be done in South Africa and through southern Africa generally to institute reforms through peaceful means. Most people living in that part of the world desire evolution, not revolution, in their drive toward freedom and equality. We think it essential that solutions to existing problems be found within South Africa. Nonetheless, the free world must continue to communicate its concern for justice and security in that troubled part of the globe.
In that context, I am pleased to see, and certainly support in principle, some of the steps which the Secretary of State for External Affairs outlined today. Again, we shall have to make the closest possible study of the implication of the measures referred to by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He indicated he was taking steps to phase out some-I think I am correct in thinking he said "some"-of the government-sponsored commercial activities in South Africa. He said "all of them," but then he made an exception in relation to government offices in Pretoria.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: That is our regular embassy.


Charles Joseph Clark: That relates to non-commercial activity. I am pleased to have that clarification from the minister. It will be important for us to know precisely what the implications of that action are, and I am sure the minister will want to furnish us with the details of those activities. It will also be interesting to us to learn what are the implications of any changes with relation to Commonwealth preference to which he alluded in his speech. As we study these implications, one of those matters to which we will want to pay close attention is to ensure that their negative impact will not fall more particularly upon residents of that country who are black. We think that would be a most counterproductive approach to Canadian policy, as we are sure the minister will agree, and it is something we would want to consider with great care.
With respect to the undertaking concerning Namibia, the extent of the undertaking-unless I am wrong-is to investigate the impact of Canadian activities there. We in my party think that kind of investigation is long past due and we encourage the government to carry on the investigation. Again, we would wish to get the details of any action which the government may undertake in that regard. I believe the minister spoke of establishing a possible code of conduct for Canadian companies which might be involved there. He said there would be extensive negotiation with the companies concerned so there would be some certainty that the code would be a realistic one.
With that reservation and the others I have made, particularly concerning the impact of what has been undertaken here today-specifically with regard to its impact on blacks in that part of the world-we generally support and welcome the
2008

December 19, 1977
External Affairs
initiative which was announced today by the Secretary of State.
Another matter I wish to raise concerns respect internationally for human rights. The fact is, there is widespread disregard, even contempt, for human rights in many parts of the world today. Amnesty International was awarded the 1977 Nobel Peace Prize. It is reported as follows:
Government-sanctioned torture is still practiced in a horrifying number of states, in spite of the newly adopted United Nations declaration against all forms of tortures.
This degradation of the human spirit is totally unacceptable to most Canadians. Through the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker)-whose work, by the way, was one of the major factors in generating the first full government-sponsored debate on foreign policy in this Elouse in 17 years- this party and this parliament demonstrated our determination to protect human rights in Canada. I refer to the passage of the Canadian Bill of Rights. We fully support the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights and covenants on social, political and economic rights.
Where religious and ethnic communities are denied civil or political rights, or are refused social, economic or cultural justice, we firmly support their demand for justice, and naturally endorse the human rights provisions of the Helsinki Pact. We also support and endorse the defence by Canada of the relevant guarantees of the 1977 Belgrade review conference. I make the point to the minister, and I am sure he will agree, that it is not enough to defend rights at a conference. Canadian foreign policy must give more priority to the protection and the advancement of human rights internationally. The Canadian government, in its relations with foreign governments, should raise on every possible occasion the question of the reunification of families and the persecution of non-violent dissidents.
The Canadian government should work constantly to ensure that racial and religious groups are fully guaranteed their basic rights, including freedom of emigration and equality of political expression. Finally, there should be no moving away whatever from the Canadian policy of admitting victims of foreign oppression to this country as refugees. We believe that forcing people to live in refugee camps on a continuing basis is absolutely contrary to fundamental human rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Now I would speak briefly on the question of arms controls. The spectre of nuclear war is unquestionably the most terrifying potential threat to the world. At least six nations now possess atomic nuclear capability. Two dozen or more are now on the threshold of producing, as a by-product of their energy programs, the starting point for several thousand atomic bombs if they so wish. That is the situation as it presently exists.
Bad as the present situation is, it is bound to become worse as nuclear capacity spreads. The possibility of accidents, mis-

interpretation of orders, theft of nuclear weapons, nuclear terrorism and blackmail, would be greatly multiplied in a proliferated nuclear world. Moreover, a significant element of unpredictability is introduced into the system of mutual deterrence by the inclusion of many more nuclear powers, each with different geopolitical ambitions and with different military and technological capabilities.
The UN special session on disarmament, in the spring of 1978, provides one more opportunity to make some progress in this fundamentally important area. We in this parliament would be interested in knowing what precise proposals Canada might submit or support at that session. Indeed, I think I can speak for my colleagues here when I say there would be a disposition among the members of this party to be involved in the advance preparation of those proposals. We think the government of Canada has a profound obligation to the people of this country to do everything possible to play a useful role in the arms issue, an issue which affects every individual on this planet.
The minister pointed out-we have all remarked on it-that this is the first time in some 17 years that the House of Commons has set aside two days to debate foreign policy. There have been other debates on particular issues, very often at the instigation of this party in opposition; for it is acknowledged by all of us that this debate today on foreign policy is a very valuable interlude in the affairs of parliament. But the point has to be made, and made very clearly, that international issues should be a much more regular part of Canadian consideration. That would be good for the substance of policy and for decisions to be made of policy, because individual Canadians, as has been shown on many occasions, are much more forthright on issues like discrimination and nuclear limitation than this government and its advisers have proven to be. So not only would it be good for the substance of policy, but it would broaden the frequency of consideration by parliament. I suggest it would also be good for the country.
There was a time, looking back not many years, certainly not as many as 20, when foreign policy in Canada was a major outlet for the idealism of a whole generation of Canadians. People living in different corners of the country who were separated by other matters nonetheless came together as Canadians to deal with matters of international policy and the role that Canada should play in the world. International relations and foreign policy can be a positive, uniting influence among Canadians.
Before that can happen, Mr. Speaker, foreign policy in Canada has to move out into the open. That, unfortunately, is not happening now. It is not simply a matter of debate in this House being limited. There are other signs of too much secrecy relating to development of foreign policy. In his latest report, the Auditor General exposed questionable payments of $508,000 last year made by the Department of External Affairs to landlords in host countries. When my colleague the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) tried to seek the names of those countries, the government refused to name them. The government also refuses to release CIDA's country

reports which would enable parliamentarians to judge just how effectively the $1.1 billion of taxpayers' money is being spent. This government's obsession with secrecy has been carried so far that even the Treasury Board study on the effects of CIDA aid, which is tied to the Canadian economy, is withheld from public inspection.
That has to change, Mr. Speaker. One way to change it would be to introduce and to act upon the legislation proposed by my colleague from Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) to open more broadly access to information in this country. But another way-in our view the two should go together-would be to establish a broadly mandated House of Commons committee on foreign affairs. We should extend the mandate which exists now to ensure that there is an opposition vicechairman for that committee and that the committee has the necessary research and staff support. We think a committee of that kind would have to have a regular mandate to review the annual report of the minister. It should be empowered to hold meetings across the country and to allow the widest possible participation by Canadians who are worried about their world and their country but who today are denied adequate opportunity to express their concerns or to make an impact upon that policy.
The members of this House know that all Canadians have a very vital stake in peace among nations and in the degree of progress which we find internationally. We in this party want to return this country to a position where our role in international affairs can be a great source of pride for Canadians and also a great source of creativity, something which once again challenges the Canadian imagination. We believe if that happens it, in turn, can contribute to greater unity as a nation.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to commend the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) for the interesting, clear and cogent manner in which they have commenced this debate. I am well aware, as I imagine almost all members are, that international affairs do not command the absorbing interest that some other matters do, be it in parliament, in the media or perhaps among the public of Canada. Nevertheless, as has been said, it is a subject of deep concern to the survival of the human race, to the future of our children, grandchildren, and perhaps to ourselves. We must be able to solve international problems and to secure lasting peace. It is, therefore, very fitting that we should devote some of our time to this subject.
There are a number of subjects on which I should like to concentrate. The first of these is disarmament. In her excellent work entitled "The Game of Disarmament", the distinguished Swedish expert, Alva Myrdal, wrote:
Meanwhile we have to do everything in our power to campgaign for public enlightenment. The present competitive escalation is a flagrant miscalculation and it is endangering the security of all of us. Security can only be found by reversing the trend, by beginning and continuing to diminish vast stocks of arms, both nuclear and conventional, that the nations of the world have.
Such a strategy means, in the first instance, facing the arms race as the major international, moral dilemma of our time.
External Affairs
As she points out, Mr. Speaker, it has been created solely by mankind, but it is at least within our power to solve it. As Mrs. Myrdal says, the world is hovering at the edge of an abyss, driven there by man's own unreason. She refers to the arms race as "global folly". There are few people who know more about it than she, since she has represented her country at innumerable disarmament conferences, international, European and bilateral.
All countries are now buying greater and greater insecurity at higher and higher cost. In her book, Mrs. Myrdal refers to the $300 billion being spent annually on the arms race. Some put this figure even higher, at $400 billion. The amount spent is of the same order of magnitude as the total income of the poorer countries which comprise more than half of mankind.
The Stockholm International Peace Institute, known as SIPRI, represents another type of comparison. Thus, for example, world military expenditure is greater than either world expenditure on education or health: it is 15 times larger than official aid provided to the underdeveloped countries. It is equivalent to the gross national product of all the countries in Africa, the Middle East and South Asia.
Immense scientific skill and research are devoted to building up the power of nations so that, to use the jargon, they may be able to overkill each other many times over. I point out to the House that arms strength is achieved at the sacrifice of social welfare. This applies not only to nuclear weapons but to the so-called conventional weapons which have become more and more sophisticated and more and more numerous through the world, including the poorer sections of the world sometimes known as the Third World. I shall return later to the most recent turn in the armaments race. I think it is a sinister turn. That is, the proposal to produce neutron bombs.
Every government tends to justify participation in the arms race as being necessary to guard its security. But that is an illusion. What makes the arms race a global folly is that all countries are now buying greater and greater insecurity, at higher cost. In fact, the evidence indicates the stepping up of armaments leads to a decrease in safety against attacks. As defence expenditures mount, it becomes harder to obtain financing for civilian purposes such as health, education, housing and other kinds of social needs. Public expenditures for such things would, if well planned, raise the productivity of labour and provide a future remedial course to individuals in society.
There is not only a question of danger and the security of human beings. There is the question of the waste of human resources, the danger that militarization of countries will undermine the morality of people who think in terms of "real politik" entirely outside the realm of moral precepts carried on in terms of power which they use to justify the use of violence and threats of violence together with large-scale spying, bribing and lying in high places. This, surely, must have a debilitating outcome on our social order and respect for ethical rule.
2010

December 19, 1977
External Affairs
To deal with the super-powers first, Mr. Speaker, an article by an eminent scholar, Jerome B. Wiesner, who is very expert in this whole field, is mentioned at page 28 of Mrs. Myrdal's book. She writes:
Ever since shortly after World War II, the military power of the United States has been steadily increasing. Throughout the same period the national security of the U.S. has been rapidly and inexorably diminishing... From the Soviet point of view the picture is similar but much worse. The military power of the U.S.S.R. has been steadily increasing since it became an atomic power in 1949. Soviet national security, however, has been steadily decreasing.
There are those who like to make out that the quantitative growth of armaments, conventional and nuclear, has been the prerogative entirely of the U.S.S.R. Our cold war warriors are not slow to remind us of this and to suggest that it is necessary for us to build up the kill-power of the United States and her allies to meet this threat. What these people never tell us is the extent to which the U.S. has already been building up qualitative superiority in weapons of destruction and is continuing to do so.
It is sometimes said that possession or superiority of arms is a necessary deterrent, but it goes far beyond any power necessary for deterrence. However, once those super-powers have the capacity to destroy each other, a further attempt to secure superiority is the building up of an overcapacity. The overkill capacity of each of the super-powers is far beyond enough.
Jules Moch, who for a long time was a leading French spokesman for disarmament, made a striking calculation in his book "Destin de la Pale 1969." He said that, taking into consideration how many tons of explosives are needed to kill the average number of people in each square kilometre, stocks of nuclear weapons already then available were sufficient to annihilate the total world population 690 times over. Today, if the U.S.S.R. decided to risk retaliation, they could launch an attack on the United States with intercontinental missiles and bombers. This time, the number of American casualties would be extremely high-100 million casualties are estimated. The situation in the U.S.S.R. is even worse. The question that has to be asked is: What is enough?
We must reduce the forces of the super-powers and their allies. But this is only the first step. What is really needed is the total abandonment of nuclear weapons. It is true that the main responsibility rests upon the super-powers, but all powers have a measure of responsibility: all powers are participating in the arms race, including even the Third World nations.
What is necessary to be done? Some achievements have, in fact, already been made-more particularly, the partial test ban and the non-proliferation agreement. The test ban must become a total test ban. I listened to the minister's account of the safeguards we are going to attach to the export of uranium. I hope he was not being overly optimistic. The non-proliferation agreement must be strengthened. We must pursue our efforts to attract people in governments to recognize their true interests. We must make it clear that the production of arms is not, in fact, the avenue for increased production and employment. This is not the case.
It would, indeed, be perfectly possible for people living in a sensible world to work together to provide alternate useful forms of employment. We must aim at a strategy of limitation and reduction of specific arms. It is useless to talk about general and complete disarmament at this time. If a few hundred bombs are all that is needed for a deterrent, how did it happen that we needed to produce more than this number? The number of nuclear weapons must be drastically reduced. It is not, however, only in the area of nuclear weapons that disarmament is required: there are more and more sophisticated conventional weapons being produced.
A report by the United Nations groups of experts on the social consequences of disarmament in 1972 stated that controls over proliferation have to be improved, strengthened and applied to nuclear facilities in all countries. We have signed treaties-the last one I am aware of is the Geneva protocol of 1925-to prevent the use of cruel methods of warfare. This is something that goes far back in human history. However, we did not carry it out. As I am going to point out, war has become more and more brutal.
In the interests of humanity, chemical weapons and napalm should be banned, along with the bombing of open cities. Biological means of warfare have been outlawed, but the same rules of war have not been applied to chemical means of warfare. They should be. The problems concerning inspection, which made it difficult to secure disarmament before, are no longer insuperable problems because of the far greater means of detection now available to the countries of the world. There is a tremendous need for a great deal more openness in this field.
Some advance has been made under the Helsinki Agreement, whereby military manoeuvres by different powers are attended by the representatives of other powers. It is not to be suggested that this step is a very long one or a very potent one, but it is something to create more confidence and remove fear. It is something which needs to be advanced, expanded, and changed. No doubt there are many other steps which have to be taken, and no doubt the working out of these steps is not a simple or straightforward matter. It is something that has to be done if the fears of mutual destruction are to be removed.
Members of this House are well aware that a special assembly of the United Nations has been called for May or June, 1978. The nations of the world will gather to deal with this question of disarmament. The chances are that the conference will be much improved by the fact that France and the United States are participating in it. They intend to participate fully, so it is to be hoped it will be more effective. I am not sure whether the Chinese will attend. It is possible that country will attend, but every other country in the world will be taking part.
I should like to suggest to the minister and the government that we should not take our participation in this conference lightly. We should talk with like-minded countries, such as Sweden and the Netherlands, in regard to the steps which

December 19, 1977

should be taken. We should be planning to consult and inform Canadians in order for there to be public participation in the process. For a number of recent international conferences, the Government of Canada has provided for the presence of both parliamentary observers and non-governmental agencies. This is an important aspect in ensuring the conference is taken seriously by Canadians. I commend the hon. Leader of the Opposition for what he said on this matter. It is not just a matter for a few bureaucrats in the Department of External Affairs or any other department. It is something in which conscience, concern and interest in what is being looked at should be understood. The fact that some members of the House attend as observers may not be an ideal setup, but it is a useful one. They cannot go to these conferences without learning a geat deal. The non-governmental agencies should be encouraged to attend, because they are the ones who are idealistic.
An hon. member during the debate today indicated that the younger generation used to have a great idealistic interest in international affairs. It is safe to assure the House that the situation today is the same. Every effort should be made to brief and instruct those who will be attending in various capacities. There is no point in going to the conferences if they are not provided with the necessary information. Often they have an interest, but it cannot be satisfied. Also I hope senior members of the government will be involved in this conference.
Now I should like to turn to a specific aspect of disarmament in which it is necessary for Canada to make up its mind and speak out clearly. I am referring to the proposed production of a neutron bomb. The implication of this new weapon is frightening indeed. President Carter has indicated his intention to consult his allies. I do not know whether that has been done yet, but as recently as August 1 the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is quoted as saying in an interview in the Toronto Daily Star that he has neither analysed the neutron bomb nor discussed it with President Carter.
A short while ago the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Danson) told the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), in reply to a question concerning the neutron bomb that, "As to the neutron bomb I would think that the hon. member knows as much about it as I do." This is an extraordinary thing. This demonstrates the irresponsibility of the Canadian government and almost indicates a degree of incredible indifference to a subject which is in the minds of people across the world, particularly in Europe. We are involved in Europe. We are part of NATO. There are Canadian troops in the very areas where neutron bombs might be used. It is time for the government to make up its mind on where it stands.
The neutron bomb can kill people with radiation, without too much damage to property. Neutron bombs are small, tactical weapons which carry a spray of lethal radiation that is more effective than tactical nuclear weapons. Radiation deaths come quickly if people are near the bomb. If they are within two kilometers, they do not die immediately. They linger around for a week and die slowly with convulsions, vomiting and diarrhoea. The result is that they die in great pain.
External Affairs
Some people think the neutron bomb is a good idea. Senator Stennis of Mississippi said that the idea of having this weapon is the best news in years, although Senator Heinz of Pennsylvania said that it is a weapon which is even more repugnant than usual. The opponents of the neutron bomb argue that it is particularly inhuman. It may save property, but it does not save lives. It is a form of chemical and bilogical warfare which historically has outraged civilization throughout history.
The obvious thing is that if it can be produced by the United States, it can also be produced by the U.S.S.R. The United States Atomic Energy Commission tested the bomb as long ago as 1963. For some reason or another, no production was proceeded with. It is being talked about now, and President Carter will make up his mind after consultation with his allies. An analysis of the weapons program by the United States arms control and disarmament agency found that the production of the weapon would have a deleterious effect on negotiations with the Soviet Union and other countries. The foreign minister of Sweden has indicated that it is an exceedingly cruel weapon.
Professor Linus Pauling, a former Nobel prize winner from the United States, has indicated that he believes the manufacture of the neutron bomb and its deployment are a temptation for military leaders to use it. The employment of such nuclear weapons will almost certainly lead to a world war in which the terrible hydrogen bombs stockpiled in nuclear arsenals will be brought into use.
Professor Eric Burhop of Britain, president of the World Federation of Scientific Workers, has said that the decision to develop the neutron bomb represents a further step in the escalation of the arms race and will make agreement on measures on disarmament more difficult. It is, however, the weapon par excellence to take over the industries of another country because it kills people in other countries and leaves the factories standing.
Lord Chalfont of Britain, who is a military writer, and although a member of the Labour cabinet is now a stronger supporter of the Conservative party in Great Britain, is certainly not an anti-militarist, has said that the effect of the use of the neutron bomb would be to blur the distinction between nuclear and conventional weapons, and that once the threshold is crossed there will be no certainty of control.
Professor Feld of the U.S.A. has said that by contributing to the illusion that nuclear weapons are usable, by eroding the barrier against any first use of a nuclear weapon, and by increasing reliance on them and lowering the threshold of their introduction into possible conflict, the deployment of neutron bombs could greatly increase the chances of a nuclear war.
The Economist, which is hardly thought of as a radical sort of paper, says the bomb will kill those within its range and result in a creeping, cruel death for many others. The American writer, Mr. Norman Cousins, introduces another aspect. According to him, the use of the bomb will cause genetic damage to survivors, which means that human beings yet

December 19, 1977
External Affairs
unborn will pay a fearsome price. These unborn children through genetic degeneration may inherit all sorts of defects.
The neutron bomb poses a moral issue: do we have the right to condemn future generations, and have we the right to use the neutron to declare war against humanity? Military experts differ on this question, and I am not particularly surprised that that should be the case, but I have always imagined that on a matter as vital as this we must think things out for ourselves and not leave them exclusively to the judgment of military people.
There are one or two other subjects that I want to touch on very lightly. I join the others who have spoken in this debate in rejoicing that a serious negotiation is going on and that there appear to be real prospects of a breakthrough. In particular we wish the leaders of Egypt and Israel well in the historic task they have undertaken. We think Canada should make it clear that if Canadian assistance is needed as a buffer, or if our peacekeeping force is needed in establishing stability in that area, we would be ready to participate. Just as continuing hostility in the Middle East would be an incalculable evil, a negotiated peace would be an incalculable gain, not only for the nations involved but for the world as a whole.
I heard what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said on the subject of South Africa. It seemed, although we did not have time to examine what he said in detail, that he has moved a long way toward the point of view we have taken for a long time, namely, that it is hypocritical for us constantly to condemn apartheid or inhumanity, to talk about sanctions, and then to do absolutely nothing about restraining commercial activities between Canada and South Africa. If, as it sounded, the minister has moved to that view, then I think he should be commended. I imagine it was about ten years ago that we started talking about this first, and it shows that if you keep on talking about something worth-while, you finally get some results.
I should like to end with one other reference, one which has already been made, that is, the necessity to participate fully in the development of the new economic order and to take necessary steps to assist nations in the Third World to expand their trade. We appreciate the fact that efforts along these lines have been made in the North-South conference, largely and substantially aided and helped by the former secretary of state for external affairs, but many of the proposals made were found not to be acceptable to some of the countries concerned. However, this new economic order which is tied in with the question of disarmament is one of vital concern to human beings all over the world, and we have, by reason of our high degree of skills and the productive nature of our economy, the opportunity to help. I think it is not much good to say that we cannot do it because we are in trouble ourselves. We have nothing like the trouble, the malnutrition and abject poverty that affect many nations throughout the world. I believe that if we assist in building a more prosperous world through the expansion of a new economic order, we shall help to solve our own problems.
[Mr. Brewin.l


Mr. Frank Maine (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works and Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Mr. Speaker, in this subject matter which is so vast I have chosen to deal with a very narrow and specific area and to outline and highlight some of the action being taken so far as development in the Third World is concerned.
In a move toward assisting development in Third World countries through science and technology, the United Nations has decided to hold a world conference on science and technology for development, UNCSTED, in 1979.
A United Nations conference concerning this general subject area was previously held in 1963, (UNCSAT I). Subsequently, in December, 1970, the UN General Assembly requested the Secretary-General to evaluate the implication of science and technology for development, and specifically to assess the results achieved within the UN system since the first conference. The Secretary-General underlined the need to expand co-operation in the field of science and technology. One result of his reply was the proposal to hold UNCSTED in 1979.
This decision in turn reflects the conviction by developing countries that science and technology, in its broadest sense, represents a key factor in their national development strategies. Policy issues, rather than technical questions in science and technology, are to be the topic of discussion at the conference. That is to say, concrete examples of solutions to numerous socioeconomic problems through science and technology will be examined.
The main objectives of UNCSTED are: first of all, to adopt concrete decisions on ways and means of applying science and technology in establishing a new international economic order, as a strategy aimed at economic and social development within a time frame; second, to strengthen the technological capacity of developing countries so as to enable them to apply science and technology to their own development.
The third objective is to adopt effective means for the utilization of scientific and technological potentials in the solution of problems of development of national, regional, and global significance, especially for the benefit of developing countries. The fourth objective is to provide instruments of co-operation to developing countries in the utilization of science and technology for solving socioeconomic problems which cannot be solved by individual action, in accordance with national priorities.
The conference agenda as recommended by the United Nations Economic and Social Council consists of four major parts. The first is science and technology for development, consisting of technology transfer, the integration of science and technology in socioeconomic development, and new science and technology for overcoming obstacles to development.
The second is institutional arrangements and new forms of international co-operation in the application of science and technology, consisting of the building up and expansion of

institutional systems for science and technology in developing countries. It also consists of research and development in industrialized countries, the exchange of science and technology information and experiences, the strengthening of international co-operation in the field of science and technology, and the promotion of co-operation among developing countries.
The third is utilization of the existing United Nations system and other international agencies, and the fourth is science and technology for the future.
Thus far, topics to be discussed will include food, including production, transportation, storage and distribution; energy, with the emphasis on renewable resources; natural resources, including finding, exploitation and development of mineral and fibre resources; industrialization, with emphasis on manufacturing industry; and finally, tropical diseases, primarily from a medical standpoint.
The value of UNCSTED will depend to a great extent upon the preparatory work which is now under way. Thus far the bulk of the conceptual preparation for UNCSTED has been done by the UN advisory committee on science and technology for development, a body of non-governmental experts. Responsibility for the over-all policy direction has been given to the UN committee on science and technology for development, a body of national government representatives. At its first meeting, which was held in January of 1977, guidelines for the conference were set, and Mr. J. F. daCosta of Brazil was appointed secretary-general.
Canada has taken an active part in preparing for the conference. In order to provide direction and co-ordination of the many national activities, the federal government has established two major interdepartmental committees. Over-all policy direction is provided by a policy committee chaired by the Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs. The day-today co-ordination is provided by a steering committee chaired by a senior official of the same department. Major support of these committees comes from the Ministry of State for Science and Technology and the Canadian International Development Agency.
One activity now under way is the production of a national paper for presentation at the conference in 1979. Presently under the chairmanship of the Ministry of State for Science and Technology, the paper describes the present science and technology component of Canada's aid programs.
It also focuses on areas of Canadian expertise of potential value to developing countries and illustrates, with selected examples, where and how Canada has applied science and technology to development.
Although UNCSTED will be primarily an inter-governmental conference, contributions of non-governmental sectors will be of vital importance. Contacts are being made with universities, business, labour, the Royal Society of Canada and with SCITEC.
Presently the University of Guelph is involved in eight international projects, and I would like to outline them very quickly. The first is a triticale project in which research is now
External Affairs
being done on this new hybrid cereal at the International Centre for Maize-Wheat Research in Mexico. It will be useful in areas of short-growing crop seasons and drought, prevalent in areas such as Iran and Iraq where food scarcity is a major concern. The University of Guelph is presently taking an active part in this particular crop research, working specifically on the winter type of triticale. Our Canadian climate provides an excellent environment for such research.
The second is a tripanosomiasis project. This fatal disease carried by the tse-tse fly is the major factor which limits cattle production in Africa. As protein deficiency is a major problem to the people of this area, finding a cure for this disease will greatly improve the nutritional standards of the area. The University of Guelph is presently involved in this four-year project, training people from Kenya at the university.
The third is the cassava project. Cassava is the major food crop in most tropical regions of Africa and Asia. With the main centre of IDRC in Colombia, South America, the International Centre for Tropical Agriculture, the University of Guelph has now completed its five-year joint involvement in the project. Involving a dozen departments at the University of Guelph, researchers examined worldwide distribution as well as marketing of cassava. The University of Guelph was instrumental in providing unique equipment and expertise.
The fourth and fifth are apiculture projects. Beekeeping projects are now taking place in both Kenya and Sri Lanka. These projects, financed by CIDA, are now in their second successful phase. This establishes not only local enterprises in the areas but also serves to increase food production. Professor Gordon Townsend of the University of Guelph is a world expert in this area.
The sixth is the Ghana project. This five-year project, twinned with the University of Ghana, involves faculty members from Guelph doing research and teaching on site in Ghana. Students from Ghana in turn study at the University of Guelph so that they may return and staff their own areas.
The seventh is the University of Malaysia project which involves establishing a veterinary college at the University of Malaysia. This is a four-year project financed by CIDA.
The eighth project is the Jamaica project. In the Caribbean research and training is being done in the pork and pig industry.
The University of Guelph is now finalizing a project with the University of Campinas, Brazil. This project, financed by CIDA, will involve training of faculty in the food science departments. Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight p.m.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.

December 19, 1977
External Affairs


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Francis William (Frank) Maine: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying when I spoke prior to six o'clock, the University of Guelph has been involved with CIDA in several projects illustrating how our country is helping to transfer science and technology for development to the developing world.
In conclusion I should like to wrap up my comments by saying that the University of Guelph is also involved in a host of short-term projects in conjunction with CIDA. Specifically, numerous staff members have been asked to be advisers in several projects in Zambia and the Middle East.
I trust that the appropriate use of science and technology in contributing to the solution of problems in developing countries and in complying with their needs, has now been made evident. In conjunction with people from developing countries, we have aimed at training their people in order that they may return to their own countries and staff their own areas in the near future. In other words, we are helping them to help themselves. Although they were encouraged to do as much work as was possible in their own developing countries, often the highly technical equipment and expertise involved made it necessary that the research be carried out in Canada.
Projects such as those undertaken by the University of Guelph represent what can be done by our non-governmental sector. That is why it is essential that, at UNCSTED, Canada be represented by non-governmental organization delegates as well as governmental delegates. Through the involvement of the Department of External Affairs and MOSST and specific departments such as agriculture and fisheries with the scientific community both directly and through SCITEC, the Royal Society of Canada, and possibly the Science Council of Canada, arrangements can be made for NGO contributions in the 1979 conference. It would be a tragedy-no, a travesty of justice-to see other than the fullest of co-operation between these two communities in this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, our debate takes place at a time when peace initiatives in the Middle East are occurring at a furious pace. The moves by President Sadat and Premier Begin have been called daredevil diplomacy. Now we learn that these daredevils are going to hold their second face to face meeting on Christmas Day. Can there be any greater Christmas present to the whole world than the continued movement forward to peace by these two courageous leaders? If it takes daredevil diplomacy to bring peace to an area that has so long been the reflection of the tragic vision of mankind, let us have more daredevil diplomacy.
To the Arab and Israeli diplomats who are listening to this debate I say it is not my intention to tell you how to solve the vexatious problems of the Middle East; I only want to tell you

they must be solved for the good of the world. Take back to your governments the wish, the insistence, the demand of the Canadian people that this fresh momentum for peace not be lost. The courage of Sadat and Begin has inspired the world. Our hopes have been raised that there is a way to extend justice to Jew and Arab alike. Do not allow the promise of this moment to be lost.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we must speak of Canada's responsibility in foreign policy. This debate will be useless if we offer only rhetoric to one another, if we advance impossible proposals, if we use it as a smokescreen to cover the deep divisions at home. Somehow, through this debate, we must strike a note of realism concerning Canada's place in a world that is undergoing great change. We must balance the strength and potential of Canada with the fact that we are divided in so many ways internally. We must balance our good reputation and image abroad with the fact that we are not a major power.
Yet considering all the realities of Canadian existence, there is no doubt in my mind that Canada can do much more than it is now doing to extend peace, stability and justice in the world. In fact this very exertion outwards into a world that is fractured would be of considerable help in revitalizing the Canadian spirit. The government's down-playing of foreign affairs-there was not a word on this subject in the throne speech-appears to be a confession that it cannot advance in the external arena until the internal picture is improved.
I am convinced that reaffirming a constructive role for Canada in the world community can be of considerable help in finding a renewed sense of purpose and direction for Canada. In fact the continued development of our own country demands that we pay greater attention to the role Canada should play in a changing world. This is not a simplistic notion, rather it is a reflection of the profoundness of human nature.
Human beings need goals to find happiness; and nations need goals to discover their unity. Outside the Parliament Buildings, there is a monument that says it well: "If I lose myself, I save myself." What this means, in modern terms, is that a renewed effort on our part to make Canada an international source of human rights and economic growth would be a means to create new bonds among Canadians. The internal strengthening of Canada through greater involvement in the newly-discovered realities of an interdependent world is a challenge of historic proportions to this country.
Can we respond to this challenge? Mr. Speaker, we have no choice but to respond. We do not live alone on this planet. Look at the picture of the earth sent back from space by the astronauts. That picture reveals graphically how the interests of one part of the globe are connected with the interests of all. If foreign policy has always been the pursuit of national aims and interests in the international environment, foreign policy must now strive to secure those interests by promoting the well-being of peoples and nations throughout the world. What is needed, therefore, is a reconstituted foreign policy for the
December 19, 1977

1980s that can reconcile the traditional needs of independence with the new demands of interdependence.
A policy of enlightened internationalism is a necessity. And that takes political leadership. The government has shown a disinterest in providing leadership to the Canadian people. It is time for members of this House to assert our determination to participate in the construction of a new foreign policy for the next decade. We are the ones who go across this country measuring public opinion and also helping to shape it. In 1977 I spoke in 27 Canadian communities on Canada's international role and I have found that in every community there is a creative minority of concerned Canadians who want a stronger foreign policy and more leadership from the government in this area.
The Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence ought to be an ideal instrument in the forming and dissemination of policy. But it is not utilized because of the silly rule that committees can only study what the government allows them to study. Thus this whole fall session has been wasted because the government would not provide a reference to the committee to study aid, or disarmament, or peacekeeping or indeed any of the many items that are opened up in the minister's annual report. All members know that consideration of estimates is not a time for exploring new possibilities. The subcommittee on international development which produced reports on a common fund for commodities and debt management during the past two sessions performed valuable work. Why should that work be suspended? If the government is serious about the motion before us asking us to take note of "future prospects of Canada's relationships with the other nations of the world," then at the very least it would refer the minister's annual report to the committee and let us get down to the serious work of contributing to a foreign policy for the 1980's.
Mr. Speaker, a reconstituted foreign policy should not make the mistake of the past decade-going off in all directions at once, especially when some directions contradict others. It should rest on firm foundations, rather than on a set of stop-and-go experiments. That has been the major flaw in Canada's foreign policy in the 1970s. In this decade the government, discovering interdependence, thought the best response was to plunge into new arenas to the diminishment of traditional relationships; to spend aid money in a plethora of developing countries without stopping to measure whether the aid was effective; to make great speeches at conferences outside Canada without ever explaining to the Canadian people why an enlarged foreign policy is necessary and what the government's plan is. As for Canada's votes in the United Nations, they have been such a strange mixture of yes, no and abstentions, with the emphasis on the abstentions, that they defy analysis.
Also, how are we to analyze the so-called third option policy? What positive gain has it produced? The necessary counterweights to our dependence on the U.S.-the Pacific Rim, the EEC, Latin America-have not materialized. The contractual link has yet to amount to anything beyond mere
External Affairs
statements of good will. Moreover, the search for a closer relationship with Europe was undermined thanks to the decision to reduce unilaterally our participation in NATO. The fact that this reduction was made before the conclusion of the foreign policy review made nonsense of the claim that foreign policy would determine defence policy.
Beside the fact that the government's foreign policy has been a failure in that it has accomplished none of the things it set out to do, it is no longer clear how or where our foreign policy is made. The most important agreement of the decade in Canada-U.S. relations, the Alcan Pipeline agreement, was negotiated not by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but by the government House leader. Our relations with francophone countries, which until recently have been handled adequately by External Affairs, are now being entrusted to another cabinet minister, the Minister for Supply and Services (Mr. Goyer). The reasons for this have never been satisfactorily explained.
In a reconstituted foreign policy for the next decade, I favor a clear statement at the outset reaffirming a spirit of co-operation in Canada-U.S. relations, for the simple reason that our security and trade are inextricably bound up with the United States. And in the past decade a traditionally positive relationship has been strained, often needlessly. Canadians have been left to wonder if somehow Canada was getting delusions of grandeur that we could survive on this continent without the closest attachment to the U.S. A reaffirmation of Canada-U.S. relations at this moment would act as a stabilizing rudder as we steer into new waters.
Second, our traditional ties with the Commonwealth and NATO need to be reinforced. These great and time-tested associations provide a framework for Canada's interests abroad. Yet the government has given the appearance that we could treat old friends in a cavalier manner.
Only when Canadians are reassured that our attachments to the U.S., Europe and the Commonwealth will remain the anchors of a reconstituted policy, will such a new policy be understood and accepted. There must be movement forward into the complex fields of human rights, detente, the development and security of Africa, international development and disarmament. But these steps must be on firm foundations. We should be careful that we do not draw the analogy of Canada's being a bridge too far. For a bridge requires strong footings. Today those footings are not strong because the government has almost totally neglected to explain to the Canadian people whatever it is it is trying to do. No wonder Canadians are bewildered and think that Canada is wandering in a jungle at midnight without a compass.
If any final proof is needed about the confusion of purpose in Canada's foreign policy, Mr. Speaker, let us consider the sorry spectacle of CIDA officials now justifying Canada's aid budget on grounds that it is good for the Canadian economy. Is the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce so bereft of ideas to promote the sale of Canadian goods abroad that the

December 19, 1977
External Affairs
government must insist that CIDA become a sales agency? The mismanagement of the economy must be even worse than we imagined if CIDA, an agency that was started to express the humanitarian concern of Canadians for the poor of the world, is now to be used to prop up industry, trade and commerce.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, more than half of Canada's aid budget is spent on Canadian goods and services; this is called tied aid. There is nothing inherently wrong with tied aid, provided that it promotes development. However, given such factors as the high technological content of much tied aid, there is increasing evidence, which I have seen with my own eyes, that it can promote underdevelopment instead. The myth has grown up that tied aid is important to the Canadian economy. How can this possibly be true when tied aid represents only .23 per cent of our gross national product? If the government has evidence to the contrary, let it publish the evidence and stop operating CIDA in such secrecy that a "confidential" label is even put on its country reports.
To have the government now justifying CIDA on business grounds will, in fact, prevent CIDA from implementing the government's own strategy on international development that calls for increased emphasis on rural development of the poorest people.
There is a paradox in this which I will explain in this way. There is little direct commercial return to Canada in the development of health, education and marketing services in the villages where the greatest number of the poor live, and little benefit directly to people in developing countries through our emphasis on bilateral tied aid.
True aid is an investment in the long range development of people. If CIDA persists in explaining itself on grounds of immediate commercial return to Canada-when that return is insignificant anyway-it will seriously jeopardize that substantial body of public opinion that supports CIDA on the grounds that it is actually helping the poorest people.
Note well what I am about to say, Mr. Speaker. It is not the quantity of money that Canada spends through CIDA that is important in helping people, it is the quality. I would accept a cut in CIDA's over-all budget if I could spend the remainder on community development, especially the kind promoted by non-governmental organizations. Such a policy would, on the basis of my experience travelling in the Third World, help more of the poorest people in the poorest countries achieve self-reliance.
My leader today called for an independent review of the whole CIDA operation. I support that review because a fresh, objective examination of CIDA must now be made if the government is to retain the support of Canadians who want CIDA to help make self-reliant, dignified human beings out of the world's poverty stricken millions.
There are benefits to Canada through international development, properly carried out, and we should not hesitate to point them out. Vast new markets will open up through helping to develop a level of self-reliance in the people. Their purchasing
[Mr. Roche.1
power is now so low that they are not considered major markets despite their population size. Their incomes would increase, as the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Shridath Ramphal, has noted, "from the dismantling of trade barriers and other obstacles and from a sustained expansion of their export income from primary commodities." These increased incomes would inevitably be spent on imports from the industrialized countries.
Developing a level of self-reliance in the one billion poorest people in the world is a long-range investment, and that is the essence of a policy that now ought to be advanced. On the question of measuring aid effectiveness we should thank the new North-South Institute that has analysed the deficiencies in Canada's present role. I quote their conclusion:
In summary, while Canadians in general, and Canadian policy-makers in particular, like to view Canada as being in (or close to) the vanguard of the industrial countries, this self-image is more flattering than accurate. Canada, on occasion, has taken positions that have put this country among the leaders of the north. However, as far as proceeding with in depth and innovative analyses or offering proposals that could facilitate substantive agreement between the north and south, Canada has neither called upon enough of its resources nor come close to realizing its potential.
In outlining an improved Canadian policy on international development in the 1980s, I would establish these priorities. First of all, more emphasis on fostering self-reliance in the Third World through the satisfaction of basic human needs- sufficient food, shelter, health facilities and education and a job opportunity for all. Those are the basics we are talking about, Mr. Speaker. Second, increased attention to water management and soil conservation. Third, intensified and continuous and two-way technical co-operation with developing countries. Fourth, emphasis on stabilizing the prices of commodities and manufactured goods; and improving access for Third World countries to industrialized countries' markets. Fifth, intensified efforts to help developing countries become more self-sufficient in food production and increased participation in world food programs. Sixth, domestic industrial strategies to enable Canada to produce more high technology goods needed on world markets.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, in a reconstituted foreign policy can there be any subjects more necessary to highlight than stronger Canadian efforts to improve the conditions for human rights and arms control? We are holding this debate almost on the eve of Christmas. We want to celebrate the birth of Christ who came to us in the name of peace. But peace is not merely an ideal. Peace is a practical and immediate necessity arising out of the present situation where men have acquired such immense power that they are now in a position to conquer the stars or to annihilate themselves completely along with the globe on which they live. Peace is not just the absence of war; it is that set of equitable human and national relationships that promote the conditions for human dignity sought by every individual. What we are facing today is a world that is endangered by gross violations of human rights and widespread terrorism, a widening gap between the developed and developing nations, and an arms race that is out of control. That is neither a safe nor an equitable world in which to live.
December 19, 1977

No, we cannot do everything. But we can raise our voice and increase our work in the world community to root out the causes of disorder and injustices. I believe the Canadian people want their leaders to move in this direction. And we have the duty to provide such leadership through a new, coherent, comprehensive, and convincing foreign policy.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, this is a general debate on Canada's foreign policy, but what I am going to discuss, the Arab boycott and the federal government's response to it, are as much matters of Canada's domestic policy as they are of its foreign policy.
The boycott touches on our foreign policy because it is a form of warfare by Arab states against Israel. It is as much a part of their effort to destroy Israel as their military warfare since 1948. However, Canada is not at war with Israel or with the Arab states.
Canada's official policy has been to support the existence of Israel as a free and independent state within secure and recognized borders. Therefore, when Arab countries say if Canadian firms want to trade with us they cannot trade with Israel or with other firms which trade with Israel or which are owned by or employ people who are sympathetic to it, they are trying to get Canadian companies to do something which clashes directly with Canada's official policy as a government, as a country.
When Arab countries say to Canadian firms. "If you want to trade with us you cannot have Jewish employees or owners or directors and you cannot trade with Canadian firms with shareholders or employers who are Jewish or who are sympathetic to Israel," then this conflicts directly with our federal government policy on human rights and the approach to human rights of most Canadians. It clashes with our domestic policy. It is understandable, therefore, why the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in this House in May, 1975:
This type of practice is alien to everything the government stands for and indeed to what in general Canadian ethics stand for.
These sentiments were not translated into any kind of concrete policy on the Arab and similar international boycotts until almost a year and a half later on October 21, 1976, when the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) presented to the House a statement of policy on such boycotts. This statement said the government opposes boycotts which attempt to have Canadians in their commercial dealings discriminate against other Canadians on the basis of origin or belief, or which attempt to have them refuse to buy or sell to countries like Israel with which Canada maintains friendly relations. However, in the statement the only measures the government said it would take to implement this policy were withholding its supporting services from dealings where Arab boycott compliance was involved and having all firms report to it for later publication any compliance by them with the boycott whether or not they sought government assistance.
External Affairs
This policy was not translated into any kind of action until the Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce issued guidelines for its implementation three months later on January 21, 1977. These guidelines, however, drew back from the commitment of the policy statement. They said reports would be drawn up only with regard to firms that approached the department for assistance.
No explanation has ever been offered to this House or to the public as to why the guidelines issued by the Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce did not go as far as the government's formal policy statement which said all firms, whether they sought government assistance or not, would have to report to the government all requests they received to comply with international boycotts of a kind contrary to the government's policy statement. The guidelines also said a public report of information gathered under them will be made "semi-annually".
This meant the first report should have been made last July. This did not happen, and until questions were asked about it in the House last week there was no indication by the government when such a report would be issued to the public, if ever, and what had been holding it up until that point.
Although the wording of the policy statement and the guidelines at close reading are somewhat ambiguous on this, the press and the public generally interpreted them to mean that the reports, when made, would at the very least name those firms, about which the government was aware, that had agreed to comply with the boycott. In fact this understanding was encouraged by spokesmen for the government. For example, on February 17 of this year, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goodale), then the parliamentary secretary to the President of Privy Council, speaking in an adjournment debate in reply to a speech made by myself, had this to say:
The reporting requirement under which the department would publicize the names of companies or individuals from whom services and support have been withdrawn or withheld for contravening the government's policy on boycotts is a responsible and practical way of reinforcing the government's policy in this area.
I want the House to note the words of the then parliamentary secretary which state clearly that the reporting requirement meant the department would be publicizing the names of companies or individuals from whom services and support had been withdrawn or withheld for contravening the government's guidelines on international boycotts.
As we know, answers given by parliamentary secretaries in adjournment debates are prepared for them by the relevant government departments as the official position of the government, and are presented by the parliamentary secretaries as such. It is understandable, therefore, that there was consternation, if not surprise, to say the least, when the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), as reported by the Globe and Mail in its December 17 issue, after telling the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) during the question period on the preceding day that the list of companies in question was "still being considered" said later, to reporters outside the House, on the same day, and I quote from the press report:

December 19, 1977
External Affairs
-he had no plans to make the list public and would not even indicate how many companies the department had found signing contracts with boycott clauses.
'You'd be open for all kinds of libel,' Mr. Horner said, because the publicity might hurt the companies' sales.
'That kind of thing when we're trying to promote world trade is something we don't want to get into.'
Here appears to be an even further narrowing-down of the seemingly meaningful policy announced by his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, on October 21, 1976. One could wonder how naming the companies the government found to be complying with the boycott could ever involve "all kinds of libel". How can it be libel when the government is simply telling the truth, that certain companies are engaging in conduct that the Prime Minister of Canada said is contrary to everything the government stands for, everything Canadian ethics stand for, and what the present Secretary of State for External Affairs later called repugnant and unacceptable?
Most Canadians want, as I do, to see Canadian trade with Arab countries and all countries greatly expanded. However, I do not think they want to see this done, nor do I, on terms which are contrary to basic Canadian ethics and concepts of human rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It should be troubling indeed to note the inference of the reported remarks, assuming they are accurately reported, of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, that discrimination against some Canadians on the grounds of their origin, religion, beliefs, associations or that efforts that harm a friendly country are prices he is willing to pay to expand Canada's trade. If that inference is correct, and I hope it is not, it clashes with the policy of the government of which he is now a member and, more important, with the views of Canadians generally.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs took a somewhat different approach in the House the next day, last Friday. He said in effect that the list in question had not been released because the government had not yet decided how to release information it had received, particularly whether it should release the names of companies which had received requests to comply with the boycott but which had rejected those requests. He implied that there were other unresolved questions of the same order as well. This was when he was speaking to reporters later outside the House. He said that the government had not decided, according to press reports, whether to release the names of companies that had simply agreed not to ship goods on a vessel which stopped in Israel, but did not include a boycott clause in their sales contract.
One could have somewhat more sympathy for the government's position on this, if the policy statement had not yet been issued, or if it had been issued and the government was simply waiting for the guidelines to put it into effect. Almost a year and a half went by from the time the Prime Minister said that the boycott was contrary to everything the government stood for to the time the policy statement was issued. Was

there not enough time during this period to make the necessary decisions? During this period we asked when the policy would appear, we were told that cabinet was continuing to study the matter.
Are we to take it, then, that the cabinet spent a year and a half studying this matter and allowed a statement of policy on boycotts to be made, promising a mechanism for public reports, without first deciding on answers to these basic questions as to what information was to be put in these reports? Are we to take it, if this was not done by the time the policy statement was finally made on October 21, 1976, that there was not time for answers to these questions to be developed within the three months between the making of the policy statement and the later issuing of the guidelines in January 1977?
Are we to take it that there was not time to get answers to these questions in close to a year since the guidelines had been issued, even allowing almost an extra six months from the time the first report was due? Certainly, even with the many other matters that validly required the government's attention, I think there was time to reach a decision as to what information should be made public concerning what the government had learned with regard to boycott compliance by Canadian firms. I think the Canadian public should urge the government to get on with this matter and make decisions. Then if the public is not satisfied with those decisions, the government should be able to explain and justify them. Answers to those questions regarding the releasing of information troubling the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and the cabinet, could be worked out in a few hours if it were decided that it had to be done.
I will offer some suggestions on how to proceed, in my usual effort to be helpful and constructive. If the government has learned of firms that simply received boycott requests, but did not agree with them, why should not their names simply be held back and tables would be published showing the number of firms receiving such requests, the nature of the requests, and the industrial sector in which the firms, receiving these requests are found. When it comes to companies that agree to ship goods on vessels not stopping at Israeli ports, the previous minister of industry, trade and commerce, the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), seemed to state the government's position on this in a speech in Ottawa last April. At that time he said:
It would contravene our policy to undertake that the goods will not be carried on a blacklisted vessel or insured by a blacklisted insurance company, because that could limit the Canadian seller's freedom with other Canadian companies.
An argument could be made as a result of what the Minister of Finance said at the time when he was the minister of industry, trade and commerce that the names of such firms, along with the information on exactly what was agreed to, should be disclosed. But if a firm had agreed to nothing more, an argument could be made and possibly accepted, it could be put forward as a working hypothesis, that here too only statistical tables be published.
December 19, 1977

However is there any valid argument that the government should not publish the names of firms which agreed to boycott clauses in the sales agreements they entered into or that the names of firms that agreed to boycott clauses in the letters of credit under which they were to receive payment, should not be published? I am referring to boycott clauses, not to trade with Israel, with firms trading with Isreal, or in which firms agreed to discriminate against other Canadians. Surely not, if the words of the Prime Minister in May, 1975, and the words of the government's own policy statement a year and a half later, can be taken at face value. If the government needed more detailed guidance, surely it could take a look at the regulations on reporting which were made under the new comprehensive United States legislation forbidding all United States companies, whether they sought aid from their government or not, from complying with international boycotts like the Arab boycott.
In spite of earlier predictions, there is no evidence that this new American law is hurting United States trade with the Arab countries, or that it is embarrassing any American companies. Therefore I think the government is now in a position to make the necessary decisions on what to put into reports to be issued under its guidelines without further delay. The government should issue these reports as it has promised.
But let us bear in mind that these reports will tell very little about the impact of the boycott on Canada and Canadians. Even if the government publishes the names of every company coming to its attention that accepted the provisions of the boycott rules in any way, the Canadian people will not be given anything close to a true picture of the boycott implications for Canada. It is clear the government has not carried out its promise contained in the October 21 policy statement. I am referring to the promise to have all firms, whether or not they require government assistance, report their compliance with the boycott. Any report issued under the government's guidelines of January, 1977, cannot give a complete picture of the boycott's implications.
Among the essential tasks of our national government are the protection of our country's sovereignty and the providing of the equal protection of our laws to all residing within our borders. Unless the federal government brings forward all the necessary measures to make fully operative its October 21 policy on the Arab boycott and other international boycotts, it will not be carrying out these responsibilities in the way expected by Canadians generally. What do the guidelines issued by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce actually say? Those guidelines indicated that the government would withhold services only after transactions involving boycott compliance were actually entered into and signed. Also it would expect the reporting of boycott compliance by companies only where they approached it for assistance. These measures, in my view and in the views of many other Canadians of every origin, are largely without the kind of impact that is required.
Much government assistance comes in the form of trade promotion activities, circulation of information, the making of
External Affairs
contacts and so on, that take place before a transaction is entered into. Companies not requiring assistance from the government could continue as before in their dealings. Many, if not most, would not require such assistance. If they were subsidiaries of foreign firms, they could rely on the banking connections and the resources of their parent companies. If they are larger Canadian companies, they can rely on their own resources and banking connections. They would not be required to make any report of boycott compliance to the government. In fact such firms would not be likely to approach the government for help in the first place.
Ministers of external affairs continue to state their abhorrence and that of the government for the boycott. They continue to confirm that their views, and the views of the government, are that Israel has a right to exist within secure and defined borders.
Words are important. Generally Canadians have welcomed certain of Canada's recent votes at the United Nations, although they continue to be concerned about other votes in the form of abstentions in the United Nations and in certain of its specialized agencies. In situations like this, I would argue that action to implement words of support counts as much, if not more, than the words themselves.
All Canadians welcome the initiative to bring peace to the Middle East of President Sadat of Egypt and Prime Minister Begin of Israel, and all Canadians, I am sure, pray for the success of these initiatives. But a number of Arab states are refusing to take part in these efforts to bring peace to the Middle East. Perhaps part of the reason is that they still hope to bring about the destruction of Israel, if not through military warfare then through economic warfare in the nature of the current Arab boycott. I would argue that a firm stand by Canada against the boycott, a stand based on legislation of general application, is one way that Canada can contribute to the bringing of a peace, fair to all sides, to the Middle East.
To the extent that the rejectionist Arab states realize they cannot destroy Israel either through military or economic warfare, the more likely they are to agree to come to the bargaining table for face to face peace talks with the Israelis, talks of the kind that are presently going on between the Israelis and the Egyptians.
If the government wants to take a step, even though it might appear to be a small one, being that of only one country in the world community, that would help achieve peace in the Middle East, and if the government continues to be serious about what it said in the policy statement of October 21, 1976, then surely it must implement the two measures announced in it in the fullest possible way rather than in the most limited and narrow way. This, I regret to say, in my view is about all that it has done until now. But more important, it must act on recommendations like those of the Citizens' commission report issued early this year. This report demonstrated in particular the impact of the Arab boycott in Canada.

December 19, 1977
External Affairs
I would argue that the government must put into effect legislation against the boycott applying to all businesses, whether or not they need government support. If it does not do so, as I have pointed out, it is undermining its own policy on international boycotts. It is allowing foreign governments to extend their discriminatory law into Canada. This foreign law, after all, encourages one group of Canadians to discriminate for possible economic gain against another group of Canadians because of their origins and beliefs. This obviously clashes with Canadian standards of morality and human rights. Therefore, a Canadian federal law of general application is required so that no Canadian business would have to make its own decision as to the extent to which it should balance possible profit against ethics. Instead, all companies here would be on the same basis and none would have to fear losing business to a Canadian competitor if they follow the standards of conduct which the government, in its own policy statement, says are desirable and necessary.
Anyway, the evidence is clear that when a company does have the courage to refuse to comply with the boycott, either on its own or because of requirements of its own country's laws, generally the Arabs back down. If the goods or services are of a quality and price they are seeking, they will find a way of completing the transaction. Even if this were not the case and even if there were some marginal risk of economic loss, as I have said, I think most Canadians would want to see the government take a stand in a way that is in accord with the principles and ethics which provide the basis for our country's existence. The United States is finding it possible to do this in spite of much greater economic links with Arab countries than Canada.
General legislation for boycott compliance was adopted by the U.S. Congress earlier this year, and in spite of what those opposing it forecast, there has not been any breakdown as a result; there has not been any loss of U.S. trade with Arab countries as a result. Therefore, the question must be asked; how can Canada do any less if our government takes seriously the words of its own policy as announced last fall?
There are many similarities between the United States and Canada when it comes to social and economic systems. Canada and the United States are also major competitors in world markets. Surely the government can be asked: what is there about Canada that makes it less necessary and possible for it to have general anti-boycott legislation than it is for the United States? The United States already has trade and investment links with Arab countries far beyond anything we have now or contemplate for the future.
Like Canada, the United States is interested in expanding its trade with Arab countries. It is far more dependent on oil imported from them than Canada. As I have said, our two countries have similar systems of economic and social organization. The compulsory requirement in its law which the U.S. has had for some time, but which we do not have, which makes it necessary for firms there to report boycott requests and compliance with them showed a very high degree of such compliance. Therefore, when one bears in mind the high

degree of ownership of Canadian business by firms based in the United States, the conduct of Canadian companies, if not requiring government support for trade abroad, is not likely to be very much different.
Also, one can ask whether the standards and ethics of the United States, when it comes to affording its citizens the equal protection of the law against threats to their rights, like those created by the boycott, are higher in the United States than in Canada. I hope this cannot be shown to be the case.
The U.S. legislation is based squarely on the jurisdiction of the U.S. federal government under its constitution over international trade and trade between its constituent states. Our own constitution gives our federal government authority over international and interprovincial trade. There is, therefore, in my view, an equivalent basis under our own constitution for anti-boycott legislation along the same lines as that adopted by the U.S. Congress.
This new American law incorporates the concepts which President Carter said such legislation should have in order for him to give it his support as President of the U.S. In a statement before the law was passed he said that to have his support this law would have to contain, as it did:
Legislative language which would impose the following restrictions: Prohibit ail forms of religious or ethnic discrimination arising out of a foreign boycott- prohibit firms from refusing to do business with a country as a condition of doing business in another country-prohibit firms from acting as enforcers of a foreign boycott-prohibit firms from responding to requests for boycott-related information-prohibit the use of so-called negative certificates of origin within a year of enactment.
Such general legislation against the boycott was recently introduced, in fact just last week, by the Ontario government into the legislature of that province. This legislation indicates commendable intentions and it deserves wide community support. I am certainly not saying that about the government of Ontario in general. In other areas it certainly deserves to be replaced by the party led by Stuart Smith, but surely in this area it deserves wide community support.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Ontario government, with its free enterprise, pro-business orientation, surely is as interested in encouraging Canadian trade abroad as is our federal government. Surely it would not be presenting legislation to the Ontario legislature that harms prospects of trade with Arab countries by residents of Ontario, whether companies or individuals.
To conclude, let me say that I think Canadians generally would join me in calling on the government for full and meaningful action to put its policy statement into effect in a way that fully protects Canadian civil rights and Canadian sovereignty. In order to maintain our national unity surely our national government must demonstrate that it can provide, and in fact is providing, security in economic and human terms to all its citizens, whether they are English-speaking or Frenchspeaking, and of every origin. Therefore, we and all Canadians as part of this effort must make sure the government takes meaningful action on issues such as the necessisty of preventing threats to that security like the Arab boycott. Such action
December 19, 1977

must be an important segment of a total priority effort by the federal government to preserve Canada as one, strong, united country serving the best interests of all its people, a country living in security, freedom, and prosperity in a peaceful world community in which Canada plays a full and useful part.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, reference has been made by previous speakers in this debate, notably by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), that this is the first time in 17 years that this House has had an opportunity to have a debate of this length on Canadian external relations. That is a surprising and disturbing fact. In fact I would categorize it as unbelievable, if it were not true, and certainly extraordinary and incredible.
In those 17 years how many matters have been stored up, seeking expression in this House? We have already had, aside from the tours d'horizon of the first two speakers, comments on nuclear proliferation, international aid, international research and development, and the Arab boycott. I myself have a great series of topics upon which I would like to comment, but I promise to be selective.
Seventeen years means that we go back to 1960, a significant date. It is also significant that it took pressure from this side of the House to get this debate going at all. I only hope that it will not take another 17 years before we have another debate on this subject. If I personally, or my party, have anything to do with it, we will not have to wait that long. In my view we should have debates of this length and breadth at least annually, and perhaps even more often.
In addition to the matter of the extended gaps between debates, but perhaps as a function of those gaps, I find it unfortunate that this government should decide to make surprise announcements in a debate of this kind, as it did this afternoon. I refer to the announcement on the subject of South Africa. While the government was at it, I wonder why it did not feel moved to make an announcement about the denial of human rights in Uganda, another part of Africa, where the tyrannical regime of Idi Amin surpasses by an immeasurable degree any goings-on in South Africa. At least profitable employment is being offered to Africans in South Africa, whereas in Uganda there is a tribal tyranny over all other tribes, buttressed by supporters, I am lead to believe, from outside the country. What is our aid package for Uganda? It is not easy to find out, but we should know what our aid package for Uganda is as a matter of course.
In any event, as to unilateral declarations of policy in the foreign field on whatever subject, surely these are matters about which inter-party consultations ought to take place. This is no matter for partisan politics, at least by my standards, but rather one to which a bipartisan or multipartisan approach ought to be adopted.
The government has learned nothing in the years in which it has been in office about the need to be more open in its handling of foreign affairs. I am confident that when the Conservatives are returned to power there will be a disposition
External Affairs
to take other parties into their confidence in the development of foreign policy measures. I do not say all matters, but at least in the matter of foreign policy, which is an area in which openness can and ought to be practiced.
We are asked to respond to the exhortations contained in the motion now before us, and I will read it now:
That this House takes note of the present state and future prospects of Canada's relationships with the other nations of the world.
How can we take note of the present state of our relations with the other nations of the world if we do not know what they are? In this general area of secretiveness I think one of the most outrageous examples of the way in which this parliament and the Canadian people have been treated can be found in the current negotiations with the United States on our maritime boundaries.
This country has no idea of what exactly is being negotiated, although we were assured as recently as this afternoon that, with an extension of another month the two, negotiators will come up with satisfactory results. What kinds of results covering what kinds of problems will they come up with? We should know. It has all been left to government appointees; competent ones, no doubt. One in particular I can speak very highly of; the other I do not know. However, some people have been denied an input, as my leader said earlier today, and those people are the most vitally interested parties, namely, the fishermen themselves.


Mr. LeBlanc ( Westmorland-Kent):: They are involved.


Donald W. Munro: Just about one year ago Canada took a momentous step by declaring Canadian jurisdiction for fisheries management out to 200 nautical miles. What has been accomplished in the intervening year?


Roméo LeBlanc: A lot.


Donald W. Munro: We have adopted, for fisheries purposes, something more than one million extra square miles of sea, equal to about one third of our territorial surface area, yet we have done little to show that we are serious about taking care of our new acquisition or to provide in meaningful terms evidence of our assertion of this extended jurisdiction.
A great number of problem areas has been opened up. A few arrests have been made on both coasts. Negotiations have been going on with our neighbours, but no extra surface patrol craft have been ordered. We only recently concluded arrangements for air patrol craft. We do not really know how much further ahead we are today than we were this time last year or whether in fact we have derived any benefit from the action taken last January.
I would like to put forward this evening some ideas about what I think we should have been doing and what we should now be doing to ensure that we derive maximum benefit from the action taken January 1 of this year of extending out to 200 nautical miles Canada's jurisdiction over fisheries resources. Canada's action a year ago, possibly because it was taken

December 19, 1977
External Affairs
without too much forethought and planning, has had wide and profound international repercussions with which we have still to come to terms. I suggest that one of the most demanding tasks is working out satisfactory arrangements in a number of areas with our nearest neighbour, the United States, with which, incidentally, we have four complex boundary problems emanating directly from that 200-mile jurisdiction declaration.
I know discussions have been going on with Marcel Cadieux, our former ambassador to the United States, who is heading the Canadian team. We are assured that these discussions are going to lead to satisfactory results and that we will hear about them at the end of January. What are they intended to accomplish and how nearly are they accomplishing the ends? What goals are they setting out to accomplish? We have no knowledge of what matters are being considered in these negotiations, or how broad the discussions are. Do the discussions concern only boundary extensions? What effect are the proceedings going to have on other bilateral concerns?
Uncertainty and the muteness of the government on this matter prompt me to set forth a range of matters on which we should be negotiating, but about which we have learned nothing. The very fact that there is silence about the scope of negotiations, in itself, I suggest, is rather disquieting. On top of this uncertainty there is a positive certainty that oil shipments are coming down our west coast, and a search is being made for a port at which these shipments can be discharged. That is a certainty. In these circumstances it seems to me that a much more long-sighted approach ought to have been adopted and pressed with more energy.
For this purpose I should like to set out what I think ought to be included in any agreement with our United States neighbour, either as an umbrella agreement involving a great variety of matters connected with Alaska oil shipments and related issues, or a series of agreements each related to this wide spectrum of concern. I would suggest that at least the following matters deserve attention in any such agreement or agreements.
First of all, there is the fisheries jurisdiction; then compulsory traffic control including safeguards for fishermen and sportsmen; shipbuilding standards; crewing standards; cleanup facilities; clean-up cost settlement procedures, and finally, patrol. To be effective I suggest all of these should be included in any negotiations now taking place.
The main purpose underlying the extension of our jurisdiction to 200 miles was to gain management control over our fisheries. What we have established, in other words, is a fisheries management zone 200 nautical miles wide off our three coasts. If we had no neighbours nearer than 200 miles such an action would cause no great problem. But we do. Moreover, they have extended their jurisdiction, for fisheries purposes also, to the same width-although they waited two months after the Canadian action to take theirs. By March 1, 1977, however, the two zones were in place.

Where we first run into trouble in this double, unilateral action, is the interface between these two zones. Unfortunately there are four such interfaces, each with distinctive problems-one on the Pacific between British Columbia and the state of Washington, where the two extensions push out into the Pacific; the second, also on the Pacific, but this time between British Columbia and Alaska, again where the two extensions bulge out Pacificwards; the third in the Arctic, between Alaska and the Yukon; and the fourth on the Atlantic, between New Brunswick and the state of Maine.
As I have said, the problems posed by the extension of these four boundaries are separate and distinct. A single approach, in terms of agreement of a particular method of extending the boundary, does not seem to be possible-a median line approach may be feasible at one interface, a sectoral approach may be required on another, while an ocean-floor fault-or chasm-may be the best method of dealing with a third. On one, at least, there is already some uncertainty or difference of opinion, as to the meaning of the existing internationally agreed line established through arbitration. On one side it is viewed as a shore line and hence amenable to the creation of a band of a territorial sea; to the Canadian side that line is considered as an unmistakable boundary defining the limits beyond which the other's territory and territorial jurisdiction do not and cannot extend.
I wonder if, in the absence of agreements on these four important interface areas, there has been a chance to look at a bilateral agreement in which the sectoral approach might be applied, that is, applying the pie slice principle, carving out an area whose apex would begin at the internationally recognized seaward point with the two sides of the isosceles triangle or extending seaward for 200 miles, and that within that sector there be a joint jurisdiction exercised over fisheries, both management and take, as well as over pollution control measures.
As I see this approach, it could lead to an agreement under which each country would have an equal voice on the sectoral commissions that might have to be set up, and would give us four pie slices separating our respective 200-mile zones in those four areas where our zones would otherwise meet. In such circumstances the boundary, in its normal internationally accepted sense, between our two areas would subsequently have to be decided without regard to fish and pollution, but be concerned exclusively with other matters. For example, navigation, resource ownership, customs and immigration control, and military or naval matters might be amongst those things that would have to be separated by a single line. To do so, of course, would require explicit agreement spelled out in a bilateral convention-an umbrella agreement, in short, agreeing on the sectoral approach to deal with Fisheries and pollution plus accompanying agreements and subagreements defining the boundary for other purposes.
I have already suggested one reason for taking this sectoral approach to the resolution of our differences, namely, the difficulty we are probably having in deciding on a single boundary line to serve all purposes. Another is related to the
December 19, 1977

matters of common concern within that sectoral area-in particular because fish are no respecters of internationally accepted boundaries. Fishermen in pursuit of their livelihood follow fish migrations, or movements of schools. They might wish to do so across an international frontier and thereby risk getting into trouble with the neighbouring state. If, however, there were a common zone separating two distinctly national zones, and if, in that common zone, fishing practices-quotas, net sizes and so on-were agreed upon in advance, pursuit by the nationals of the two coastal countries into that common or shared zone would not render the fishermen concerned liable to prosecution, at least not until they passed out of it on the other side into the national jurisdiction of the neighbouring state.
That is one area of bilateral concern on which Canada and the United States should seek agreement, and possibly embed that agreement in a bilateral convention.
Since, however, the carriage of potential pollutants over these waters is of concern, because of the danger involved, to the fisheries involved, it is obviously desirable for the two neighbouring countries to reach some sort of agreement on how that commerce is to be carried out-in what kind of ships, with what kind of crews, and following what routes. Shipping standards, crewing standards and traffic control management must obviously be regulated along mutually agreeable lines. Double bottoms and twin screws for tankers might well be part of any such agreement, plus agreed seamanship qualifications for skippers and mates, not to mention mandatory traffic reporting procedures for all commercial vessels travelling into, out of, or through the area.
Another element in any such comprehensive agreement would be the storage of clean-up equipment and, quite as important, the establishment of procedures for dealing with the costs of clean-ups and claims arising from spills. This latter might have to envisage the creation of a fund into which vessel users would be required to pay and from which settlement of claims could be made. Whether a special court would have to be established for the settlement of claims is a matter that would obviously have to be examined most carefully. Whose law would prevail if the spill occurred in the "shared" zone? Would it necessarily be different from that prevailing in either of the national zones?
Finally, who would have responsibility for enforcement of the law set out in the bilateral agreement as it would apply to third nations? In this connection, it will be necessary to lay down specific principles governing patrol and surveillance responsibilities as well as authority to board, arrest, exclude or expel from the jointly administered area for infractions or suspected infractions. This is perhaps a new area of bilateral activity in the international arena but it is one into which we may well have to venture if we want to make the most of our 200-mile zone and at the same time achieve the elimination of a great number of friction points between our two countries. I believe we stand the best chance of maximizing the exploitation of our living respurces only if we proceed in such a
External Affairs
fashion, and I have gone to some lengths to set forth my reasoning for holding this belief.
I should like to deal with a number of other topics, but there are a number of other speakers who wish to take the floor. Before I sit down I do wish to underline the comment made just this evening about a drop in morale in the Department of External Affairs over the last several years, and more recently because of the split jurisdiction of the department. Now, there are four or five different ministers-the hon. gentleman over there may shake his head if he likes, but no one in the department knows who is responsible or who has the over-all responsibility-in other words, who is going to muck things up next. That is the problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: The department needs one minister, that is all; a minister in whom they would have confidence, a minister they can respect. Such a relationship is not possible when there are four ministers-one who speaks about new methods of selling uranium, another who decides on questions concerning francophonie, a third who talks about north-south relations, and a fourth-


An hon. Member:: Who is he?


Donald W. Munro: I am not sure what he is in charge of. All this has had a substantial adverse effect on morale in the department, and hon. members over there ought not to tell us otherwise. I know, and I am sorry to have to say it. This was a fine department-


An hon. Member:: And then you left.


Donald W. Munro: And then I left.
Oh, yes. I forgot Ivan Head. I would call it not only quatrocephalia but quinquecephalia.


Some hon. Members:: What?


Donald W. Munro: We need only one head for this department and another debate on this whole subject. Then, perhaps, we can get on with the business.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak here in the House of Commons on the question of human rights. I have in the last two and a half months addressed meetings from coast to coast, and on almost every one of those occasions I have spoken on the subject of human rights which so deeply affects Canadians, especially those of eastern European background.
It might come as somewhat of a surprise that a minister for multiculturalism should be dealing with a question of this kind in the House of Commons. However, as I view my portfolio it is not only vertical, in the sense that it deals with the legitimate aspirations and concerns of the ethno-cultural people of

December 19, 1977
External Affairs
Canada but it is also horizontal, in the sense that a great many of the things done by the federal government, provincial legislatures, and even municipal governments have an impact, positively or adversely on those concerns. The issue to which I intend to refer tonight affects literally millions of Canadians who come from eastern Europe or who are of Jewish origin, and who are particularly affected by what is happening in the Soviet orbit in terms of restrictions upon the exercise of human rights and the way human rights are abused and denied in that part of the world. I think it is important, too, to point out that Canadians of all backgrounds share this concern about encroachments on human rights because we in Canada, having taken our own human rights for granted for so long, do not look very kindly upon the violation of human rights in other parts of the world.
Not only have I spoken to groups across the country, I have listened to them as well and I have heard their cries of anguish and their expressions of frustration when they direct their attention to this subject. Some of them act on occasion as though the Government of Canada had complete control over what happens in foreign states. Obviously, they know this is not the case but in their concern for relatives and loved ones in their former home lands they grow impatient with their government and what is happening around the world. Their concern was very well illustrated the other night, on December 8, when I had the pleasure of speaking to the Canadian Ukrainian Professional and Businessmen's Association of Montreal.
A large number of Ukrainian people were present, but because I was in attendance they took the opportunity to invite some 40 representatives of 15 ethno-cultural groups in the city of Montreal. At the conclusion of that meeting, a large part of which was taken up by questions and answers related to human rights, they passed unanimously, or certainly with a great body of support, a resolution of which I received a copy in the form of a telegram. I should like to read that resolution in order to show the depth of feeling on the subject.
We the undersigned, being the representatives of various Canadian ethnic communities of Montreal, mindful of the difficult state of human rights in various countries of the world today and especially in Eastern Europe, hereby petition the Canadian federal Minister of Multiculturalism to state openly before the Canadian parliament the following resolution:
"Be it Resolved that the matter of human rights and the freedom of cultural expression shall be actively supported both within Canada and at all international conferences as a matter of Canadian government policy. More specifically and insofar as such rights and freedoms are consistent with our philosophy of the Canadian way of life and in accordance with the above, be it resolved that the Canadian government publicly denounce the official repressions of ethnic cultures and the intolerant treatment of dissidents in Soviet and eastern European countries today and that such a statement be forthwith publicly expressed by Canadian representatives at Belgrade to all nations presently there in international conference in review of the Helsinki Agreement.
Furthermore, be it resolved that consistent with the above the Canadian government take all necessary steps to successfully resolve all outstanding requests for family reunification and for immigration into Canada by persons desiring to make this country their new homeland."
Alexandre Biega, Q.C.,
Canadian Ukrainian Professional and Businessmen's Association.
(Mr. Cafik.J
That telegram, better perhaps than my own words, illustrates the great concern which Canadians from that part of the world feel about the way in which people are being treated in their former homelands. There are people who want to leave their homelands for family reunification purposes, and whose only crime is to stand up and act like free men in their own societies.
Literally thousands of dissidents in eastern Europe who have dared monitor the act which was signed in Helsinki are being persecuted in one way or another, and for a number of reasons, all of which boil down to a violation of their personal liberties and freedoms. These human rights violations, I suppose, exist in many countries of the world, but certainly they exist in overabundance in that part of the world. Now that the Final Act of Helsinki has been signed and we are presently in Belgrade reviewing the provisions of that Final Act, I think we have a new basis from which to speak out on this particular question.
Before making specific points with respect to what we ought to be doing, I should like to review briefly some of the provisions of the Final Act which was signed in Helsinki. It is important to go through some of the history, some of the hard, basic positions adopted in that Final Act, since I believe many Canadians were frustrated when Canada originally signed the Final Act. They were frustrated because they felt that this government and other western governments which signed the Final Act at Helsinki had solidified the existing boundaries of states within the Soviet orbit. That is not really the fact, Mr. Speaker.
The fact is that in that Agreement on Security and Co-operation in Europe there is provision to recognize existing boundaries in the sense that no one would use physical force to change the boundaries. That is quite different from giving some moral sanction to those particular boundaries which, in reading the accord, I do not find directly or even implicitly.
So far as the three Basket clauses of the Helsinki accord are concerned, let me deal first with Basket I. This section deals with ten fundamental principles. Nine of these deal with state to state relations. The seventh of the ten deals with a state's conduct toward its own citizens, namely, the question of human rights. The seventh principle states that participating states will respect human rights and fundamental freedoms: through conscience, religion or belief. It will encourage the exercise of political, social cultural and other rights; recognize the universal significance of human rights and fundamental freedoms as essential for peace and friendly relations among states. States will act in conformity with the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and will also fulfil their obligations as nations to the International Covenants on Human Rights, dealing with economic, social and cultural rights, and civil and political rights.
Basket II deals with trade, industry, science and technology. It deals with the need to improve trade relations on the European continent. An important area deals with scientific
December 19, 1977

and technical exchanges involving the improvement of opportunities for the exchange and dissemination of information and international visits, including increased tourism on both and individual and group basis.
Basket III, which has more interest in relation to human rights for many in the west, is a provision which is the touchstone of the Final Act. The inclusion of humanitarian principles involving the freer movement of people, ideas, and information was a prerequisite of Canada and the western nations at the Helsinki talks. Basket III is essentially about international movement-the movement of individuals, information and ideas. Canada's main contribution in this particular area related to family reunification, which is a principle held so strongly by all Canadians.
Item one dealt with family reunification and emigration. Here states agreed to simplify the procedures and conditions for those requesting to leave in order to be reunified with families, and particularly with spouses, living in other states.
Item two dealt with regular family meetings. Here the agreement provides that states agree to attempt to ease the free movement among peoples, especially those who wish to meet with members of their families, and by promoting tourism and exchanges.
Item three was designed to increase circulation of printed, filmed and broadcast information and to improve the working conditions of journalists stationed abroad by freer travel and greater access to sources of information.
Item four dealt with cultural and educational exchanges in order to expand personal and institutional contacts by artists, scientists and scholars, and for access to information and materials.
I have run through those three Baskets in a very brief way in order to establish the background for the comments I will be making later on as to what in fact is happening in the Soviet Union and eastern European countries, so that we can relate those events to the sacred international agreement signed in Helsinki by those very countries. The major issues that I am concerned about are human rights, not only in eastern Europe but in all countries of the world.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) has in the past spoken in the House of Commons on the human rights climate in Uganda. There is no question that this is a serious concern and attracts a good deal of the attention not only of members of parliament but of all Canadians. The military coup against the democratically elected government of Chile and the subsequent arrest of individuals associated with, and sympathetic to, that government was another violation of human rights.
South Africa has been spoken of in this debate today. It is quite obvious that its official policy of apartheid is again a violation of basic fundamental human rights.
However, Mr. Speaker, these countries I have just named are not signatories to the Final Act signed in Helsinki. This does not make their violations of human rights any the less significant or any the less important, or indeed any the less
External Affairs
deserving of our attention as members of parliament or as Canadians. However, there is a distinction. The fact that they did not sign those accords, while the countries I am going to talk about in more specific terms did, makes a considerable difference. Therefore, monitoring all their abuses and publicly denouncing them, as a government, may constitute an interference with the internal operations of a foreign state.
However, in the case of the Soviet Union and other eastern European nations, they have agreed, by signing the Helsinki Accord, not only to monitor but to be monitored in regard to compliance within their own country of the Helsinki Final Act. Therein lies a very significant difference, because then for this country to speak out in relation to violations of human rights is not to interfere with the internal domestic affairs of a foreign state but, rather, to hold them accountable, as they would hold us accountable under this international agreement.
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, I think it is inappropriate for Canada or any other signatory to the Final Act, to be reluctant to speak out in Belgrade, here in parliament, or elsewhere in the world, in relation to perceived violations of that agreement. The Soviet Union's denial to its own citizens of the right to choose the country of their residence, is, if true, a violation of the Final Act, international agreements, and of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. The Soviet Union's apparent lack of co-operation and its refusal to allow families to be reunited appears to be an abuse of basic human rights and of its commitment to the various accords and covenants which it signed, not only in Helsinki but in other parts of the world.
The Soviet Union continues to be restrictive concerning visits of relatives between our two countries. I am sure all members of parliament received communications about the difficulty of travelling back and forth between these countries, something which really is guaranteed under these agreements. The majority of those wishing to leave the U.S.S.R. on private visits to relatives in Canada do not appear to be getting out of that part of the world. Canadian tourists complain that travel within the Soviet Union is restrictive. They are not allowed to visit relatives in villages or the resting places of their forefathers at cemeteries.
Basic human rights and fundamental freedoms have been recognized as having universal significance and are the subject of international concern by the United Nations Charter, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, the Convention against Discrimination in Education, and The Final Act at Helsinki.
The Final Act recognizes the international significance of human rights and the responsibility which all signatories have toward defending these rights and freedoms. By signing the Final Act the Soviet Union recognized that compliance with the human rights obligations is fundamental to security and co-operation in Europe.

December 19, 1977
External Affairs
With regard to the Belgrade conference, Canada has taken a serious view of what is happening there and of our obligation to speak up in Belgrade in recognition of our obligations as signatories to the Helsinki agreement.
From the opening Canadian statement by Mr. Klaus Golds-chlag on October 6, 1977, I will take a few random quotations in order to illustrate the strong and positive position that the Government of Canada has taken in these meetings. I might point out that these are individual quotes and are not to be read in sequence. I quote:
We cannot proceed on the assumption that relations between states can remain unaffected where respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms is seen to be deficient... We cannot agree that such a discussion (on human rights) constitutes an intervention in the internal affairs of participating states. We are here to measure progress . .. The dispositions of the Final Act in the matter of human contacts are of special concern to Canadians. We are a country of settlement.. . (and) have continuing family links in Europe. The Canadian government has pursued a policy that attaches priorities to the reunification of families ... It is our hope that one of the results of our meetings will be a more generous and humane interpretation of the family reunification clauses of the Final Act, not as an exception but as a matter of general policy and practice . ..
If that were achievable here at Belgrade, it would help more than anything else to lend credibility to our efforts in the eyes of Canadians ...
Indeed the factor of credibility could be crucial to public support for detente in Canada-
It is quite clear that we have taken a strong position in relation to the Belgrade conference, and we shall continue to do that.
I want to move specifically to cases of problems that have been expressed by many Canadians of violations of human rights around the world. I would first like to talk about what is happening in the Soviet Union and in other parts of eastern Europe as a result of the Helsinki Accords. When the accords were originally signed, I understood the Soviet Union widely distributed copies of them. They felt it would substantiate and support their position at home. When it became widely distributed within the Soviet Union and in eastern Europe, groups of people sprang up to observe the implementation of these accords.
One, the Moscow group, was established on May 12, 1976. Its aim was to promote the observance of the humanitarian provisions of the Final Act by means of informing all heads of state which signed, and the public, about cases violating the articles in Baskets I and III. Prominent members of the Moscow group were arrested, including Yurii Orlov and Alexander Ginzburg. In fact on February 15, 1977, the House of Commons passed a unanimous resolution protesting those particular arrests. Later, Mr. Anatoly Shcharansky was arrested. I understand he was part of that monitoring group in Moscow. He has been held in prison without charge for nine months as of December 15, 1977. I understand the Soviet Union has acted to hold him a further six months without laying a charge.
The Shcharansky case is a very high profile one in which I became involved. On December 10, 1977, I had a meeting in Toronto with relatives of Anatoly Shcharansky who are citizens here in Canada. There are over 30 of them.
Following negotiations with the Department of External Affairs and others here in Ottawa, I went to Toronto to meet with them to see if they would support a proposition whereby we would allow immediate landed immigrant status to Anatoly Shcharansky in order to relieve the Soviet Union of the difficulty they had in this case. His relatives here in Canada supported that proposition so much so that they were willing to provide joint support for any application of landed immigrant status. No official response has yet been received from the Soviet Union. It is time that the government gave consideration to further action in this connection so that the Shcharansky family and all Canadians will know that we in Canada do not take violations of human rights lightly.
Anatoly Shcharansky is but one very important dissident. There was a group set up in Ukraine on November 9, 1976, to achieve the same objective, namely, monitoring the application of the Helsinki Agreement. Prominent members of the Ukrainian group who were arrested included Mykola Rudenko, Oleksii Tykhyi, Myroslav Marinovych and Mykola Matusevych.
A public group was formed in Lithuania on November 25, 1976. Groups have been established in Georgia, in Armenia and, I am sure, in other parts of eastern Europe to monitor the application of the Final Act. These people have been prepared to risk their lives, certainly their freedom, in order to defend the right of citizens in those countries to exercise their basic freedoms.
We have seen from the recounting of the Helsinki Accords that we not only have signed an agreement along with Soviet Union and other countries which allows us to be monitored for any violations of human rights in our homeland, but the right to monitor through the Belgrade conference and through other means the implementation of that agreement. If we have that right as a nation under this agreement, how can we do anything other than support those in countries who are doing that which we have the right to do under international agreements? It is only logical not to interfere in the domestic affairs of another state. In fact, however, we are fulfilling the obligations imposed upon us by being signators of that agreement, by speaking out and by drawing attention to these matters at Belgrade, in this parliament, in Canada, and throughout the world. We are drawing attention to violations that have occurred and that continue to occur within that part of the world.
We have a deep and solemn obligation to speak out on this matter. Canada should not interfere with the domestic affairs of another nation. Those domestic affairs should be respected, but our respect for the domestic integrity of a nation does not mean we have to violate our decent and basic respect for the human rights of citizens in any country of the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, largely I want to direct my remarks to the coming United
[Mr. Cafik.)
December 19, 1977

Nations special session on disarmament. 1 hope the House appreciates this is one of the most important meetings that the United Nations has held since the Second World War.
Before doing so, I wanted to comment briefly on some of the remarks made in this debate today. I listened with great interest to the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche). I do not think many people in this Chamber could disagree with his very noble sentiments concerning how to move forward to a more peaceful world. I was surprised with one comment he made concerning Canadian-United States relations. He indicated that these relations had been handled adversely by the government and were at an abrasive state. When one looks at that question, one has to look at specific issues between Canada and the United States.
Is the hon. member suggesting that Canada's stance on the negotiation of boundaries should be more co-operative? Is he saying, for example, that on the Garrison diversion project we should have backed off in order to salvage Canadian-United States relations? Should we give up on the interception of salmon in the Fraser River by United States fishermen in order to maintain good relations? It takes two to maintain those relations. Canada has not been aggressive enough in dealing with the United States over cross-border issues, but we have not blown the question of Canada-United States relations.
We are two sovereign nations, and the evidence indicates that we must act in an independent manner. That is particularly the case with regard to the United States, because of the great unequal positions of power there are between the two countries.
I endorse what the hon. member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) said concerning the Arab boycott. He has expressed the views of the New Democratic Party on that particular subject. He should not get carried away with the question of refugees. There are three million Palestinian refugees in the world as well. I do not suppose he was suggesting that Canada should open its doors to them. Perhaps he was.
There is a real problem in the Middle East. Hopefully progress is being made in regard to that very abrasive conflict at this point in time.
We must stop being selective about human rights. My party supports the release of Anatoly Shcharansky. We would like to see more done in a public way for dissidents such as Daniel Schumacher in the Soviet Union. Also we would like to see an aggressive attitude on the part of this government in support of the victims of totalitarian regimes in Brazil, Chile, and the various other totalitarian states around the world. We cannot constantly deal with one question, the question of the victims of the Soviet Union. We have to look at oppression wherever it exists. Canada cannot be selective on the question of human rights. I am hopeful more and more names will come forward publicly from all over the world.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Hear, hear!


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: 1 should like to refer to the United Nations special session on disarmament, particularly in regard to Canada's stance at that important conference. The United
Adjournment Debate
States has developed the capacity to destroy the Soviet Union some 36 times over with the amount of nuclear weaponry it now has in its hands. On the other side of that equation, the Soviet Union can destroy population centres in North America some 12 times over with the amount of nuclear capacity that country holds. That has contributed to peace in the world since the Second World War. Any objective observer will come to the conclusion that the absolute insanity and madness of a nuclear exchange has resulted in no nuclear exchange among the major powers. It is called "mutual assured destruction".
Canada should examine very carefully how it can go about not increasing the insanity of overkill and how something positive can be done to persuade other nations in the world, as well as ourselves, to move toward a position of reducing present massive expenditure on world armaments.
As a world power, Canada has a relatively modest defence budget. In fact not many people are concerned about this area of peace, the amount of our national budget which is directed toward matters of defence. My party does not object to reasonable expenditures for improving and upgrading some of the equipment, but we have serious objection to the kinds of equipment and the kinds of roles we are playing. We are concerned with the real question as to how much of our money is spent on surveillance aircraft for the 200-mile zone, and as to whether the F-16 is a useful expenditure for this country. May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDING ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, on December 5 I raised a question regarding a constituent of mine, Mr. Larry McHale, as I have done on several other occasions in this House. It is a case that I have followed with some interest and with some deepening concern to make certain that Mr. McHale receives justice.
Approximately two years ago Mr. McHale asked that an investigation be conducted into the activities of the Bank of Montreal and its handling of his account vis-a-vis an organization known as Argon Developments, together with a Mr. Percy. It strikes me that Mr. McHale is not the kind of person who is bent on any kind of wrongdoing.
I do not want to frustrate the normal course of justice in any way, but I want to help bring about justice as speedily as possible. In order to do that, I believe Mr. McHale deserves to be heard as quickly as possible.

December 19, 1977
Adjournment Debate
Obviously I do not know all the details of the McHale case and I do not even know whether in his dealing, corporate and otherwise, he has been guilty of any kind of civil crime, and I do not pretend to know. But I do know that on the evening of December 7 five members of the commercial crime section in Vancouver spent two hours in the McHale residence and buildings on his yard looking for evidence, apparently explosives, which would implicate him in a conspiracy to do criminal mischief against one of the corporations in Vancouver. They found nothing, but they arrested Mr. McHale. Two days later another officer came with a police dog and conducted a second search. Again they found nothing.
On December 10 I attended a bail hearing in Vancouver to see if bail could be established for Mr. McHale to allow him his freedom. I was struck by the incredibly sloppy work done by the Crown prosecutor at those hearings. His information was not accurate and he made allegations which were completely unsubstantiated and easily disproven. I was also struck by the prosecutor's attempt to link Mr. McHale in a tangential way to a Mr. Jim McCann who allegedly has been indiscreet in his talk and in his actions.
The prosecutor's actions and the arrest warrant based on the word of an informant lead me further to wonder about procedures against Mr. McHale. The informant who gave the information for the warrant is a man who has a criminal record as long as my arm. He has had several charges of breaking and entering and armed robbery, and now is charged in Burnaby with trafficking, and in Vancouver with possession of narcotics. Apparently on the basis of information from this kind of an informant, McHale is now being held without bail, almost totally incommunicado. His wife has not seen him since that day, except in the court room, and three days ago there was a third search of his property, and again nothing was found.
Over the past 15 months I have talked with Mr. McHale a number of times and have never found him to be oriented toward violence but always looking for a solution by means of the court. While he has mentioned some bizarre incidents of harassment in the past, he almost chuckled at them because he knew I would not believe them. Yet, just today I read again the Canadian Bill of Rights which includes:
The right of the individual to life, liberty, security of the person and enjoyment of property, and the right not to be deprived thereof except by due process of law.
Last night I received a phone call from Mr. McHale's wife, who was alone in the house with their three children. She told me that a brick had smashed through the window. I presume this is one of the bizarre incidents of the kind he had mentioned to me before.
I am coming to some very unwelcome conclusions regarding Mr. McHale's case. It seems to me that one of the unfortunate circumstances is that, while Mr. McHale is in prison without bail, he cannot even pursue the process of justice in his own case. It seems to me that justice is being frustrated there. Here is a man who feels he has been wronged by a major bank and
[Mr. Fricscn.J
be has been very vigorous in trying to have his grievance aired and judged. I am now beginning to wonder if he has been singled out for cruel and unusual punishment, both to discourage him and to make him an example to others. Therefore I urge that Larry McHale be given the speedy trial he has requested.
Canada has prided itself on being in the vanguard of civil rights, and I assume that this House and the judicial system in this country would want to see Larry McHale have a speedy trial and to see his case heard as quickly as possible.


Mr. Rod Blaker (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I might first respond to the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock (Mr. Friesen) by explaining that the RCMP have indeed investigated the matter and that the resulting information has been relayed to the proper and appropriate authorities at the attorney general's office of British Columbia.
I also want to say that I very sincerely recognize the desire of the hon. member to pursue that principle of any open and free society that justice not only be done but that it be seen to be done. A more recent development of that adage might be that justice be done and seem to be done with reasonable speed.
I recognize the problem the hon. member raises, but I want to explain on behalf of the Solicitor General (Mr. Fox) and his department that once a matter involving a criminal charge has come into contact with a provincial system of administration of justice it would be totally improper if any person on behalf of, or involved with, the Department of the Solicitor General were to intervene. In that connection I am pleased to say that I have had an opportunity to get some better understanding of the situation from the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock and that I appreciate all the more the concerns he has raised.
I am very strictly limited as to the type of involvement I might have, but within that stricture I am pleased to say to the hon. member that if there is any assistance I can give within the limitations I have just described in terms of the administration of justice, I will certainly be pleased to do so. In the meantime the proper answer has been given; that the matter is within the administration of justice, which is a provincial matter. I ask the hon. member's appreciation of the fact that administration of justice is not a federal matter but completely provincial.


MANPOWER-BILINGUAL POSITIONS-REASON SOME EMPLOYEES DO NOT RECEIVE BONUS
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, on December 8 I addressed a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Cullen) asking about his awareness of a difficult situation which exists in the offices of his department in the Montreal region. I addressed my question to the minister based on a circular which was distributed in September by
December 19, 1977

the Treasury Board, and I would like to read a few sentences from it as follows:
The concept of units working primarily in French will be retained but the decision as to where such units will be organized will rest with individual departments ... The language requirements of positions will be based on the specific and actual work related need for one or both official languages.
Managers will determine the language proficiency required in bilingual positions for each skill (reading, writing, listening and speaking)...
At the same time the Public Service Commission issued a communique, and again I will read two sentences from it as follows:
Modifications to the official languages policies and programs of the federal public service will result in increased responsibilities for departments and agencies.
In the area of staffing, departments and agencies will now be responsible for determining the level of linguistic proficiency required of incumbents of bilingual positions within their jurisdiction.
In the constituency of Vaudreuil we are experiencing considerable difficulties in three departments. Under the Department of Veterans Affairs at the Ste. Anne de Bellevue Veterans Hospital many of the patients are unilingual English and many of the patients are also unilingual French. It is, of course, necessary for the staff to speak both languages. We thus encounter considerable difficulty in that there are apparently certain percentages which are given for the various levels of persons who are to be designated as bilingual and therefore eligible to receive the bonus of $800. It is inevitable in such circumstances that there are people who must use both official languages but who will not receive the bonus paid to their fellow employees. This may create a difficult morale problem at this particular hospital.
Also in the constituency, which is about 50 per cent Frenchspeaking and 50 per cent English-speaking, we are obviously going to run into difficulties in the Post Office where once again service must be provided in both official languages. In the province of Quebec the language of work is French so once again, because of percentage restrictions not all the personnel that must service the public will be designated, and therefore not all the personnel will receive the bilingual bonus. Again, this causes discontent.
My question was addressed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration because of the situation peculiar to the west islands of Montreal where almost the entire population is English-speaking. Because the offices of this department are in part of the greater Montreal area, however, the language of work is French-and quite rightly so-but obviously necessarily the personnel dealing with the public must be able to speak the English language.
The case that I brought to the attention of the minister, asking whether he was aware of it, was typical of that obtaining in many of the offices. Six counsellors worked together, each counsellor being given responsibility for certain trades. The work of the counsellors does not overlap. Thus, depending on the trade of the person seeking employment, that person would be serviced by one of the six counsellors. Since 85 per
Adjournment Debate
cent or more of the clients in the office are English-speaking, it is therefore essential that all six counsellors speak the English language. Because of percentage restrictions, however, only five can be designated bilingual. The five receive the $800 bilingual bonus, and the sixth, who is extremely competent and fluently bilingual, does not receive the bonus. This obviously creates inequity and morale problems.
In the same office an individual has been transferred from Toronto. This individual works with English-language clients and is unilingual English. Although the individual is taking the French course and trying hard to speak the French language, certainly at the present time by any stretch of the imagination that individual could not be considered bilingual. Again, the language of work of this office is French so there is no possibility that this person can be designated unilingual, which would have to be unilingual French. This person must therefore fill a bilingual position and becomes eligible for the $800 bonus. Again, one can see the difficulty that has been created.
While understanding what the Treasury Board and its hardworking president has been trying to accomplish, it seems to me that he has effectively passed the administration of the program over to the departments and to the employees of those departments.
I asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration about his knowledge of the situation. In his reply he tended to refer me back to the Treasury Board. I should like to hear tonight whether the document issued by Treasury Board in September which gives responsibility for administration to the departments, is actually in effect. I should like to know whether the employees are responsible and whether in these circumstances they are willing to investigate these particular examples of difficulty that are causing morale problems in my constituency.
Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary
of State): Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the hon. member that the revised policy on official languages states that the bonus shall be payable to all eligible employees for whom the Treasury Board is the employer, as well as to governor in council appointees, when such employees occupy positions which have been identified as bilingual and the individual employee has been indentified by the Public Service Commission as meeting the established language proficiency requirements for the position.
The government is fully aware that there are cases in which public servants occupy bilingual positions but rarely use both official languages, as well as cases in which people occupying unilingual positions are using both official languages from time to time.
It would seem, notwithstanding the circumstances which the hon. member has described as being very strange, that if in fact there is an instance of one out of six persons in the area which he describes finding himself aggrieved by not having a bilingual position, upon the re-identification process taking place in the department in the hon. member's riding such an

December 19, 1977
Adjournment Debate
employee could then seek redesignation of his position as bilingual. This would be possible if he were able to show that the position required a bilingual person, and if he could also demonstrate that he was bilingual. Complaints of the same nature arising, say, in the Department of Veterans Affairs or in the Post Office could be handled in the same manner.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION-REASON PUBLICITY OF FEDERAL DEPARTMENT NOT BROADCAST
Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Montreal-Bourassa: Mr. Speaker, on November 29 last, I asked a question of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion about the advertising campaign made on private networks in Montreal but not on the CBC. The minister did confirm that such was the case despite the fact that he had asked the CBC to broadcast the paid advertising campaign. On December 16 last, I directed the same question to the Secretary of State responsible for the CBC (Mr. Roberts) asking him specific things: whether he was aware of the matter, if so whether he could advise the House about the result of his dealings with the CBC on advertising not broadcast on that network but on private networks. The Secretary of State answered as follows: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have raised the matter with the CBC and they are reconsidering the criteria involved.
Since then, Mr. Speaker, I took the liberty of doing some research, and I find that the CBC's drive to exclude paid advertisement from DREE was extended not only to the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but also to the Post Office and the Department of Employment and Immigration.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I went beyond those three departments and the one referred to in my two questions. I took the liberty of doing some further research, and I found two other departments where that unpaid advertisement had been broadcast by private networks, one case being an ad by the Department of Urban Affairs in Montreal concerning a project in our area that will certainly cost close to $1 billion.
The Department of Urban Affairs announced that another phase was being brought up to $63 million, to provide for water purification plants or network for greater Montreal. This was broadcast by private stations. Since then, Mr. Speaker, another minister, the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport was in Montreal to attend an event that was non-political in my view, namely the Grey Cup Game. This got more than one hour's coverage time on private TV networks, but nothing on the government's network.
What concerns me deeply, Mr. Speaker, is that private networks are profit-making organizations. The Crown corporation is costing us over $500 million each year, and they are selective in their advertising. I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could be somewhat more precise than the minister, and answer those questions that are relevant in the current context. Canadians and certainly I myself would like to have
some explanation that would shed some light on the situation, because this goes much beyond the first question I put forward in the very specific case of one department. As I just suggested, this extends to six departments and, if I can follow up on my research, I am certain I will stumble on a good number of other cases.
Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary
of State): Mr. Speaker, I take cognizance of the two questions put by the hon. member, and I would like to state that DREE's original message was rejected because the advertising copy went beyond the scope of straight information material and did more than present the department's expansion program for the Montreal area. However, Radio-Canada lately amended their policy concerning the acceptability of advertizing material and DREE's message was then considered as a simple documentary on the effects of the DREE expansion program in the province of Quebec.
All DREE texts have now been approved. The corporation has established standards for the programs stating views and the controversial texts which forbid it to sell broadcasting time for any advertising which professes opinions or leads to controversy. The only announcers which are acceptable are those who have definite goods or services to offer and the content of the advertising message must normally deal only with those goods and services offered. Any advertising originating from departments or federal organizations must present fact or information; it must not present questionable issues, nor engage in political proselytism, nor contain politically oriented comments or opinions.
Before this last revision of the commercial policy of the corporation, the clause which required that the message only contain facts or information was interpreted in the narrow sense as applying to the effective mechanisms of a particular program of action and not to the incidental benefits that might result from it.
The frame of this policy has now been enlarged to take into account the various types of government messages submitted to the CBC. There are for instance those messages broadcast to announce program or particular services, there are those texts containing persuasive material, there are reports showing attitudes and there are announcements of a more general character.
This broadening of the policy allows the presentation of programs, services and functions in a broader frame. However, the CBC notes that government advertising must still be free from any controversial opinions or any statement which would give support to a given economic, social or political view. Furthermore, messages originating from the government must not openly proclaim the achievements of the various departments of the government.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Tuesday, December 20, 1977