1977-12-20

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 rise on a matter of pressing necessity further to a situation I raised in the House on December 8 with respect to misappropriation of public funds at Canadian Forces Base, Ottawa North, Rockcliffe and as a result of additional information I have received in the last several days, including the fact that the Royal Canadian Mounted Police has now been called in to investigate. I therefore ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie):
That the Minister of National Defence make a detailed statement outlining the situation, specifically, that he explain the removal from the base last weekend of thousands of dollars of allegedly improperly purchased musical and electronic equipment, that he state details of an attempt by one of the officers involved to pay back to the government a large portion of stolen funds and, finally, that the minister guarantee that all charges which may be laid will be dealt with by civil rather than military courts.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the terms of Standing Order 43, a motion can be presented for debate only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: No!


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I rise on a matter of urgency, a matter of deep concern. It relates to the announcement made by the Minister of Veterans Affairs to the effect that a 7.2 per cent increase in the rate of the war disability pension will come into effect in January. This increase, already provided by law, does not restore the basic rate to the composite level established in 1973, a level which the minister agreed was one which should be maintained. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Marshall):
That this House calls on the government to authorize the Minister of Veterans Affairs immediately on the reassembling of the House of Commons on January 23, 1978, to introduce legislation to restore the basic rate of the war disability pension to the average take-home pay of the five categories of federal public servants designated in 1973, it being the view of this House that anything less represesents a failure to keep faith with the veterans of this country.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion for discussion, pursuant to Standing Order 43, requires unanimous consent before it can be put. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Given the spirit of goodwill and generosity which normally exists at this time of year, and given the Scrooge-like approach of the former minister of national health and welfare was best exemplified by the letters that went out annually to some 2,500 Canadians who, upon the death of their spouse and in their bereavement, were suddenly deprived of the benefits of the spouses' allowance, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House request that the Minister of National Health and Welfare, in the spirit of Christmas and as a New Year's resolution, take a minimal first step to redressing the hardship of some 100,000 single, divorced and widowed Canadians between the ages of 60 and 65, most of whom are women, by undertaking to end the practice of curtailing the spouses' allowance upon the death of the partner in marriage, thus assuring that at least those who are presently in receipt of the spouses' allowance will not have to face, on the death of their partner, the added tragedy of economic deprivation.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate requires the unanimous consent of the House, pursuant to Standing Order 43. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
2032

December 20, 1977
Regional Economic Expansion FINANCE


PROPOSAL TO OBTAIN ASSISTANCE FOR MINISTER-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43. As the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) confirmed yesterday, our present Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) cannot do two things at once. The minister said: "The Minister of Finance cannot work in his department and concentrate on new measures at the same time as attending the House". As former ministers of finance have been able to do just that, even the hon. member for Rosedale (Mr. Macdonald) guided 13 bills through the House in a few months last session, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Whiteway):
That this House recommend that a trio be formed of Mr. Edgar Benson, Mr. John Turner and Mr. Donald Macdonald, being three former ministers of finance under the present Prime Minister, to assist poor Jean who appears to have floundered so badly with the passage of but one Bill C-l 1.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion which arises out of the continued uncertainty with respect to the future of DREE policies. This requires the assurance of the House that in fact no changes will be made to that program without an adequate prior process of consultation with the provinces. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That this House direct the appropriate ministers not to proceed with the development of new application policies for DREE programs until the fullest consultative procedures have been adhered to with the provinces aimed at identification of procedures which would have the effect of reducing the alarming high levels of slippage and having the result of assisting in the realization of permanent, rather than temporary employment, in such areas as those of our primary sectors.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
[Mr. Speaker.)


PROPOSAL FOR DISPOSAL OF NUCLEAR WASTE-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask for the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the recent proposal by Falconbridge Nickel Mines to the Department of the Environment to fill up some of their closed mines in the Sudbury basin with Canada's nuclear wastes; and in view of the fact that this mining company, and even some government documents, have suggested that it would not be unhealthy to have a radioactive waste heap in their backyard, and that it might be good, at least economically, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt):
That this House instruct the government to investigate the possibility of using the swimming pool at 24 Sussex Drive as a nuclear holding tank, and that it also investigates the possibility of sinking shafts for radioactive disposal at the homes of the executive and directors of Falconbridge Nickel both here and in the United States.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister concerning government policy relating to commercial dealings with other countries. As the Prime Minister would know, yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs announced a new commercial policy toward South Africa which would include the withdrawal of all Export Development Corporation's support. That was done "in response to those actions which at recent times have been undertaken in South Africa to which we in Canada take the strongest possible exception". Approximately 90 minutes earlier than that, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce in the House yesterday indicated that the government would do nothing about Export Development Corporation activities in Chile because "it is not really for us to judge the moral commitments of a country". Those positions are utterly opposite. They were stated on the same day by two different ministers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Paproski:: That is not unusual with this government.
December 20, 1977


Charles Joseph Clark: 1 regret to have to do this for the second time in a week, but I should like to ask the Prime Minister which minister was stating the policy of the government? Which of these two, who took absolutely opposite positions, was stating the policy of the government concerning commercial relations with countries with whose practices we disagree?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Leader of the Opposition refers to the speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, he will understand why in the case of South Africa we are having a particularly restrictive approach to trade with that country. This approach does not apply to other countries, with whose ideology we disagree.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, in light of the statement made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who said that no moral commitment at all would bear on the commercial policy of Canada-


Mr. Horner:: I did not say that.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Yes, you did.


Charles Joseph Clark: -perhaps the Prime Minister would remind the House of Commons precisely what distinction he and his government claims exists between the position taken by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the position taken by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 agree with the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that he has been badly quoted by the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: But it is in Hansard.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The position expressed by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is that it is not the business of EDC to make political judgments of the kind that the Tory party is obviously unable to make or to make a moral judgment. Under the EDC Act passed by this Parliament the role of EDC is to make judgments on credit worthiness. Overall, political judgments are made by the House and by Cabinet. I see the hon. member for Halifax enjoying this particular one.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I invite the hon. member for Halifax and the Leader of the Opposition to indicate to us their preference and I will do my best to respect their preference. Do they want us to cut off-


An hon. Member:: Just answer the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -cut off trade with Chile, or do they want us to resume trade with South Africa?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


An hon. Member:: Tell us what your policy is.


Charles Joseph Clark: I concede to the Prime Minister that the quotation of the words of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce might have been a bad one, but it was an accurate quotation of his words, exactly as the Prime Minister of Canada just now did not do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I would assume that the distinction on which the Prime Minister and his government seek to rely is a distinction referred to in some desperation by the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he said that in South Africa's case discrimination is built into the structure of the country and the minister said, I think, that South Africa stands alone in that regard. If that is the basis of distinction for the Government of Canada for the policy decisions opposite being stated by two ministers of the Cabinet yesterday, is the Prime Minister really saying that the Government of Canada is prepared, in terms of its commercial policy, to say that murder and torture-because murder and torture are alleged by Amnesty International and other bodies to have taken place in Chile- are all right but codified discrimination is not all right? Are these the criteria that guide the Export Development Corporation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, these are not the criteria.


An hon. Member:: Horner, you blew it!


An hon. Member:: And how!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: There are many countries in the world with which Canada and Canadians engage in trade. We disagree with the ideology of many of them, many of them have non-democratic systems, indeed probably many of them practice murder, terror and torture.


An hon. Member:: And you approve.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not think even the Tory opposition is suggesting that we should cut off trade with all the countries with which we disagree. We deal with South Africa in a different and specific way for a reason that even the Tories should be able to understand if they remembered that it was under their leader, the Right Honourable George Diefenbak-er-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Get it straight, it's John.


An hon. Member:: You've got a heck of a memory.


An hon. Member:: You need that ski holiday.


An hon. Member:: George lives in Kitchener, it is John who is here.
80027 -59(4

December 20, 1977
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert has two forenames, one is John and one is George.


An hon. Member:: You are coming along.


An hon. Member:: That is pretty good. You are getting smart.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The opposition has many leaders. They have various names, and 1 do not think that is relevant to the argument I am making.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Hees:: Do the splits, Pierre.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: You are making a fool of yourself, sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 wonder if the Prime Minister might be permitted to conclude his answer briefly.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it was under the Conservative government of Mr. John George Diefenbaker-and as he said, under his initiative-that South Africa was excluded from the Commonwealth. This must mean that in the minds of some Tories in this House South Africa is in a special position, and 1 wish the present Leader of the Opposition would learn that distinction from the master.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister referred to the right hon. member for Prince Albert as having two names. This government has two policies on the same subject, one stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and an opposite one stated by the deflowered Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: What the official opposition is suggesting is that there should be some criteria set by the Government of Canada which guides the activities of the Export Development Corporation, and what this House wants and needs to know- now that there has been this confusion of two policies stated by two ministers-is what precisely are the criteria which are set by the Government of Canada to guide the activities of the Export Development Corporation. Perhaps those criteria could be tabled in the House or stated by the Prime Minister. There are two policies. The Prime Minister has refused today to say in which one he believes. What are the criteria? If the Prime Minister cannot state them here, will he publish them in a way which will ensure at least that his two ministers say the same thing on this one matter?
[Mr. Trudeau.)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, that was the subject of my first answer when I indicated that the EDC operates under policies established by law passed by this House and under direction from the government. One of those directions is not to make political or moral judgments but to make judgments on the credit worthiness of the countries whose exports are financed. That is exactly the position taken by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
On the question of South Africa, even if the government did not issue specific policy guidelines, as indeed we did in the case of the Arab boycott, the role of the EDC would not be to make political or moral judgments. It is because the EDC was given specific directives under the law by the government that it is making this distinction in the case of South Africa and, indeed, in the case of the Arab boycott, and the reason we are doing it for South Africa relates to the particular abhorrence we on this side have for policies based on race and colour characteristics which are part of the policy and philosophy of the government of South Africa. I repeat that this was understood as long ago as 17 years by the right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert when he took the initiative of excluding South Africa from the Commonwealth.


Charles Joseph Clark: Is the Prime Minister telling us that to this government murder and torture are less abhorrent than the codification of discrimination? What we want to know is what are the criteria which guide the policy decisions of the government and which caused one decision to be taken in relation to the EDC in South Africa and not in other countries. Is it really and truly the position of this government that it finds murder and torture to be somehow more acceptable than the codification of discrimination?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That in its precise language is an exact repetition of an earlier question.


REASON FOR LOAN TO CUBA IN VIEW OF FACT CUBAN TROOPS ARE IN ANGOLA
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and concerns the general area of economic sanctions and boycotts. Bearing in mind the economic and commercial sanctions against South Africa which were announced yesterday, could the Prime Minister explain the double standard when the Canadian Government feels it is quite moral and ethical to offer a $100 million loan to Cuba through EDC to finance a stainless steel mill when that country has troops in Angola and several other South African countries and supplies arms to guerrilla forces in Africa?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, i hope you will give me a bit of time to answer this question because it is in three parts. The first is that Canada believes in freedom of trade. It believes in its businessmen-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Except in South Africa.
December 20, 1977


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not except in South Africa. Mr. Speaker, we are making no legislation to prevent Canadian businessmen trading in South Africa if they so desire. There is absolutely no restriction on the issuance of passports for them if they want to go and trade or play tennis or practice sports. It is the policy of this government that Canadians are free to move wherever they want, whenever they want. We do say that the federal government will not encourage or subsidize such movements in the case of South Africa. We went even further in the case of Rhodesia. Businessmen can move there if they want to, but we will not in any way permit or authorize the trade of goods with that country because under the United Nations Security Council resolution there is an embargo on trade with South Africa.
In the case of South Africa, Canada had an embargo on the sale of arms long before the Security Council adopted this resolution. We were away ahead of the United States and the Security Council on this matter but now this is also the policy of the Security Council that there should be no trade in arms with South Africa. There is therefore a certain limit on trade in arms with South Africa. The United Nations did not go that far in the case of Chile, in the case of Cuba, in the case of China, in the case of the Soviet Union, in the case of Czechoslovakia, in the case of Rumania or in the case of a devil of a lot of other countries who do not have democracy and who do not have ideologies in which we believe but in which case not only businessmen are free to trade and move there but in each case our government services, trade commissions and so on, are prepared to assist them in passage of this trade. We believe that as a general rule, trade between nations is a good thing. It is not only good economically but it is also good in terms of human relations between the peoples of these countries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William James Kempling: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker and I want to thank hon. members opposite for their applause. Given the fact that the stainless steel mill for Cuba designed by SMC in Montreal is a copy of an existing stainless steel mill in Canada and noting that there is considerable overcapacity in the world supply of stainless steel and that industry sources estimate Cuba could only use about 10 per cent of the production internally, is this the best use that the Government of Canada can find for $100 million? Could we not use it domestically to help our secondary industry? Could we not use it in Sudbury or some such place?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have been very close to argumentation ever since the question period began and I think the last question falls in that category.


INDUSTRY
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The Conference Board of
Ora! Questions
Canada predicts that unemployment in 1978 will rise to 8.4 per cent. The board's prediction for 1977 was very low. They predicted it would be 8.1 per cent and it is 8.4 per cent. They were not taking into consideration in 1978 the massive layoffs in the mining industry. In view of the predictions of very high unemployment, will the Prime Minister advise the House if he will bring in on the first sitting day in 1978 a plan to prevent the layoffs of any of the nickel industry work force as part of an overall commitment to reducing unemployment in Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is not possible, not only in economic theory but under the law, for the government to prevent nickel from laying off employees if it wants to lay off employees. The hon. member should know that the government has no legal recourse at its disposition to do that. Therefore, the suggestion by the hon. member is not only not legal and impossible, but it would not be constitutionally possible if the House wanted to adopt a law to that effect.


NICKEL-SUGGESTED STOCKPILING TO AVOID LAY-OFFS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have a very practical suggestion for the Prime Minister. In addition to the French and soon to be announced American examples of stockpiling minerals, nickel in the French example and soon to be announced copper stockpiling in the United States, 1 draw the Prime Minister's attention to the rationale behind his government's uranium stockpiling program, and I quote very briefly from the 1973 report-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member has a question, will he put it forthwith.


John R. Rodriguez: In view of the stockpiling which took place in the uranium industry in order to save the community of Elliot Lake, is the Prime Minister now prepared to recommend to cabinet a stockpiling program for nickel in order to save the economic integrity of the Sudbury basin and all other nickel producing communities across this country? That is the best Christmas present he could give to the nickel base industry.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, in his preamble the hon. member seemed to indicate that a lot of countries are beginning to do what Canada has been doing for the past 12 months. INCO has been stockpiling for, I believe, 12 to 14 months. They have stockpiles at hand for a value of some seven months' sales. Therefore, the hon. member is really only catching on to what has been done by INCO and presumably what is being done by other countries as well.


NICKEL-PROPOSED TARIFF ON IMPORTS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my final supplementary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Last week I asked the minister about

December 20, 1977
Oral Questions
the possibility of an import tariff on imported raw nickel into Canada when we have, according to the Prime Minister, a seven months' supply of nickel stockpiled. At that time the minister told me he would look into the question. That was over a week ago. Has he now looked into the possibility of an import tariff on raw nickel and, if so, what decision has he reached?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, the import tariff on raw material would only increase the cost of manufacture in Canada and the opposition wants to certainly increase manufacturing in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: That is a stupid answer.


An hon. Member:: It was a stupid question.

[ Translation]


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Since the Quebec city area is deprived of information because a newspaper has been on strike for a long time, we are restricted to information given on radio and television. In view of broadcast information concerning the participation of Canada in railway construction in Venezuela and considering the benefits which Canada would obtain, could the minister tell the House whether Canada will contribute financially to the construction of that railway and if so to what extent?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the role of External Affairs in this has been to coordinate the effort in terms of the foreign relations impact, but the actual negotiations have been carried out by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I am glad that the government was able to put this package together. I suspect that my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, could provide more of the details than I am in possession of at the moment.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary.
Considering the minister's answer, could I also ask him to advise his colleague and make the information public as soon as possible, because it is advisable that Canadians be aware not only of the financial participation of Canada in that country but also of the benefits which it could derive?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to inform the hon. member and the House that through EDC and the government accepting a liability clause, Canavan, the Venezuelan railroad, did go ahead. A contract will be signed with Bombardier for $40 million for the construction of railway locomotives. Sydney Steel Corporation in Nova Scotia will receive a $40 million contract for rail and Hawker Siddeley of Nova Scotia will receive a $45 million contract for the building of railway cars.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister who at a press conference yesterday stated:
If you have confidence in the future, you invest in the future. You put your money in it and you build something and then you say the future is going to be good.
Would the Prime Minister indicate to the House why he feels investors should have such confidence today when if they had bet on the Prime Minister in April 1968 when he took power and invested $1,000 in composite Toronto stock exchange securities, the buying power today would have fallen to $628, a 37 per cent plunge since the Prime Minister took power.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I think the hon. member is forgetting to take into account the capital gains that were made during that time.


FINANCE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister must realize that what I am talking about is loss of capital, not capital gains. In the absence of the Minister of Finance, the first Acting Minister of Finance and the second Acting Minister of Finance, I will put my supplementary to the Prime Minister. On December 7, the Minister of Finance stated:
I will be able to come to the House with a statement seven days after Bill C-l 1 is passed.
That was with respect to the employment tax credit bill. This is now the seventh day since Bill C-ll was passed. Will the Prime Minister indicate who will be making the statement to the House with regard to the employment tax credit bill?
December 20, 1977


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It will be the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Will the Prime Minister indicate when the Minister of Finance will be making the statement? Also, will he indicate whether we can expect a budget upon our return in January?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the answer is soon and the answer to the second question is no.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. Yesterday the Prime Minister challenged the opposition to co-operate and pass the CNR revision bill in all stages, stating that it would result in a saving of $100 million to the government. Can the Prime Minister explain to the House and the country how the elimination of an $808 million debt by the government of Canada and the loss of interest revenue to the government on that amount of money will result in an immediate saving of $100 million, which I believe the Prime Minister suggested would be used for job creation.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the House leader and the other parties want to call the bill immediately, we will give the answer to that.


Walter David Baker: Answer his question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can tell him now but it means making a speech. I do not think that would be permitted under the rules. However, if second reading is called today and if there is an undertaking to go to all stages by the end of this sitting day, we will gladly give an answer to the question that has been asked.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. That is a very weak explanation, and I must say that the paper transaction has more the appearance of an act of desperation than a sound decision. Given the fact that the cancellation of the $808 million debt will result in the loss of interest revenue to the extent of $65 million to $70 million on an annual basis, and given the fact that it has been said in some quarters that the actual saving to the government will be something in the order of $25 million to $30 million annually rather than the $100 million which the Prime Minister floated yesterday, I ask the Prime Minister whether this is part of the deviousness in which this government is engaged in fooling the people of Canada? Are we to expect the parliament buildings to be offered for sale as the next step on the part of this government?
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we are very happy that the hon. member is beginning the debate. I just challenge him and his party to call the bill-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Answer the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member wants us to answer the question.


Charles Joseph Clark: You misled the House, admit it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If hon. members want the answer, let them call the bill for second reading. We will give them the answers and we will vote on the bill tonight, but they are afraid to do that.


MANPOWER
Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration who, to one million unemployed Canadians, is the "Grinch who stole Christmas". My question is prompted by the reply given my colleague the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe yesterday when the minister said, as reported at page 1988 of Hansard, that "we are contemplating a slight change; we are considering using some of that money for the creation of more permanent jobs". That is a commendable objective. Given the projections by the Conference Board and others that the ratio of job vacancies to unemployed persons in the Atlantic provinces will grow by a ratio of one to 40, and given the fact that we already have a serious unemployment situation, does the minister intend, before making this fundamental change in the only make-work program that we have, to meet with the provinces before putting that change in place; and in view of the fact that the change should be in place by January, will that meeting take place soon?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, my memory of the story of the Grinch who stole Christmas was to the effect that eventually Christmas was given back by the Grinch; so I would expect, with the programs I have had, that I would not be considered the Grinch but the one who went looking for Christmas.
In all seriousness, Mr. Speaker, I have already discussed this matter at some length on a one to one basis with my provincial colleagues. There seems to be the general feeling that we should be looking to more permanent job creation of the kind I indicated yesterday, such as the Gull Island project, the spruce budworm harvest and things of that nature. It seems to me that this is the kind of initiative that we could be taking. I would not see that as a significant change; it is part of job creation, but with a slightly different, and I think better, emphasis.

December 20, 1977
Oral Questions


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, a change in the government is the only way to restore Christmas to the unemployed of this country. Obviously, the policies required are not coming from this government. As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, given the fact that this is the only job creation program which we have, and given the fact that we support the minister's desire for more permanent job creation, is the minister prepared at least, in the Atlantic provinces where unemployment is so critical, to sit down and discuss with the provinces, and indeed the municipalities, job ventures so that maximum use can be made of money under Canada Works to create the largest number of jobs which are permanent?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, first of all the hon. member is wrong in his facts; this is not the only job creation program of this government, or even of my department. Certainly, there are job creation programs which are initiated by the provinces. So far as sitting down with the municipalities and having discussions with them is concerned, we get the reading very plump and plain from the provinces that they do not wish us to operate in this area since it is their jurisdiction.
As for coming forward with projects, there has never been any shyness on the part of the provinces to suggest the manner and the ways in which this money could be more appropriately and effectively used for permanent job creation, and we are prepared to listen to this type of representation.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Walter Smith (Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Transport, but in his absence I will direct it to the Minister of Agriculture. I am informed that there are about 14 tons of soyabean protein meal in the harbour in Toronto, and I should like to know whether the minister can advise the House if that shipment has a chance of getting out of the harbour before the freeze-up of the seaway?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the day the question was asked the boat was loaded, and I understand that today it is going through Montreal harbour. It was loaded at the time the question was asked. I believe you could say that it was a "loaded question".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


LIQUID PROTEIN-MEASURES TO CONTROL SALE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare but in her absence I will direct it to the acting minister in charge of sports and physical fitness. It concerns
[Mr. Cullen.)
the controversial liquid protein diet that has been linked with some 39 deaths in the United States and is being widely promoted to overweight Canadians as a safe substitute for normal food. Although this diet is believed to be risky even under strict medical supervision, it is readily available over the counter to people who embark upon a crash diet. Therefore, is it the intention of the government to restrict sale of this product to prescription holders? If not, has the government in mind any other way or means of controlling this liquid protein diet?
Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Acting Minister of National
Health and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, the government does not intend to make this a prescription drug because the products in themselves are not harmful. However, by mid-January we will have a new regulation under which it will be required to use a label which indicates that the product is not to be used for weight control alone or for weight reduction, and is not to be used as the sole source of nutrition. Any food, even meat, eaten exclusively would be detrimental to a person's health, but this is not detrimental in itself.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, may 1 direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. I have with me a typical advertisement for this product which appeared in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix and says that "the Progo diet is one of the most effective, superior and safest weight loss systems ever devised". 1 should like to ask the minister, since the FDA in the United States is now investigating this type of diet because of the 39 deaths which have been linked to it, whether he would take the advertisement and investigate to see whether or not it is indeed misleading advertising?


Hon. Warren Allmand (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: 1 would be pleased to do so, Mr. Speaker.


INCREASE IN COST OF INSULIN-ACTION TO PROTECT DIABETICS
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should have liked to direct a question to the minister of health also, and since she is not here I presume the acting minister will answer for her. In view of the fact that there has been an alarming increase in the cost of insulin in this country, thereby creating hardship to diabetics, would the minister explain why this what appears to be unjustifiable increase has occurred and what action the government is taking to ensure that the interests of diabetics in Canada are protected?
December 20, 1977

Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Acting Minister of National
Health and Welfare): Mr. Speaker, I will be pleased to convey the hon. member's question to my colleague.


BILINGUALISM
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Secretary of State and concerns the announcement made earlier today outside the House regarding official language minorities. Given that we have seen the implementation of the bilingualism policy, a noble idea endorsed by all parties in this House, bungled by the government to the point where it has caused needless dissension in all parts of the country, and given that the minister announced today new measures for official language minorities, the implementation of which is already causing concern among the very groups that it is designed to assist, so that we are in danger once again of repeating the misunderstandings of earlier programs-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: -would the minister say how he plans to regain the trust and confidence of the organizations representing Francophone communities outside Quebec, the organizations which boycotted the earlier meeting today, so that they can play a meaningful role and participate in these programs?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has a peculiar and particular view of the effectiveness of the official languages program, a view, for instance, not shared by the former official languages commissioner, Mr. Spicer, who declared clearly that he felt at least 80 per cent of our effort under this program had been successful. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, to answer the second part of the hon. member's question, I must say that I personally met representatives of the Federation of Francophones outside Quebec Saturday last and that we have spent three hours discussing the program which I have announced today. I have also discussed that matter with hon. members on many occasions and I hope-I should say I believe-that we will obtain cooperation from representatives of provincial associations and from the Federation of Francophones outside Quebec. With our efforts 1 strongly hope we will succeed.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The report of the minister with regard to that meeting is quite different from that given by the president of the Federation des Francophones de Quebec. In his announcement earlier outside the House, the Secretary of State said: "The principles governing our approach are not different but the ways and means of implementing them
Oral Questions
remain to be settled." It is obvious the hon. gentleman did not agree to any commitment with the Francophone community at the meeting last Saturday. Since the ways and means are still to be settled, what initiatives does the minister intend to take to meet the wishes of this group?


John (Moody) Roberts: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I have an advantage over the hon. member because I was present at that meeting last Saturday while she was not. I can assure her that there was a very constructive discussion indeed and for that reason-even though we are going to receive positive criticism 1 hope-I expect to have very successful relationships with that association.
Mr. Speaker, I am deeply sorry that the hon. member who had been invited could not attend this very important meeting this morning.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question I should like to direct to the Prime Minister. It relates to a matter which was raised by the hon. member for St. John's East with the minister responsible for employment and it has to do with the creation of permanent jobs in the Atlantic region as well as with the problem of "slippage", to which I shall refer in a few moments. Bearing in mind the concern expressed at the recent meeting of the Council of Maritime Premiers about the future of the DREE program, can the Prime Minister give the House and the country his assurance that there will be no revolutionary changes with respect to that program until there has been consultation with the Atlantic premiers and the premiers of other provinces affected with the object of permitting them to contribute their ideas on the subject?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question of regional development was raised with each one of the premiers I have seen in the past few weeks and we undertook to meet this particular problem head on when the federal conference of first ministers meets. I understand the premiers of the eastern provinces are preparing themselves to deal with this subject. We on this side have been getting ready on an extensive basis to indicate the benefits of DREE and the reasons for which it should be continued.


J. Michael Forrestall: Our concern, as representatives of regions where there is serious and chronic unemployment, is that the DREE program and the program put forward by the Minister of Employment and Immigration have in some cases resulted in 60 per cent or even 80 per cent slippage in terms of the funds which go into those regions for the development of infrastructure and the creation of jobs. The money does not
2040

December 20, 1977
Oral Questions
stay in our region. The question is, whether in its planning, either for the federal-provincial conference in February or with respect to the future of DREE, the government has given serious consideration to programs which might assure a more permanent location for the dollars and cents and for the level of support so that our people may benefit from permanent employment rather than transitory jobs.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member realizes, I am sure, that under the DREE arrangements, primary responsibility for the economic development of a particular area in a province is a provincial matter. This is why much of the operation, all of it, I would say, is subject to federal-provincial agreement related to the objectives of particular regions. For this reason, the choice the hon. member suggests is really that of the provinces. As to the matter of what he calls slippages, or what one might call leakages, it is a factor which is present in all economies. Even in Canada, monetary and fiscal policies result in some leakage because Canada is such a large trading nation and it will always be the case that a dollar spent in one part of the country will not benefit that one part of Canada alone but will also have an effect in other regions.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (High Park-Humber Valley):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State responsible for small business. It is now over three months since the minister assumed his new role and inherited a ten-point program from his predecessor which he attempted to pass out as government policy on small business. In view of the fact that in reality this program merely expresses the need for further studies in this regard, though studies have been going on, now, for a number of years while inflation and unemployment continue to increase by leaps and bounds perhaps affecting small business more than any other sector, I should like to ask the minister what specific incentive-oriented programs related directly to small business he has in mind, if any, and when he proposes to introduce them-or does he intend to merely sit on the ten-point program?


Hon. A. C. Abbott (Minister of State (Small Business)):: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to the hon. member for asking this question. As he may be aware, a good deal of concern has been expressed about the operation of the Small Business Loans Act. The government has undertaken to make this program more attractive to small businessmen. I was able to announce this morning, after meeting yesterday with officers of the Canadian Bankers Association, that we shall be increasing the interest rate on small business loans under the act to one point above prime which, together with the amendments to the legislation of last June and the warm support of the banks, make the benefits far more easily available to small businessmen. This is a major point in our ten-point program. We are

taking a number of further steps and I hope to announce positive measures in the near future.


WHEAT-DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF MINIMUM PRICE
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Agriculture. It concerns the whole subject of the two-price system for wheat and the expected increase in the minimum price payable under that system. The minister has indicated that a decision will be made on this important matter before Christmas. Has a decision yet been made and, if so, at what level has the minimum price of wheat been set?


Eugene Whelan: No final decision has yet been made. There will be further discussions later this week.


Jack Burnett Murta: Will the minister give the House an assurance that an announcement will be made before Christmas with respect to the minimum price. Will that price be significantly higher than at present?


Eugene Whelan: The hon. member knows I cannot give such an assurance about price at this time. As to the other question, it all depends on how fast our work proceeds in this House and how much time is available to discuss the other topics before us.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received which is as follows:
Rideau Hall Ottawa
December 20, 1977 Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the hon. Wishart F. Spence, O.B.E., Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the twentieth day of December at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, Sir,
Your obedient servant, Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere Administrative Secretary to the Governor General
December 20, 1977



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Fernand E. Leblanc (Laurier) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-413, to amend the Criminal Code (off-track betting).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Fernand-E. Leblanc: Mr. Speaker, this bill permits the operation of off-track betting establishments to enable the provinces to advance funds for athletic, recreative, cultural and other purposes. Furthermore this would provide the province of Quebec with a supplementary source of income for the Olympic deficit, and the other provinces with revenues other than taxes.


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

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-20, to regulate the disposition and development of oil and gas rights.


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

Allan Joseph MacEachen: for leave to introduce Bill C-19, to amend the Petroleum Administration Act and the Energy Supplies Emergency Act.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Order Paper Questions TRANSFER OF OFFENDERS ACT

Hon. Francis Fox (Solicitor General) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-21, to implement treaties on the transfer of persons found guilty of criminal offences.


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

John (Jack) Henry Horner: for leave to introduce Bill C-22, to facilitate conversion to the metric system of measurement.


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

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are marked by an asterisk.)
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 29, 37, 188, 191, 194, 303, 395, 434, 463, 535 and 677.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Dick: 1.	On what date was Consolidated Computer Incorporated (CCI) incorporated?
2.	Is CCI under a federal or a provincial charter?
3.	Did the government make any loan to CCI and, if so, on what date did it first make a loan?
4.	Was the first government commitment a loan guarantee and, if so, who loaned the money at the time?
5.	Has CCI defaulted on payment of such loans?
6.	Is the government's financial commitment to CCI presently in the same form as the original financial commitment and, if not, what steps has it gone through from the original commitment to the present commitment?
7.	Does the government expect to recover its financial commitment to CCI and, if so, in what manner?
8.	Has the government ever made a financial commitment of a similar nature, in excess of one million dollars, to any other computer, data processing or electronic manufacturing company and, if so, what is the name of each such company and what percentage of the equity was owned by Canadians?
9.	Is Central Dynamics Ltd. a federally or provincially incorporated company?
80027-60*72

December 20, 1977
Order Paper Questions
10.	Who are the executive officers and the directors of Central Dynamics Ltd.?
11.	What percentage of the shares of Central Dynamics Ltd. are beneficially owned by Canadians?
12.	Is Central Dynamics Ltd. involved in purchasing equity in CCI and, if so (a) what are the financial arrangements (b) what are the principals involved in the financial arrangements?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Departments of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: 1 and 2. Consolidated Computer Inc. was incorporated under the laws of the Province of Ontario on June 21, 1968.
3.	The Federal Government made direct and insured loans to CCI under the General Adjustment Assistance Program (GAAP). The first loan insurance was extended on July 24, 1970, while the first direct loan was made on December 28, 1973.
4.	The first government commitment to CCI was in the form of a loan insurance under GAAP. The lender was the Ford Motor Credit Corporation.
5.	CCI defaulted on such loans in 1972, and the company went through a major financial reorganization shortly thereafter. Since that reorganization, CCI has not defaulted although on occasion GAAP has provided assistance to CCI without which assistance the company could have been technically in default.
6.	The Government of Canada's present financial commitment to CCI is not in the same form as the original commitment described in answers 3 and 4 above. As a result of the 1972 reorganization of CCI, the Government of Canada, through GAAP, and the Ontario government, through its agency the Ontario Development Corporation (ODC) acquired a controlling equity interest in CCI and certain debt instruments. Thereafter, GAAP and ODC, on a joint effort basis, provided other assistance to CCI in the form of direct or insured/guaranteed loans until December 1976. A second major financial reorganization took place in December 1976 which resulted in the conversion of the total indebtedness of the Government of Canada and ODC sold to Fujitsu Limited (Fujitsu), a Japanese company, 3,300,000 common shares of CCI in consideration for the undertaking and commitment by Fujitsu to provide CCI with technical, manufacturing, financial and marketing assistance and manufacturing and distribution rights and a reduction in royalties payable to Fujitsu. As a result of the December 1976 reorganization, the present shareholding of CCI is as follows: Government of Canada 53, per cent; ODC, 16 per cent; Fujitsu, 23 per cent; The Public, 8 per cent. In addition, GAAP provides insurance with respect to lease financing of the products manufactured by CCI, and provides assistance to CCI under the industrial assistance programs of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
7.	The government expects to recover its commitment in CCI by the sale of equity it owns in CCI. As a result of the reorganization, CCI's credibility has been significantly
[Mr. Dick.)
improved in the marketplace. This is being reflected by a better acceptance of its products and by an improvement in the company's financial performance.
8.	The government has only made such loan insurance commitments under the General Adjustment Assistance Program (GAAP) to three other Canadian-owned computer, data processing and electronic companies. The amount of loan insurance to these companies totals approximately $5.5 million. The government does not publish the names of firms receiving such loans from private financial institutions, since this is considered to be commercially confidential information.
9.	Central Dynamics Ltd.-Centre Dynamique Ltee was federally-incorporated on March 21, 1958.
10.	Executive Officers and Directors: (i) Officers-Sources: Annual Report-Year ending March 31, 1976: Russel C. Scrim-Chairman of the Board of Directors; Earle W. Wal-lick-President and Chief Executive Officer; Leslie K. Sell-meyer-Executive Vice-President; Kenneth P. Davies-Vice-President, Product Planning; Robert Mee-Vice-President, Engineering; Laurent Nadeau-Vice-President and Secretary Treasurer; Louis Harvey-Vice-President, (ii) Directors- Source: Annual Summary as at March 31, 1977: Russel C. Scrim-Mount-Royal, Quebec; Earle W. Wallick-Beacons-field, Quebec; Laurent Nadeau-Dollard-des-Ormeaux, Quebec; Arden C. Boland-Town of Mount-Royal, Quebec; William A. Grant-Montreal, Quebec; Gerald D. Sutton- Montreal West, Quebec; Alex G. Lester-Montreal, Quebec; Jean M. Paris-Outremont, Quebec; Jean D. Vincent- Pointe-Claire, Quebec.
11.	The 1975 CALURA return of Central Dynamics Ltd. indicates that 2,775,262 of the 2,821,280 common shares issued, were held in Canada.
12.	Central Dynamics Ltd. explored the possibility of purchasing equity in CCI but withdrew. The names of the principal shareholders and the details of the financial arrangements are given in (6) above and appeared also in Vote L37B of the Supplementary Estimates (b), 1976-77.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Is it a fact that there are approximately twenty-seven kinds of cheese produced around the world and that twenty-one of these can or are being made in Canada?
2.	What is the total amount (in pounds) of cheese imported in each of the past four years by types of cheese manufactured in Canada and specifically, has the import quota been raised and, if so, on what dates?
3.	What import duties are applied to foreign cheese similar to types made in Canada and is any consideration being given to raising them or to lowering the import quotas in order to assist the Canadian producers?


Yvon Pinard: I am informed by the Departments of Agriculture and Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows: 1. There are more than 400 different varieties of natural cheese manufactured in the world at present and these can be grouped into basically 18 types or kinds of cheese. These are grouped based on their distinct characteristics, meaning that the details of
December 20,1977

setting the milk, cutting, stirring, heating and salting are varied to produce characteristics that are peculiar to each type. At present, Canada produces 15 of these basic types.
2.	Canada manufactures 66 varieties of cheese and imports over 200 varieties. Statistics Canada do not break down imports or domestic production for each variety. An analysis was undertaken on Canadian market disappearance (including imports/domestic production) in 1975. Top six varieties were:
Variety	Market	Production	ImportsCheddar	176,600,000	176,000,000	600,000Mozzarella	41,100,000	40,000,000	1,100,000Brick	12,100,000	12,100,000	-Colby	6,500,000	6,500,000	100,000Gouda	5,100,000	800,000	4,200,000Parmesan	4,400,000	3,100,000	1,300,000
The reason that the Colby and Gouda amounts do not add up in total is that the department rounded the figures off to the nearest 100,000 and that accounts for the discrepancies. A global import quota of 50 million pounds of all types of cheese was established on June 6, 1975. There has been no increase in the quota size since that time.
3.	The general duty rate is three and a half cents per pound with the exception of the British Preferential-three cents and New Zealand-one cent (Special Agreement). Duty rates are being reviewed as part of the MTN preparation and will be a topic for discussion during the GATT round of negotiations. The global cheese quota is reviewed annually, however, no decision has been taken yet as to its size or structure for the 1978-79 Dairy Year.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the Canadian Film Development Corporation 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?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the Canadian Film Development Corporation as follows: 1. Four persons (no public servant).
2.	1975: $75,361; 1976: $7,105. (No public servant.)


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the Canadian Government Photo Centre 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?


John (Moody) Roberts: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows: 1. There are two persons
Order Paper Questions
now under contract to the Canadian Government Photo Centre; neither is a retired public servant.
2.	(a) In 1975/76 the total amount paid to persons under contract to the Canadian Government Photo Centre was $6,030; this sum was paid to one retired public servant under contract for a three-month period immediately following his retirement date, (b) In 1976/77 the total amount paid to persons under contract to the Canadian Government Photo Centre was $5,277.75; none of this total was paid to a retired public servant.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the Canadian Livestock Feed Board 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?


Eugene Whelan: In so far as
the Canadian Livestock Feed Board is concerned, the answer is: 1. Five-There are no retired public servants under contract.
2. (a) $18,128; (b) $22,801.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	Has the Dominion Fire Commissioner obtained (a) part-time (b) full-time employees from private employment agencies in (i) British Columbia (ii) Alberta (iff) Saskatchewan tiv) Manitoba tv)'Ontario-(vr) Quebec tvii) New Brunswick (viii) Nova Scotia (ix) Prince Edward Island (x) Newfoundland and, if so, in each case, how many?
2.	Are such employees paid from supplementary estimates and, if not, from what estimates are they paid?
3.	By province, what was the (a) average hourly rate paid to employment agencies (b) average hourly rate paid to employees (c) total amount paid by the Dominion Fire Commissioner in (i) 1975 (ii) 1976?


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Public Works and Minister of State for Science and Technology):: 1. The Dominion Fire Commissioner has not obtained any part-time or full-time employees from private employment agencies in 1975 or 1976.
2.	Not applicable.
3.	Not applicable.


Mr. McKenzie: 1.	What is the total number of persons under contract to the Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission 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?

December 20, 1977
Order Paper Questions
Mir. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs): The Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission did not have anyone under contract in 1975. In 1976, the Commission had one firm install fire alarm systems in three of the cottages. The total amount paid to them was $8,800, and the individuals in the firm were not retired public servants.


Mr. Laprise: For each year since 1970 to date, by province, did the Industrial Development Bank or the Federal Business Development Bank grant loans and, if so (a) how many (b) what was the average amount involved (c) what was the percentage of loss?


Mr. Leggatt: In each fiscal year since 1970, what amount was spent in the Constituency of New Westminster by Department of External Affairs and those agencies that report to it?


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Statistics are not available as departmental expenditure records are not maintained by region or municipality. However, as the Department does not maintain an office in the constituency of New Westminster it is estimated that expenditures are negligible.


Mr. Howie: Approximately what percentage of Canada's industrial operating capacity was utilized in the first quarter of (a) 1974 (b) 1976 (c) 1977?


Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Yes, the annual report of IDB/FBDB shows the following data for the Bank as a whole:
(a)	(b)	(c)Year Ending	Number of Loans	Average Amount	Bad DebtsSeptember 30	Approved	Approved	Written Off, Net1970	3,584	$46,000	$ 847,0001971	4,449	44,000	758,0001972	5,889	45,000	1,269,0001973	7,859	44,000	1,387,0001974	9,712	48,000	2,260,0001975	9,461	42,000	3,631,0001976	10,088*0	45,000*n	1,599,000<2>1977	9,311<*	46,000* O	3,932,000*')
*D 12 months ending March 31.
*21 Six months ending March 31, 1976.
The information requested under parts (b) and (c) is not available by province. The number of loan approvals by province (a) is as follows:


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Statistics Canada produces capacity utilization rates for the Canadian Manufacturing sector. The capacity rates for this sector are as follows: (a) 1974, first quarter, 93.24; (b) 1976, first quarter, 84.09; (c) 1977, first quarter, 84.09.


Mr. Laprise: 1.	As of March 31, 1977, were income tax arrears still owing by national and multinational corporations and, if so (a) in each case, what was the amount (b) at what rate of interest, if any?
2.	For each year 1973-1977 to date, what was the (a) number (b) amount of outstanding arrears?


Hon. Joseph-Philippe Guay (Minister of National Revenue):: 1. (a) As of March 31, 1977, there were 28,654 corporation accounts outstanding for a total of $289,908,577. Information is not available to categorize these accounts by "National" and "Multinational", (b) The rate of interest on arrears is 6 per cent per annum.
Fiscal Years
Ending September 30	Ending March 31
1970	1971	1972	1973	1974	1975	I976*(l) 11	1977Newfoundland	81	87	149	197	245	314	346	304Prince Edward Island	34	33	46	83	77	57	65	66Nova Scotia	116	136	186	260	262	369	435	428New Brunswick	85	112	142	224	284	286	341	345Quebec	601	654	1,085	1,383	1,652	1,459	1,721	1,725Ontario	978	1,216	1,568	1,789	2,391	2,507	2,629	2,505Manitoba	101	156	151	179	248	208	222	204Saskatchewan	112	138	140	178	246	205	226	271Alberta	330	430	436	646	1,067	957	1,033	963British Columbia	1,094	1,428	1,928	2,835	3,159	3,019	2,979	2,446Yukon	23	43	42	47	40	29	30	25N.W. Territories	29	16	16	38	41	51	61	29Total	3,584	4,449	5,889	7,859	9,712	9,461	10,088	9,311
(l) Covering 12-month period April 1, 1975 to March 31, 1976.

December 20, 1977

2. Year
(a) Number of Accounts (b) Amounts
*1975 and Prior	4,881
1976	12,546
1977	11,227


[Stage Direction]
* Statistics are not maintained in such a manner as to permit a further breadown of these figures.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, December 19, 1977, consideration of the motion of Mr. Jamieson that this House takes note of the present state and future prospects of Canada's relationships with other nations of the world.
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated last evening, most of my remarks on this interesting debate will be directed toward the coming United Nations conference on disarmament. Before commencing to deal with that particular subject, I want to respond to the proposal made by the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) yesterday in regard to South Africa. As the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) indicated, we welcome that particular initiative. Actually, we consider it to be approximately ten years late.
We should like to look at the pig in the poke because we are not sure what it means. Perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs will flesh out this proposal. The Secretary of State has suggested that Canada will develop a code of ethics for Canadian companies which deal with South Africa. That is all very well, but unless we know what are the sanctions to be applied to those who violate the code, to a large extent that statement is meaningless.
In regard to the response of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), I have concern about the statement he made as reported at page 2007 of Hansard dated December 19, 1977, which reads as follows:
As we study these implications-
Perhaps this statement is an indication of the Conservative policy. I hope it is not. When the Leader of the Opposition referred to "implications", he was referring to implications on the proposal of South Africa. Perhaps other participants in this debate may correct what appears to be a rather naive statement. It continues:
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-
External Affairs
If any member of this House believes that we should not exercise sanctions against a country with a largely black population, on the ground that it will hurt the black population, he does not understand what the black populations of those countries want. If members consulted with the leaders of the black communities in South Africa, I am sure they would discover that these sanctions have not gone far enough. While there may be some short-term economic loss to blacks, those people welcome initiatives on the part of western industrial countries in order to move their country forward to a civilized and democratic system.
This House has heard a long debate regarding the question of which countries should be singled out for these particular sanctions. It is not a simple question, nor is it a simple issue. Moral decisions have to be taken. I suggest to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) that when South Africa is isolated as a special case, Chile also should be isolated as a special and separate case. As far as Chile is concerned, western industrial countries assisted in the subversion of the democratic elected government of that country. Surely, that places Chile in a special category. The moral arguments the government is making in regard to South Africa should apply to Chile, even though it is a different case. These judgments are made subjectively.


Mr. Breau:: What about Cuba?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: My hon. friend asks me about Cuba. If aid in the world is to be examined, we must examine who is receiving the aid and how much of it is being directed to people who need it. If you use that as your moral judgment, you will continue to have good relations with Cuba because Cuba is one country that has taken aid. No matter how much we may disagree with their regime, you will find that the aid which has gone to Cuba has in fact gone to people who need it. That should be the criterion all around the world. When we aid countries in Africa and Asia, we should make sure that aid is going to the poor and starving who need it, certainly not to monuments growing up to a totalitarian dictator, as has happened so often with aid. That is not what is happening in Cuba.


Herb Breau: What about human rights?


Stanley Howard Knowles: What about a speech?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: If the hon. member would like to rise to his feet and make a speech, he can do so. However, I do not mind responding on the question of human rights. As I said yesterday, we should stop being selective about human rights. We must remember that there are other countries beside the Soviet Union which mistreat their citizens. If there are people being tortured in Cuba, we should be on the floor of the House calling out their names, just as we do in any other regime around the world. So the idea that we keep throwing the names of countries back and forth at each other, on the

December 20, 1977
External Affairs
assumption that somehow this party is only interested in human rights in certain countries, or that party is only interested in human rights in certain other countries, is simply a non sequitur; it is simply irrelevant.
I should like to get back, however, to what has really happened to this country over the past ten years, particularly the image of this country in international affairs. I have had the opportunity to attend every Law of the Sea Conference since they began, and it is the general consensus around the world that this country's reputation as a peacemaker has suffered very seriously since the days when Lester Pearson was conducting the foreign affairs of this country.
There are a number of reasons for this, but one of the major ones has been our slavish acceptance of any policy in this world promoted by the United States state department. So long as this country continues to take a satellite position in world affairs, its reputation will continue to suffer. I should like to remind hon. members of some of the things this country has done in the past which has won it the reputation of being an aggressive peacemaker. They are: the Canadian refusal to support the U.S. boycott of Cuba; Canada's strong disapproval of the Anglo-French-Israel invasion of Egypt of 1956; the Prime Minister's visits to China and Russia; and the disapproval by this country of the massive bombing of Vietnam. These are all foreign policy matters in which Canada stood up and was independent on the side of peace, and it was because of those policies that we gained a reputation as peacemakers.
But our reputation today is no more that of a peacemaker. We have not engaged, in the international sphere, with the kind of aggressiveness, originality and initiative that our diplomats and our governments once had. Surely, at this time, we should have entered into these kinds of initiatives. Another initiative was taken by the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), who I see here today, who established that kind of independence in foreign policy with the initiative he took at the Commonwealth conference to exclude South Africa from the Commonwealth.
Here, again, was a foreign policy initiative where Canada stood up and said something independently and differently. If there is anything this country needs, it is to have independence. It needs a sense of nationhood. It can have that sense of nationhood through such a foreign policy. But what has been the record for the last ten years? The record has been a slavish, following whatever policies happen to be adopted at the time in the United States.
So long as we see our role as merely that of a satellite or supporter of the United States, we are not doing ourselves credit and we are not contributing to our own relationships with the United States. Nor are we contributing to peace in the world, because the United States is entitled to have us as an objective friend and to have from us the kind of advice which may be different from the advice they have been receiving their own bureaucrats. That has not been the case. In the United Nations we have simply been slavishly following the United States example in one motion after another.
[Mr. Leggatt.l
In the province of British Columbia there is very real concern about the establishment of the Trident nuclear submarine base in Bangor, Washington, which is some 60 miles south of the city of Victoria. It is not an easy issue, but when I wrote to the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the response may as well have come from the U.S. government-there would have been hardly any difference.
Let me just quote the response, to give a little background. There has been real concern among some scientists that this particular weapon was being developed as a first-strike weapon because of the technical facility that was available to target the nuclear warheads right on the sites of the silos of Soviet missile sites, thereby at least providing some temptation for a first-strike capacity. That issue was never addressed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who is the present government House leader. He said this in response to my letter:
The Trident submarine programme is being undertaken by the U.S.A. in the development of its strategic deterrent. Because the programme does not form part of the Canada-U.S. arrangements for the joint defence of North America and the proposed base at Bangor will be built on U.S. territory, there is no requirement for the U.S.A. to consult Canada with regard to this matter and we have not made any representations to the U.S. authorities on the subject.
Here is a matter which intimately affects the safety and future of people all over the world. Surely we could at least expect enough interest on the part of this government to determine at least what kind of weapon it wants on our doorstep and what effect that weapon will have on the mutually assured destruction theory which many people tell us has kept the peace. There is merely a slavish adoption of the U.S. foreign policy. Why is the UN disarmament conference so vital, not merely to this country but to the whole world?
In 1973, the world spent S240 billion on armaments. It went up from $160 million ten years previously. If we were to take 10 per cent of the saving on the world armament bill, here are some of the things we could do: we could eliminate all illiteracy in the world by the turn of the century, simply by spending $1.5 billion of that money. We could feed the hungry of the world at the rate of $4 billion a year, and there would be no more hungry children in the world.
We could provide a family planning program of some $2 billion a year which would once and for all begin to tackle the major problem in this world, which is overpopulation. We could provide a worldwide medical care scheme at the rate of $4 billion a year. We could treble our foreign aid at $3.5 billion, and we could provide a permanently funded peacekeeping force at $1.5 billion a year. That is by simply reducing the expenditure of the world, on armaments, by 10 per cent. It is growing at a faster rate than 10 per cent. By simply reducing it to 10 per cent, we would at last tackle some of the global problems.
How do we go about moving this question forward? How do we, as a country, go to the United Nations disarmament conference and do something in terms of stating that we have a commitment to the principle of disarmament? There is not
December 20, 1977

much point in going there talking out of both sides of our mouths, selling arms around the world and then suggesting that we cut back. There is not much point in saying we believe that action is needed to reduce the proliferation of nuclear weapons while selling the dangerous CANDU reactor around the world to every unstable regime that is willing to buy one with a set of safety standards which is becoming a laughingstock in terms of scientific research into the risks inherent in the CANDU reactor.
In my view, what we have to do is take some unilateral action. It takes courage to act alone in these matters, but we are in a rather unique position. We can make unilateral decisions which will not adversely affect us and which may move the world forward in terms of disarmament. There is ample precedent for this. There is a treaty which controls the use of bacteriological warfare. That treaty came about because of the actions of former President Nixon of the United States, who acted unilaterally in saying that the United States would end its continuing moves toward bacteriological warfare. When he acted unilaterally, the Soviet Union joined the United States, and there is a treaty. Canada also acted unilaterally in forgiving some $254 million of debts of the poorest countries of the world. That act of generosity spurred Sweden forward, and Sweden did exactly the same thing. That did not come about as a result of a continuing dialogue which took forever. There has to be a break in the log-jam.
I suggest that in three areas we can move this country forward in a very significant way and make a significant contribution to the world UN conference. Right now, Canada ranks sixth in the world in terms of sales of weaponry to other countries. Those sales amount to about $355 million a year. Over a ten-year period we sold about $78 million worth of hardware to Peru, $49 million to Brazil, and $45 million to Iran. My hon. friend was wondering about Cuba. We sold none to Cuba. We sold $25 million worth of weaponry to Malaysia and $1 million to Chile. Of course, that was subsequent to the change of regime in Chile. We are making a pretty hefty profit in arms sales around the world. Surely in order to move to a position of less hypocrisy on this subject at the UN conference we should make a unilateral declaration that we will suspend for one year, while the conference is on, our sales of arms abroad and invite other like-minded countries to join us.
The second, and perhaps the most important unilateral act we could take, would be to abandon our nuclear role in the world. I know that our nuclear role is very peripheral. We have some storage of nuclear weapons at two or three bases in Canada, but my information is that the abandonment of our nuclear role would not in any way affect the capacity of the United States in terms of the defence of the North American continent. To abandon that peripheral role would be an important step forward. More importantly, abandoning our sales of the CANDU nuclear reactor abroad is absolutely vital.
In the world there are two kinds of proliferation, horizontal proliferation between major countries, and vertical proliferation of atomic weaponry-the more dangerous. As surely as
External Affairs
we are sitting in this House, terrorist groups will get hold of a nuclear weapon. The Japanese Red Army received $6 million from the government of Japan not too long ago in a hijacking. As a world community, surely we must ask ourselves how we are to stop the inevitable from happening. We cannot stop it by wringing our hands. First, we have to study the way we are securing our airports. It is still most unsatisfactory. More importantly, we have to take a careful look at the way we are proliferating peaceful nuclear technology around the world and making more and more of the byproducts of the CANDU reactor available to terrorist groups.
The day a terrorist gets a nuclear bomb and blackmails a major city or country will be the day of Canada's shame, because that is the day Canada will have contributed to that act. The very real risk of war and the risk to the human race now is the risk of terrorism and the risk of terrorists obtaining a nuclear weapon.
We have abandoned the role of peacemaker because we have made compromises. We have gone ahead and sold nuclear materials regardless of the cost because of pride in our technology and the bureaucracy, the business and the labouring people who work in that industry. Altogether, it is a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy. The ball is rolling. The momentum is there, and this government has never been strong enough to stop it. What we need is a government which has the guts to stand up to its bureaucracy and say, "No more sales of nuclear weaponry and nuclear technology abroad". The day we do that we will make a significant contribution to peace and to this particular conference.
Last, but not least, we have abandoned the question of peace research. War and peace are both subject to scientific study. The amount we spend in terms of contributions to war is massive. In terms of peace research, I suggest we give nothing. We should commit 10 per cent of our military budget to peace research and to approved peace study groups. Sweden has done this for many years. We no longer have that reputation. I want to mention one group, the Canadian Peace Research Institute, which has been struggling on a very small budget and with no help whatsoever from this government for a very long time. Surely we should be moving forward in terms of world peace.
I want to conclude on an optimistic note. Most disarmament conferences work only under pressure. I do not believe the United Nations itself would have been formed without the memory of the agony of the Second World War. So we have to ask ourselves what pressure is now on the delegates who will attend the conference. There is pressure because of nuclear weaponry and because of the very real risk that it will get into the hands of either a terrorist group or a small and unstable country.
Canada has done almost nothing-in fact, less than nothing-to prevent that weaponry from going to unstable parts of the world. I believe we could make a positive contribution if we were to, in a unilateral way, move the conference forward; but if we simply go with the same hypocritical attitude we have had for the past ten years, Canada will not only not be listened to but will not have any impact on the conference.

December 20, 1977
External Affairs


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have followed this debate with a great deal of interest. I have read everything that was said yesterday in my absence, and I have listened to the speech of the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) who always commands attention when he speaks in the House.
I welcome the opportunity to discuss international affairs. This has been a closed shop since the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office. The day I asked the Deputy Prime Minister whether consideration would be given to setting aside a couple of days for discussion of external affairs, I knew in advance what his answer would be. He is one who through the years has dedicated himself to parliament. I often think he must feel lost sitting among those who today are in the same cabinet and who seem to regard parliament as an institution of little or no consequence, realizing in advance, as they do, that whatever stand they take, a supine majority will ensure passage of legislation regardless of whether it is for the benefit of Canada.
Over the years, under the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent and under my government, whenever there was a request for a debate on external affairs it was granted. The present minister, too, shares the appreciation of the assistance which parliament can give to a government when members speak freely concerning matters with which they are conversant and of which they have knowledge.
There were times in the past when I represented Canada at various conferences both before and after I became prime minister. Since 1963, for some reason I have never had the opportunity of going to any conference even in a minor capacity. I can only conclude the reason is that I do not have those qualifications which other members of the House have.
On this occasion 1 will discuss a number of matters which I believe deserve to be considered. I am not surprised-I have become inured to it-that whenever I am about to speak, or am on any list to speak, the Prime Minister always finds that some other call takes him from the chamber. Were he here, I would be able to make some personal references because he chose to forget my Christian name today. I can understand any relationship to anything Christian he might find discomforting having regard to the degree to which he has so often in the past been able to secure his inspiration from non-religious sources. I regret, too, with the minister and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) the fact that the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Wagner) is not here to speak. This House has, for him, that feeling of respect which comes to those who, regardless of whether one agrees with his political views or not, is recognized as one who is prepared to speak as he feels.
I must say that I am very much interested in what has been decided in connection with South Africa, to which I intend to make reference later. One thing that strikes me about this government, however, is the abiding affection that is shown to Castro and to Cuba. Whatever offence is committed in that country is covered up, concealed, approved or at least con-

nived. These are things that are difficult to understand. Canada does not want to be "Castronated".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Canada does not support any nation or national leader whose objective is civil war and launching it in other parts of the world.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The minister says, "Hear, hear." I hope he will say "Hear, hear", when opportunities come to determine that Castro and his works are taboo in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Castro has gone all over Africa launching civil wars. Castro has American republics deeply concerned over what he has been doing to undermine their governments in favour of communist governments or far left institutions. In Great Britain, in the United States, in Prance and in West Germany I have spoken to the leaders of those countries. They cannot understand the close and abiding relationship that prevails between the Prime Minister of Canada and Castro. An international brigand-that is what he is-who has his forces destroy freedom in African countries, is endeavouring to undermine democratic governments in Central and South America. Yet he is Canada's pet. It is beyond my understanding.
Mr. Speaker, I repeat and underline that Castro is engaged in exporting revolution to Africa and inciting revolution in the Americas. People cannot understand why the government of Canada kowtows to Castro. The Prime Minister went to Cuba on an official visit. He said, "Castro, you wonderful fellow," while at the same time Castro had 10,000 or 12,000 troops in Africa undermining legitimate governments and spreading revolution. Today, if you speak to leading Americans both in and out of the administration, the first thing they will say is, "Why is Canada so close to Castro? Do you not know what he is doing?"
I will say no more about Castro except this: the fact that Canada's Prime Minister has placed Canada's arms around Castro is causing a deep sense of suspicion against Canada and its objectives all over the western world. I pass on to another example, France. France owes much to Canada. Its survival in two world wars is in very considerable measure due to the sacrifice of other countries and the soldiers of other countries. The treatment given to the government of Canada by the present administration of France is as unjustified as it is reprehensible. The French government encourages separation of Quebec from Canada.
Why has that been Canada's attitude? Why does Canada permit, without strong disapprobation and public disapprobation, the fact that the government of France and the administration in that country does everything they can in a subterranean and sometimes very open way to bring about the separation of Quebec from the Dominion of Canada.
December 20, 1977

What treatment has Canada received? Does this government fall in line with the present administration of France? The Hon. Gerard Pelletier was appointed Canadian ambassador to France. Normally, within a matter of a few days, an ambassador presents his letters of accreditation. What happened to him? He was in Paris for days and days. He wandered around the city of Paris and sometimes went out in the country. Since the minister made an observation a moment ago that I could not hear, I ask him whether he approves of the treatment given by France. Three weeks went by, almost four, and finally the government of France, the administration, accepted Pelletier with his letters of accreditation.
What happened to the Prime Minister of Canada? He went to Paris following the celebrations in London. He was invited to lunch with the President of France. That is a normal thing. How long did he have to wait? He was invited for lunch on a certain day. The President of France found he could not accommodate him that day and the date was postponed. That was an insult to Canada. I do not agree with the Prime Minister very often, but I found it difficult to understand the humility with which he was prepared to accept that insult, and yet the degree to which his sensibilities are aroused in the House of Commons if anyone in the opposition says anything even remotely critical of him.
Then Premier Levesque arrived and was met with pomp and circumstance. While Canada's practice for years has been that no foreign decoration be received by Canadians without the consent of the Canadian government, the President of France took Levesque in his arms and announced that he had been awarded the prestigious senior decoration, the Legion of Honour No. 1. He did not get the consent of the Canadian government.
What did the Canadian government do? Instead of taking objection the Prime Minister tried to laugh it off. From now on the rules respecting awards to Canadians by foreign governments will not require the consent of the Canadian government. Canadian after Canadian has had honours turned down from foreign countries. Surely France has not forgotten the tens of thousands of Canadians who gave their lives in two world wars.
What happened in this case was an insult to Canada, regardless to whom it occurs, and I will always take strong objection to it. The Prime Minister, in effect, said there was nothing Canada could do. Levesque did not wait for any consent: he started to wear it even before he got it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: We pass on from there. These are just indications of the degree to which this nation internationally is falling behind. I think of the announcement yesterday concerning South Africa. There was a tremendously courageous announcement! I was condemned because I took a stand at the Prime Ministers' Conference of 1960 and 1961 when an application was made by South Africa to rejoin the Commonwealth. The Prime Minister said today that I pushed South Africa out. He knew that statement was not true when he
External Affairs
made it. South Africa withdrew. It said it was through with the Commonwealth.
In 1960 I brought before the Prime Ministers' conference the proposition that if any country within the Commonwealth became a republic, but if later it decided that it wanted to be a member of the Commonwealth, to rejoin was not automatic. Such country should at least follow reasonably carefully those common dictates that activate men and women who believe in freedom. The debate, went on. I shall always remember it. I said to the Prime Minister of South Africa that all we ask is that South Africa shall not disfranchise 12 million or 13 million blacks. Under Botha and Smuts it was otherwise. The black and coloured had members. Those members were abolished. I said that I do not ask that you give man and man equality, but I ask you to restore the constituencies in the parliament of your country that prevailed for blacks or coloureds during the days of Field Marshal Jan Christian Smuts and General Botha. On and on went the argument.
In the passing years, the criticism of the stand I took has disappeared. Had 1 not taken that stand, the only white prime minister to take the stand at the Commonwealth, and had there been a vote, that would have been the end of the Commonwealth itself.
I was then criticized in this chamber. And holy of holies, the Liberal party was shocked into speech. They condemned me and said it was terrible. I always dislike missing observations which pass between outstanding and distinguished members of the government, and I am sorry that I missed that which passed just now between the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson)-because it must have been good.


James Aloysius McGrath: The Deputy Prime Minister was writing speeches then.


Paul Yewchuk: He wrote the speeches condemning you.


John George Diefenbaker: I know he wrote one or two. I always enjoyed those which he wrote because they followed a common pattern. The identification was there without attribution.
Then the criticism of that day ceased in light of the recognition that had we had a vote in the Commonwealth at that time, that would have ended the institution. An announcement is now made in a rather surreptitious way. The government has a habit of doing this. Yesterday the Secretary of State for External Affairs enunciated the government's policy toward South Africa. The minister normally does not assume the garland of self-imposed piety. I was not here yesterday, but having read what he said I thought he was a little apologetic. What of Canada's attitude? The western world has stood back and let Angola fall. Castro marched, or marched through others. Angola had the world's second largest diamond mines, diamonds which are so necessary today to modern production. We are now going to cut off South Africa, or at least go so far as we can. It has the world's largest production of diamonds, manganese and chromium.

December 20, 1977
External Affairs
This brings me to the situation today in Rhodesia. Rhodesia produces 14 per cent, I think, of the world's supply of chromium. If Rhodesia falls, the U.S.S.R. or its sycophants will control 93 per cent of the world's chromium. Are we going to cut off trade with South Africa? No, Mr. Speaker. Today the Prime Minister did a mental somersault and said we are not going to do that. What we will be doing, Mr. Speaker, in effect, is driving South Africa, by isolation, more and more into the Russian orbit. The course that the government announced yesterday in such evanescent terms is to me a major policy blunder. Russia needs industrial diamonds. Russia now has access to Angola's wealth in this regard, but it is not sufficient. She will now find herself in the position of getting the necessary diamonds which she does not have now.
Why are we slapping South Africa in the face? In 1960 and 1961 the government was condemning me. Satan was spiritual compared to the description given of me for what I had done by taking a stand on behalf of freedom. Their memories have not failed them, Mr. Speaker. They remember the awful picture painted of the right hon. member for Prince Albert destroying the Commonwealth.
What is the situation today? All of the major supertankers, in their tripping from the Middle East, South Africa or North America, must use Capetown or Simontown for watering purposes. These are the two largest naval bases which can serve these major tankers. The United States navy uses the Simontown base for its submarine flotillas which patrol the bases there. These shipping routes are critically important. If they fall under the aegis, directly or indirectly, of the U.S.S.R., this is extremely dangerous to the survival of freedom not only there but throughout the world.
I make the appeal to the government to reconsider this question. I have not heard any hallelujah choruses from other parts of the world among our great allies. The course which was taken so cavalierly yesterday is one which is fraught with terrifying danger to the future of freedom everywhere in the world. I know the government will laugh it off. It will end up by saying that it has not done such a thing, that what it has done is for the benefit of South Africa or for some other country.


An hon. Member:: For Castro.


John George Diefenbaker: Castro does not come into this, but you would think he had been the government's adviser.
1 turn now to another matter. What has the government done on behalf of the millions and millions of people who love freedom as you and I, Mr. Speaker, love it? I speak of the Ukrainian people, the Baltic peoples and other peoples of smaller population than those two? Has it ever protested the treatment being handed out to the Ukrainians and to others in the United Nations? Never a word has been spoken since 1960. Why is that? Is that the way to establish world leadership-to be afraid to speak out?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Just before elections.


John George Diefenbaker: Somebody suggests the government will speak out just before elections. Well, the government has an awful lot of speaking to do if it thinks it is going to survive. Canada has not spoken out since September, 1960, when on behalf of the nation, with Khrushchev present, I protested strongly against denial of freedom in the Ukraine. And do not tell me that protests are ineffective. The Kremlin does react to international criticism. I call as my witness in that behalf Cardinal Slipyj, who for many years, I think 17, was a prisoner often in solitary confinement in labour camps in Siberia. He was in Canada three years ago and was asked about the protest that was made by the former prime minister of Canada, John Diefenbaker. He said, "I have been in solitary confinement for more than 19 months, and others who loved freedom as I do are in the same position." Suddenly, one day in late September, 1960, we found that an amelioration took place. The U.S.S.R. does react to criticism. It did in that case.
What about the United Nations today? It seems quarantined against adopting protests and resolutions concerning the denial of fundamental freedoms and the tyranny being practised at this very moment toward freedom-loving citizens under the control of the U.S.S.R. No action can be taken in that forum. I call as my first witness at this point the Ukrainian Committee, a body which has made a tremendous contribution to freedom over the years. In 1970, 1971 and 1972 they got in touch with the Secretary-General of the United Nations concerning the terrible injustices being done to Ukrainians- and this applies to 50 million others who are behind the Iron Curtain. The protest was not even submitted to the assembly. But the Kremlin does feel criticism. It does react. I hope that the heart of this government will be moved even now to protest against the awfulness of the tyranny being perpetrated against these people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Or does freedom know double standards?
Is the standard of this government the standard of Canada? Not at all. 1 go across this country and one of the major criticisms I hear is this: the government is frozen in its own image of self-importance and refuses to do anything internationally unless forced to do so. Mr. Speaker, I fear for the continuance of the United Nations. I do not see how it can stand up having regard to some of the things it has done or failed to do in the last year or so. I believe I am the only member of this House who was in San Francisco in 1945. I sat two seats behind that great tribune Field-Marshal Smuts, the only person there who had been a member of the original League of Nations. He said, "I wonder if this organization will go the way of the League of Nations." I see the United Nations today becoming dominated by small individual states who are united by only one thing-a common desire to achieve their own objectives. I fear that unless one of the great nations like Canada speaks out, the United Nations is on the road to suicide.
December 20, 1977

What of the millions who are in the camps? I saw the statement made the other day by the Prime Minister. Ele said he was disturbed by the fate of these millions. What about the thousands of freedom-loving dissidents who, like Valentyn Moroz, are imprisoned over there and held without evidence whatever? What about the tens of thousands who have been in prison camps and mental hospitals? Although unidentified, they belong to the immortals in freedom's lexicon.
Mr. Speaker, I am told my time is almost up and therefore I want to pass on to just one other observation. I want to deal with the general situation as 1 find it. Here we are, meeting in this chamber in complete quietness and calm. How few today have spoken out against the overwhelming power in military terms and the growing threat presented by the Soviet ballistic-missile navy? This is an hour of peril. Admiral Douglas Boyle stated recently that there are 32 missiles at sea in Soviet submarines in the Atlantic within range of Chicago, 24 within range of the whole of North America, and 32 in the Pacific within range of American missile sites in the west. According to the Admiral, the Soviets will have 30 of their Delta-class submarines in commission before the U.S. Navy equivalent Trident-class boat is launched. Mr. Speaker, we are living in a period of calm similar to that which characterized Europe during the period from 1934 to 1939. Only Churchill then spoke out. He was regarded as a pariah. He was a voice in the wilderness. I heard him speak on two occasions: the House emptied. He said the war was coming, but nobody paid attention.
On March 24 of this year General Alexander Haig said the Russian offensive build-up was "unimaginably" greater than had been expected. Major-General George J. Keegan of U.S. Air Force Intelligence said that for 25 years the U.S. Secret Service underrated what was happening. Yet here we are, doing nothing, living in a fool's paradise. Everywhere, all over the world, the U.S.S.R. is marching-not with its own troops but with those of other nations. The only warning from one of the great powers has come from the Chinese. They warn that the Russians plan the military take-over of western Europe and go on to say it could be completed within 21 days without serious damage to western industry. South Africa and the Middle East would then be taken over in a matter of days.
Some may ask me: Why has Russia not struck? Mr. Speaker, I have read every work which had been published on this subject in the last ten years. Most conclude with that question. 1 think the answer is this: the Kremlin is afraid of its own dissidents. The United States cannot understand Canada's attitude. Indeed, to a very great extent today the United States does not trust the government of Canada.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Ridiculous!


An hon. Member:: Why should they?


John George Diefenbaker: I heard someone say "Ridiculous". Oh, it is all right to laugh it off.


Maurice Dupras: Is that what you want?
External Affairs


John George Diefenbaker: The interruptor at the back there is fully qualified by his lack of intelligence. I make that statement advisedly. Why has Canada carried on as it has with Castro? Did the United States approve? It was and is deeply concerned.


Mr. Duclos:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member is qualified by his ignorance to keep quiet.


Louis Duclos: What do you mean by that?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I regret to interrupt the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), but his allotted time has expired. Nevertheless, he may continue if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Louis Duclos: No.


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos) has no knowledge of the subject at all, yet he said "No". One member can do that in this House.


Louis Duclos: The hon. member should not have insulted the minister. .


Charles Joseph Clark: It is a shame the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos) is such a child and cannot accept some criticism in this House. He should be sent back to the Department of External Affairs.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: No, that cannot be done.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Eglinton):: Mr. Speaker, although I follow the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the debate, needless to say I will not follow him in his style nor in his convictions in certain matters. I listened with great interest to the right hon. member. It was one of his more entertaining speeches. Occasionally I wondered whether the right hon. member was dealing with the issues from the point of view of self-justification or whether he was dealing with the issues as they appear in the world today.
Particularly I was struck by his references to South Africa. The right hon. member spent a good deal of his time talking about the moral stature which Canada ought to have in the world. Also, he indicated that Canada ought to be interested in the grievances of Ukrainians and the Balkans. He felt Canada should stand up for the rights of people throughout the world. I agree entirely.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: But when the right hon. member referred to South Africa, his standards changed. I hope he will look carefully at the words he used in the debate today. He seemed to indicate that Canada should not participate with other

December 20, 1977
External Affairs
countries in disciplining the government of South Africa which is engaged in an abhorrent policy.


An hon. Member:: Just like Uganda.


Mitchell William Sharp: 1 do not intend to follow this line. 1 am grateful to the right hon. member for suggesting a debate on foreign affairs. However, I am surprised he did not deal with some of the more fundamental issues facing the world, rather than personally attacking the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). This debate provides me with an opportunity to congratulate my successors in the office of the secretary of state for external affairs, the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) and his predecessor, the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen). If the Deputy Prime Minister was not such a superb House leader, probably he would still be the secretary of state for external affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: How does that make you feel, Don?


James Aloysius McGrath: As a Newfoundlander, I resent that.


Mitchell William Sharp: The Deputy Prime Minister was disappointed when the Prime Minister asked him to revert to his old job as House leader. But I realize I speak for everyone in the House when 1 say that those who take an interest in foreign affairs are full of admiration for the manner in which the Deputy Prime Minister brought his great talents to bear in the field of Canada's external relations. The best evidence of his judgment and skill in this field was how he handled the co-chairmanship of the north-south dialogue. It was agreed, had it not been for his patience and negotiating skills, that the conference probably would have been a total failure. Second was his selection, as Canadian negotiator of the northern pipeline agreement with the United States, which is one of the most important agreements in our generation.
The hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs has talents of a different kind. Those talents stand him in good stead. I am happy this man is the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He has taken over his responsibility with skill and imagination. On many occasions I have listened to him answering questions posed by members opposite, and I have admiration for the way he commands his department and is knowledgeable of this intricate field. I am sure all hon. members wish him well. He has a balance of common sense which derives from his origin and his background. He has a sense of idealism which will stand him in good stead in the turmoil of this rapidly changing world.
When I was the secretary of state for external affairs, I proceeded on the premise that a foreign policy should, as far as possible, be non-partisan. I believed then, as I do now, that Canada can achieve its external objectives most effectively if there is a broad measure of agreement among all parties. This does not mean that the opposition should agree at all times as to how the government proceeds to achieve its objectives. There is plenty of room for criticism, even if there is broad agreement on objectives.

I have listened to the various speakers who have participated in this debate, as well as reading their speeches. I should like to make some remarks to illustrate how much agreement exists on the basic element of Canada's foreign policy. No one has questioned Canada's membership in NATO, nor the presence of Canadian troops in Europe. Speakers for the official opposition have urged that we should support NATO more. No one has questioned Canada's responsibility to provide development assistance. The criticism is that Canada is not doing enough.
Party spokesmen vied with one another in their commitment to the defence of human rights throughout the world. Doubts were expressed about the implementation of the third option in our relations with the United States, as well as the contractual link in relation with the European community. But no spokesman has disagreed with the purpose of these policies or principles. The Commonwealth, which our Prime Minister has done so much to sustain, is still considered to be a useful instrument for the promotion of international understanding. All parties voiced approval of the additional measures announced by the minister to show Canada's disapproval of apartheid in South Africa, with the exception of the right hon. member for Prince Albert, who apparently does not speak on behalf of his party in this case.
All members joined the minister in welcoming the recent dramatic moves for peace in the Middle East. Whatever differences there may be about the details of nuclear safeguards which Canada is attempting to apply, there is no difference among the parties on the essentiality of preventing the geographical proliferation of nuclear weapons. On that we are all agreed. If I may say so, this is not surprising. Canadian foreign policy is not an ideological matter, it is not the product of the imagination of particular foreign ministers who happened to be in office at the time the foreign policy of Canada is derived from certain basic and unalterable facts. The first of them is our geographical position in the world. I can remember on one occasion being in the Canadian embassy in the Soviet Union when the then foreign minister, Lester Pearson, was making a speech. He was thanking our Russian hosts for their hospitality. We had made our first visit to the Soviet Union at the beginning of the fall, and he was addressing three of the big five who were then in office.
He said that Canada is not a big country, that we have a lot of geography, we do not have many people and we do not have a long history, but we occupy a strategic position in the world, located as we are between the United States in the south and the Soviet Union in the north, and therefore are subject to pressures from both sides, to which Mr. Kaganovitch-who was then one of the Russian leaders-rose and said that so far as the Soviet Union is concerned, it is friendly pressure. Mr. Pearson then replied-and I am sure the right hon. gentleman would agree with him in that respect-that the strongest pressure he knew was friendly pressure.
So it is our geographical position in the world that has a profound effect upon Canadian foreign policy. The second is
December 20, 1977

our history, and particularly our peaceful evolution to independence. Not many countries can say they have not had major wars or revolutions in their territories, but we can say that and it has a strong influence on our foreign policy. Our dependence for domestic prosperity on trade, which arises from our resources and our position in the world, is another fact which influences Canadian foreign policy. Another is the origins of the people who make up this country, drawn from all over the world, and our full commitment to democracy and freedom.
These facts have led all governments, the government under the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), the government of Mr. Louis St. Laurent, the government of Mackenzie King, the government of Mr. Pearson and the present government, to very similar conclusions. I was very interested to find, when I was listening to the right hon. gentleman, that he never dealt with any of these fundamental issues. He dealt, in a very entertaining and striking way, with what were really the superficial aspects of Canadian foreign policy and I think he missed a great opportunity, but of course that is his business.
May I now turn for a few minutes to a particular application of the principle of a non-partisan approach to foreign policy which I think is important, that is, the relation to the activities of members of parliament when they go abroad on interparliamentary visits. As hon. members are aware, there are now innumerable interparliamentary gatherings, and I understand from Mr. Speaker that there are others waiting to be formed. For the first time in my experience in the House of Commons,
I had the honour of co-chairing the Canadian side of one of these interparliamentary bodies, namely, the Canadian European Parliamentary Association. This has given me a new insight into some of the problems and opportunities associated with these institutions, even though as secretary of state for external affairs I had some knowledge because 1 was consulted about them from time to time.
Their most beneficial aspect is the opportunity to exchange views on problems of common concern, and this exchange can be superficial or it can be in depth, depending entirely on the personnel on both sides of these discussions and their willingness and ability to participate. My first observation arising from this recent experience is that although there has been in recent years a considerable improvement in the preparedness of Canadian parliamentarians to participate at these interparliamentary meetings, we can do much better. We still do not take these contacts seriously enough, to the detriment of Canada's position in the world and Canada's relations with other countries.
One reason for this is that Canadian parliamentarians, unless they have ministerial experience, parliamentary secretaries or active members of committees concerned with external affairs, do not become very expert in the subjects on which they are talking to parliamentarians from other countries, except of course in domestic matters on which they may be truly experts. I know that briefings by officials are helpful, but there is not the continuity sometimes that is desirable in these contacts.
External Affairs
The school for members of parliament in external relations should be the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, but I regret to say that recently it has not been fulfilling that role, a role which I think would be very useful. When I was secretary of state for external affairs I found it very useful to refer matters of importance in foreign policy to that committee, but more recently, for reasons that I do not quite understand, there has been considerable devolution in the activities of that committee.
I have in front of me a list of inquiries that were undertaken by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, beginning in 1968. There was one inquiry in 1968, one in 1969, and six in 1970, there were four in 1971, one in 1972, four in 1973, two in 1974, and in each of the last three years only one. 1 am excluding the consideration of the estimates. What I am talking about are full-scale inquiries arising out of the estimates, or out of a reference of a piece of legislation. It seems to me that it would be very desirable that this committee be reactivated and given more work, because I cannot believe that there are no problems that could be referred to the committee.


Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West):: May 1 ask the hon. member a question? Would he not agree that combining national defence and foreign affairs with some of the problems that have existed in national defence since the so-called unification has tended to put external affairs questions somewhat on the back burner?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not know that 1 agree altogether with that. 1 would have thought there are some questions that could have been discussed in that committee, such as some that were discussed in this debate, where there might have been a better opportunity for an exchange of views, for bringing in people to bring testimony, and so forth, purely on questions of external affairs and not only on national defence. In making these comments, you will see that I am following the tradition of being non-partisan. I do not mind raising questions of this kind which 1 think are important to the functioning of this institution.
Another reason for the relevant ineffectiveness is that the Canadian side of interparliamentary associations, or at least the elected members from this side, do not report to anybody, either to the House or to a standing committee. Recently I had the experience of being co-chairman of the Canada European Parliamentary Association which underlined the curious position of the Canadian side. With the approval of Mr. Speaker, a subcommittee was formed to examine more closely relations between Canada and the EEC with respect to nuclear energy.
At the conclusion of our subcommittee discussions which took place first in Brussels and then in Ottawa, the European side insisted upon the preparation of a communique or a report which they wished to make to their parent body, the European parliament, so we agreed to the preparation of a report-but I had nowhere to send it. I gave it to Mr. Speaker, who was the

December 20, 1977
External Affairs
only authority I could find who could receive this report. I sent copies for information purposes to the committee, which is now defunct but one will understand the problems which arose. This was an important report which should have been referred to a standing committee for discussion. At least it ought to have appeared in print. As it is now, it resides in Mr. Speaker's hands and in the hands of the members of the committee for their information, but I have no machinery for its transmission.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, 1 point out that when I was co-chairman of the Canada-U.S. delegation some years ago, along with my successor as Speaker we were able to convince the then Mr. Speaker Lamoureux to table the report so that it would appear as an appendix to Hansard. This was done as a result of my insistence, so the precedent is there. 1 wish the hon. member well in his efforts to get those printed as appendices. The hon. member should just try it and see how far he gets.


Mitchell William Sharp: I thank the hon. gentleman. That does not solve all the problems, however, because in this particular case it was a subcommittee; it was not the committee as a whole. There might have been greater ease in getting the House to agree to publish the report of the committee, but this was the report of a subcommittee and this multiplied the problems. However, I thank the hon. gentleman. 1 think his heart is in the same place as mine, he wants to see these procedures improved.
When Canadian parliamentarians meet their counterparts from other countries, they are not participating in negotiations. That is the function of the governments of Canada and the other countries concerned, but by such activities Canadian parliamentarians are engaged in promoting understanding, and this requires them, on the one hand, to be as fully aware as possible of the policies of the Canadian government. On the other hand, they must be able to report their activities and conclusions to the body from which they were selected. After all, these meetings have a purpose other than educating individual members of parliament. 1 therefore suggest that at an appropriate time we ought to look at our standing rules.
At one time the idea that there should be a report to the House was put forward. I am not quite sure whether I would think that desirable, because 1 think it would be resisted very strongly by those who have the responsibility for organizing the work of the House. However, I see no reason why the report should not be referred automatically to a standing committee and provide the basis for further discussion if that is desired.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: At least the reports would then have a place to appear.
I hope the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is listening when I say I think our friends in the other place have better facilities and do a somewhat better job than we do in this field. These reports are usually printed in

Hansard for the other place. The standing committee on foreign affairs of the other place prepares excellent reports on Canadian-European relations and Canadian-American relations. We have not yet been able to match those reports in thoroughness or in quality, and I as a member of the House of Commons somewhat resent the fact that I have to admit to the co-chairman of my committee that he is in a better position to handle these matters than I am as the co-chairman from the House of Commons.
In concluding these very general remarks, I would like to make some suggestions. 1 suggest that Canadian external policy should continue to be non-partisan in character, or at least as non-partisan as it can be; that the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence be encouraged to become more active by suitable references moved by the ministry; that care be taken in the representation of the House in interparliamentary groups and in the briefing and preparation for meetings; and that reports from parliamentary meetings be referred automatically to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence or to any other standing committee which may be appropriate.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I listened with great interest to the excellent speech of the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp). I am reminded of a question I asked the government House leader yesterday with respect to possible activity in the coming period of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. 1 understand that some discussions were to take place. 1 know this was on the mind of the hon. gentleman who has just spoken. Have those discussions taken place?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, not yet.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to take part in this debate on external affairs. Although not an expert in the subject, since my early childhood I have always been interested in what may happen throughout the world, and this passion has not diminished since I have been elected. When we travel throughout the world and see how people and citizens of the various countries welcome Canadian delegates, I can tell that it is heartening to be a Canadian, with the consideration we receive everywhere in the world.
The very quick advent of communications had the effect of reducing the size of the earth and of bringing closer, at least theoretically, the peoples and the nations. Today we cannot ignore the problems faced by some nations and individuals several thousands of miles away from our home. Not only should we become aware of these problems but it is also our duty to react and give if necessary, while respecting the sovereignty of each country, the help and the support, and in this regard the action of the Canadian Armed Forces in the peace force of the United Nations is exemplary. On the other hand, we cannot help regretting that such a measure is always followed by a conflict, that it comes always too late in reality. Prevention is better than cure. I think a peace policy should
December 20, 1977

always be oriented in a preventive direction. It is obvious that intervention after the facts is not bad in itself if it is the only solution. I am sure that with a little foresight and courage we could prevent some conflicts.
It is not a secret for anybody that for over 30 years the world has been divided into two, a Russian camp, and an American camp. Nearly all other countries are following behind either of these superpowers and, unfortunately, Canada is no exception. The so-called non-aligned countries are trying more or less successfully to maintain some sort of neutrality, but silence is sometimes more eloquent than a flow of words.
As far as Third World countries are concerned, it is clear that we are witnessing the emergence of a new political force in the world. Its current lack of unity and cohesion, however, prevents it from playing its legitimate part on the world scene, but this is only temporary and is likely to change entirely the rules of the game. As I was saying, for all practical purposes the world is divided into two camps. China, in spite of its recent opening to the outside world, is an unknown quantity which remains quite mysterious. There are no conflicts in which its two adversaries are not fighting one another through third parties. Up to a point, this is a good thing, for a direct confrontation between them would certainly mean the end of civilization on earth. On the other hand, it is revolting to see the great powers manipulating and encouraging countries and people in conflict in order to consolidate their zone of influence. It is the duty of Canada impartially to denounce such practices by great powers.
One of the areas where Canada could play the part of a watchdog is that of armament sales. It is mainly by this means that the great powers keep alive the disputes of the small countries. A recent article of the Monde diplomatique dealing with the delivery of weapons to foreign countries was very revealing on this point. In 1976, the United States sales of armaments abroad came to $9.5 billion. This is 25 per cent of the national income of Canada for the same year. But what is even more alarming is that nearly $8 billion of these $9.5 billion were sales to developing countries. Perhaps the United States did not force these countries to buy arms, but then they did not dissuade them either. In any case, had the United States not responded to their requests, these underdeveloped countries would have turned towards the U.S.S.R which would have been eager to satisfy them.
We must admit that these countries very often have dictatorial or repressive regimes and that they play the game called by the great powers which take advantage of their servility. Meanwhile, the people of these countries still live in poverty and are deprived of genuine freedom. That is what Canada must denounce, not to achieve a comfortable place for itself but to bring about respect for individual liberties. During this year of "the political prisoner", the subject of individual liberties has been talked about very often. But talking about it is just not enough; we must take steps to ensure that every individual in every country has an equal opportunity to live
External Affairs
these liberties and above all, to understand them. It is well known that the Helsinki Conference has been used by the U.S.S.R. as a smokescreen of good will so it would be put to better use within the Russian frontiers. This year, the surveillance group established in May 1976 in Moscow with a mandate to seek respect for human rights has been destroyed in the repression. In Czechoslovakia, for instance, the signatories and supporters of "Charter 77" who only asked for the implementation of the Helsinki Final Act provisions were subject to harsh repression. This repression took the forms of arrests, questioning, layoffs and even legal proceedings. Most western countries have categorically although very politely condemned such actions which are simply undermining a little more the bases of an already very precarious freedom. Surely enough, in such cases governments are bound to adopt a very diplomatic approach because we maintain important trading relations with them. Besides, the sovereignty of countries over domestic problems is unquestionable. However, there are cases where we must rise and protest as strongly as possible because this principle is a basic right and as such we are collectively responsible for it.
But the serious situation in eastern countries should not lull us into forgetting human rights in other countries which are under American control. In countries like Chile and Argentina, the freedoms of expression and thought are hardly better respected than in the U.S.S.R. Let us not forget that it is thanks to the help at the U.S. that a democratically elected government was defeated in Chile. Let us not forget either that the police forces of these countries which are known for their very liberal use of torture and unexplained disappearances have been trained in the United States.
As far as South Africa and Rhodesia are concerned, the situation speaks for itself. Under the cover of advanced countries, these two nations maintain some of the most repressive regimes in the world. If our foreign policy were to be fair, we should condemn every threat to individual freedom, no matter in what country such repression takes place. Our credibility towards all the people under the yoke of oppression is at stake.
Mr. Speaker, the particular situation of Canada as opposed to the countries of the Third World is a matter of opinion. On one hand, Canada is among industrialized countries because of its geographical situation, its standard of living and its culture. On the other hand, however, being an exporter of raw materials, it also finds itself on the other side of the fence, among underdeveloped countries.
Just like the Third World countries, Canada is under the economic domination of the United States in the sense that it exports its raw materials towards that country which returns them as finished products. As in the case of the underdeveloped countries, large American multinationals exploit our natural resources and make huge profits out of them, and as one speaks of economic dependency, one implies a political counterpart, so that we are finding ourselves pretty well in the same situation as these small countries. So it seems to me that a particular link should unite Canada to these countries since to some extent we experience the same problems. As I was just

December 20, 1977
External Affairs
saying, the Third World will undoubtedly soon become a major international political force.
The day when underdeveloped countries will decide to ask a fair price for their materials which developed nations need so badly, we will witness a drastic reversal of the situation. We must open our eyes and our minds to examine thoroughly these issues so as to realize that we must take right here in Canada all available means to promote a better understanding between governments and nations of the world, so that one day we do not find ourselves at a disadvantage.
We do not want to have situations we could not accept and not take steps to try not to impose such situations on other countries as well. This movement I just mentioned is already shaping up, and all it lacks to go is unity, a coherence that it does not have now; they are still divided, but they will manage to create that unity overnight. They have created a very powerful economic and political force in the world and let us hope that we will not be the target of the oppression movements against the peoples that they now consider as not helping them but working against them.
We can certainly not rely on the great capitalistic powers to consolidate that movement. They have too much to lose. On the other hand, a country like Canada in the privileged situation it occupies can provide that leadership. To do that, it must clearly take sides with the small people, those who are tired of external domination and want to take their destiny in their own hands without any interference from the great powers.
IVliss Begin: There are always some of those.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: What we must aim for-and 1 will answer the minister-is a fair and equitable redistribution of wealth at both international and national levels. This does not mean we must declare war against the capitalist countries but quite simply that they-and Canada, to a lesser extent- will have to pay the fair price for what they take. Situations change in the world. So let us be careful and enlightened and realize that that situation could change at any moment. In any case, even if Canada does not take part in that movement, it will happen sooner or later. Canada's participation can only make it happen faster. The balance will be reset one day or the other, and Canada should take part in that movement instead of being caught off-guard. Mr. Speaker, 1 will say that Canadians can be rather proud of Canada's external policy. In general, whatever the government, Canada's external policy has been one of conciliation and generosity toward underdeveloped countries-


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: The Liberals have been here for a few years!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I would not want the hon. member for Chambly (Mr. Loiselle) to believe that that is the financial contribution of the Liberal Party, for that is the contribution of the whole nation. So, it does not matter if that

was under the Liberal or the Progressive Conservative government. That might have been the same also under a good Social Credit government, for the nation does not belong to any party and the parties must serve the nation. That is how I see politics.


Bernard Pierre Loiselle: That is what we are in power for!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: The hon. member for Chambly says: That is what we are in power for. Do you want to show that you are in power? You have the majority, as 1 have said time and time again, you have the majority of the seats, but the real power is outside the House. It is in the hands of national and international high finance. You are nothing but servants of financiers.
Mr. Speaker, since Canada is not a great power, it is listened to with less cynicism than the other developed countries. All of that is to its benefit and it should take advantage of the situation to promote a more equitable order around the world. Canada can and must play a middle-man role in the various conflicts. It must also entertain a favourable attitude toward disadvantaged countries. When as a delegate of this Parliament I had the opportunity of travelling officially to Cyprus for instance and visiting parts of that island including Nicosia and other towns, I noticed that among the UN Forces present there, it is toward the Canadians that the population felt most respect. It was also in the occupied sector patrolled by Canadians where things were more peaceful and where the fewest incidents ever occurred.
So in my opinion Canada is meeting its obligations in this role. It also plays a crucial role in trying to preserve peace in these areas. Yet Canada is capable of doing more. It can set a good example by participating in all conferences in order to bring about a better understanding in the world about the riches which God gave the earth and which are at the disposal of all nations. It is the duty of every government to see to it that their population benefits from economic and social policies which will provide for a better distribution throughout the world so as to better satisfy human needs, thereby fostering a spirit of conciliation among nations. So much the better, Mr. Speaker, if this can be achieved. One must not forget that before any armed conflict, before any war is declared, there are economic wars being waged. There is a continuing economic war for the conquest of markets and it is now going on since every industrialized country wants to export its surpluses outside so as to ensure a steady production and provide employment for its residents. You just have to read the newspaper reports, especially those from Europe. We are confronted by a situation that has been experienced before the 1939-45 war and those who write the history of their people remind us about these issues that these armed conflicts have always been provoked and preceded by an economic war for the conquest of markets.
I am convinced that this debate has been carried out quite objectively, despite the few incidents that took place and the odd rivalries between the various ministers who have to preside
December 20, 1977

over the destiny of our country in the field of foreign affairs yet, over all, this has been a time for reflection.



PROCEEDING ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: 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 Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) Energy-Possibility of program to conserve non-renewable energy; the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp)-Manpower- Canada Westinghouse advertising in Britain for workers- Inquiry as to authorization-Adequacy of training programs; the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez)-Industry-Nickel-Request for measures to prevent lay-offs.
It being five o'clock p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, public bills, private bills, notices of motions.
Order No. 2, the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Stand, by unanimous consent.
Order No. 4, the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Stand, by unanimous consent.
Order No. 8, the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Goo-dale). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Stand, by unanimous consent.
Order No. 10, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Stand, by unanimous consent.
Order No. 13, the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco). Shall the item stand?
Broadcasting Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Stand, by unanimous consent.
Order No. 15, the hon. member for London East (Mr. Turner). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Stand, by unanimous consent.
Order No. 16, the hon. member for Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Kempling). Shall the item stand?


Some hon. Members:: Stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Stand, by unanimous consent.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre) moved: that Bill C-217, to amend the Broadcasting Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as this will be one of the last pieces of major legislation to be debated in the House in 1977, I hope that it receives approval from the government and is allowed to go to committee. Canada's educators, the universities and schools, have been fighting this for some eight years. We hope some headway will be made today.
1 speak on behalf of six million students in Canada in schools and universities and 250,000 teachers and school trustees who have been pressing for some action on this bill for the past five years. We hope the government has its heart in the right place today, seeing it is Christmas. This will be an opportunity to wish Canada's six million students a very merry Christmas and 250,000 teachers and school trustees a happy New Year by passing this bill and sending it to committee.
In retrospect, perhaps the wording of the bill should have been different. The bill provides that only school boards, as opposed to any publicly-supported educational institution, be given access to CBC productions. The bill also provides that any material deemed to have educational content be made available free rather than at a nominal or specified charge. In spite of these two oversights, however, the rationale behind the bill is clear. If there are any technical or legal aspects to be dealt with, they could be attended to in committee.


Some hon. Members:: Stand.

December 20, 1977
Broadcasting Act
The current situation with regard to the accessibility of CBC broadcast materials is incredible. Network materials, often so splendidly produced and so useful for educational purposes, lie buried in vaults. Canadian educators should be able to take CBC educational materials obtained through the library service of the CBC or its commercial outlet, Visual Education Centre Inc., or obtained directly off the air from radio or television at the time of the broadcast, or taped off-air from radio and television for use at some other time, either free of charge or at minimal cost. These materials would be used in schools and universities only on a strictly non-profit basis.
In October, 1975, the then secretary of state announced that CBC programs would be available for post-broadcast use. This is only a partial solution to the problems with which my bill deals. There is very limited value to post-broadcast films.
The present Broadcasting Act is outmoded and inapplicable to today's technological and educational process. Teachers are inhibited by the present Broadcasting Act from fully realizing the potential of the technology available to them and to their students. Public school systems constitute a distinct and identifiable group within which access to materials can be planned and accounted for. Teachers and students should have access to as wide a range of materials as possible in order to ensure the highest quality of education. Copying and duplicating should be allowed for, subject to suitable safeguards to protect the legitimate interests of the creator and publisher.
In the case of broadcast programs of an educational nature, there should be recognition of the need to record these for playback within a limited period. In this situation, the tape recording may be used to meet timetabling contingencies without royalty payment. Transmission of copyright material through closed circuit television systems should be subject to reasonable royalties and fees in terms of the specific target audience. School boards and teachers have experienced distress in recent months because of current inadequacies in legislation and agreement at the federal level. Threats of legal suit have been made. While I am aware of the complexity of what is involved, meaningful action at the federal level is needed.
As for control, teachers' associations and school boards have stated that they would control the use of productions considered educational, and that the school board would determine what productions are educational. They would do so upon the recommendation of their teaching staff. The school boards would be prepared to report to the CBC productions used for educational purposes. Basically, all they are asking for is in the interests of the six million children and young people in the schools of this country. We must not forget, Mr. Speaker, that they are the future. They are the future MPs, MLAs, the future creators of intellectual property, the future CBC staff and officers, the future teachers and trustees. They are important people.
I received a letter from the Association of Canadian Television and Radio Artists, based in Toronto, forwarding to me for information regarding education. ACTRA states that it is in

close association with teacher and professor groups nationally, and in several provinces is active in developing working agreements that govern the production of materials to be used in education. It is greatly concerned that careful attention be paid, in the development of public policy in this field, to the needs of the creators of these materials.
Suggestions have been made in the past few years that certain kinds of educational" materials-one example is programs made for the CBC-should be more widely available for use in schools, colleges and universities, and also for wider educational purposes, including broadcasting. "Education" used in this fashion has no practical meaning, beyond "wide use". They enthusiastically support this wide use, and indeed are doing everything they can to ensure that Canadian materials of all kinds are available for use by our educators and others.
At the same time, they do not believe the public will be best served if these materials are made available without certain controls-controls that protect a creator's moral rights in his work and that ensure he will be paid fairly for the use of that work. It is particularly important that the revised Copyright Act does not make any provisions that exclude materials used for education from copyright control, or that any action is taken to force the CBC or any other agency either to give away its materials or to allow their use without making fair payment to the creators of those programs.
I have also been in communication with the Canadian School Trustees' Association regarding some of the points dealt with by the bill and the desirability of passing such a bill to committee. May I put on the record some of the recommendations they make. They have this to say:
The Council for Educational Technology in England has written to CSTA and said, "As for broadcasts intended for schools and for adult and further education, these may be recorded off air and retained for three years." If it can be done in England-why not in Canada?
I hope the parliamentary secretary will have good news this evening in this regard. If they have worked out the problems in England in regard to obtaining educational films, and I do not see why we in Canada cannot find a solution. They continue:
Both the BBC and the Independent Television Companies Association Limited (the equivalent to CTV in Canada) have forms of agreements with educational authorities (the equivalents to school boards in Canada) to permit off-air televising.
The CBC has been studying British systems, around about the time that you had another bill of similar nature before the House, but they apparently were ahead of the arrangements in Britain which came about in 1975-or they knew of them and wanted no part of them.
The Canadian Teachers' Federation and the Canadian School Trustees' Association supported your bill, and they represent some 250,000 people in Canada, around 6,000 of whom are elected men and women in the same manner as MPs. Their views must have some impact on MPs if they are representing their constituencies effectively.
Further, the Canadian Parent-Teacher, Home and School Federation also supported your efforts and they represent even greater numbers of constituents across Canada.
That is an indication of just how many people we are speaking about this afternoon.
December 20, 1977

As for authors, composers, actors, etc.-why do they hesitate, if they do? They need circulation of their materials, especially Canadian authors, composers, actors, etc.-your bill will help them, not cheat them of some money. Besides, the CBC and CTV are good pay right now-Canadian creators are not being cheated.
Trustees, teachers, home and school have repeatedly urged more Canadian content in curriculum and educational materials. Your bill will encourage such desired activity because of the additional exposure to students in the classrooms and to teachers who will want to use the materials.
Writers, composers, musicians, etc. receive copyright protection through the efforts of the Canadian taxpayers. Is it unreasonable to ask them to find some accommodation for students in classrooms to benefit from their works by off-air recording for classroom use?
The Canadian School Trustees' Association tells me that their membership has agreed to a form of licensing and an annual reasonable fee to provide for taping off-air and other copyright considerations. The moneys earned, if matched by the Canada Council, would provide considerable funds for Canadian authors, musicians, etc.
Finally, your constituents want such privileges for schools as being able to tape off-air, such as they can in Britain and have told you so in the past by letter, personal contact, and telegram. It will not be costly to do so; all that is necessary is to respond to a very reasonable request of our constituents-one which, for a change, will not cost an arm and a leg.
This is the letter I have received from Mr. C. H. Witney, an executive director of CSDA. 1 also have a copy of a letter from Mr. R. S. Ingram, the secretary-treasurer of School District No. 63 (Saanich), British Columbia. He draws attention to the cost of the video equipment they installed in the schools. He states:
Twenty thousand dollars have been spent to date on the receiver-monitor equipment in our district. This equipment cannot be used to its full potential because of the exorbitant cost of acquiring video tape.
A number of schools across Canada have invested in this video closed circuit TV equipment and it has proved to be of very little use or of no use at all. The letter goes on to point out that suitable video tapes are not available from the CBC due to video educational centre involvement in connection with single performance use of such tapes. The cost, the writer says, is prohibitive because of union agreements calling for $73 for one artist, single use, and a PEMC agreement with script writers. The cost would be $547 for a half-hour script or $1,094 for a half-hour script with copyright. These fees are, of course, exorbitant. They are much too high for the school boards to afford. I am sure this aspect could be discussed in committee. I have with me, also, a letter from Mr. N. J. Parker-Jervis, of the Department of English at the University of Alberta. He says:
I have much to do with the audio-visual centre run by the English department here and I, too, am much concerned with the questions you raise. For years, it seems to me, 1 have been lobbying, particularly with the CBC and the BBC, to persuade them to tackle the problem of copyright and residuals. I have not met with much success. The network materials often so splendidly produced and so useful for educational purposes lie buried in vaults.
Let us hope we have some success today. Let us bring this material out of the vaults. I have also received letters on the subject from the Canadian Home and School and Parent-Teachers Federation, an influential organization which takes an interest in the subject and whose office is in Toronto. I have received further correspondence from Mr. Victor Dotten, past-
Broadcasting Act
president of the federation. 1 first introduced this bill in the last parliament. After a lot of letter-writing, representations to ministers and so forth, the government agreed to send the subject matter to a committee if 1 would withdraw the measure. I did withdraw my bill and the subject was referred to a committee. On Tuesday, May 7, 1974, 1 attended a committee meeting with six other Conservatives. The only person present from the government side was the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart). A couple of CBC officials were there, along with a representative of the School Trustees' Association and representatives of the Canadian Teachers' Federation who had come from British Columbia, the maritimes and central Canada.
Mr. Speaker, that meeting had to be called off because of the absence of all-party representation. No Liberals showed up. It was one of the most contemptuous things I have seen since I arrived in Ottawa. The first meeting was held at 3.30 in the afternoon. The hon. member for Cochrane said we would call the meeting once again for eight o'clock that evening. I attended once again at eight o'clock, along with the school trustees and six of my Conservative colleagues. We walked into an empty room. Even the chairman was not there. That is a contemptuous way to treat people, but it is characteristic of the manner in which the government has dealt with the situation for the last eight years. I believe the people on whose behalf I am speaking are making a legitimate request and deserve decisive answers. I hope the parliamentary secretary will not stand up today and read some reply which a civil servant has prepared to this important question. I trust we shall hear some pleasant words from the spokesman for the government on this issue.


Mr. S. Victor Railton (Welland):: Mr. Speaker, I shall not comment on the hon. member's statement about the government taking a contemptuous attitude, because I am not really sure this was the case. However, I have a certain amount of sympathy with this bill because it is an attempt to help schools and boards of education, and as a former chairman of the Welland board of education I can understand the reason the bill has been introduced. In some ways, its objectives are praiseworthy, but as it stands it will be next to impossible to implement because of certain technical difficulties. Its introduction may help to smooth out the way to some financial assistance to educational bodies, but the difficulties to which I have referred remain. The Broadcasting Act provides, as the hon. member is aware, that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation establish a service which is varied and sometimes all encompassing. I draw particular attention to the fact that the corporation-and I quote-is established for the purpose of providing the national broadcasting service contemplated under section 3 of the act. Under section 3(g) the national broadcasting service is defined as "a balanced service of information, enlightenment and entertainment for people of different ages, interests and tastes covering the whole range of programming in fair proportions."
I introduce the above to highlight the extent of the CBC's mandate and the practical limitations that budgets impose on

December 20, 1977
Broadcasting Act
objectives. In this respect, there are ever increasing demands being made on the CBC and its services with what often appears to be a total disregard with the latter's capability to respond effectively to the task at hand.
With these thoughts in mind, I would like to proceed to the examination of the legislation placed before the House and outline some of the ambiguities and conflicts inherent in the wording of Bill C-217. These are given here only when they affect the understanding of the intent. Referring to section 39(1 )(c) of Bill C-217, I note that the first proposed amendment would presumably require the CBC to at least give specific emphasis to some mechanism through which school boards throughout Canada could be given an opportunity to express their opinions as to the educational nature and value of the programs produced by or for the CBC. Assuming such a mechanism could be developed to the satisfaction of everyone concerned, this proposal still raises serious implications. First, to be effective, school boards would have to make their wishes known in advance of production or acquisition by the CBC. Negotiating for additional rights to a program that has been very well received by viewers can be difficult and costly. In some cases, whether or not a program has been acclaimed, clearances can take as long as a year following broadcast. It is always difficult and often impossible to judge the educational value of a program on the basis of a synopsis. Accordingly, school boards or their representatives would need a great deal of information about CBC production plans which typically are spread over a year or more before the broadcast date, and would want to see previews in some cases. As can justifiably be imagined, any such relationship would impose an impossible and unacceptable burden on production staffs. It would result in the widespread dissemination of highly confidential production information and would impose severe constraints in competing with other networks, particularly in current affairs and news.
Broadcasting programming is dynamic. It would be impossible to predict in advance of a program year what titles school boards might wish to deem educational. Clearing programs for post-broadcast use are expensive. More importantly, any arrangements through which school boards could be empowered to select CBC programs for post-broadcast use would make it possible for organizations chartered under provincial legislation to make relatively open-ended demands against the corporation's operating budgets approved in parliament.
The hon. member no doubt will attest to the constitutional problems and difficulties at issue in this approach. They are given further emphasis by the apparent intention of Bill C-217 to by-pass the provinces and territories completely. The position of provincial governments and discussion on a cost-sharing formula involving the provinces are essential elements which require further consideration.
The implications of the arrangements entertained under the bill are compounded when one considers that a large majority of programs produced, or acquired by the CBC, are available

for broadcast use only and cannot be used for other purposes. In some cases the talent collective agreements under which the programs are produced do not provide for classroom use. In other cases, the non-broadcast rights may already have been licensed elsewhere. Writers, who nearly always retain copyright ownership in Canada, may not wish or be able to grant the right to use in the classroom of a program produced from their creative works.
In the case of feature films, only the broadcast rights are made available, with producers and distributors retaining postbroadcast rights. The only instance where the CBC could have post-broadcast rights would be in the case of a Canadian film with CBC production money. In drama, management contracts do a specific program but the author retains the copyright. The copyright laws in Canada specify that unless otherwise assigned, the copyright is vested with the creator.
If Bill C-217 were adopted, inevitably programmers would be under pressure to make choices that emphasize those programs for which classroom clearance is possible. The hon. member will agree, subject only to the unqualified mandate to provide the national broadcasting service defined in the act, that by far the most serious consequence for the CBC of the adoption of C-217 would be that the CBC would no longer be seen to be independent and autonomous in program matters.
The CBC is a federal agency responsible to parliament, the source of most of its funds. It has certain obligations imposed on it by the Broadcasting Act and elsewhere. An amendment of the kind proposed by Bill C-217 would give local school boards, which are under provincial jurisdiction and administration for the most part, the right to make unpredictable demands on the CBC's financial and other resources, and to alter in a major way the balanced service required of the CBC under section 3 of the act.
Serious consideration should be given to the hazards of accepting the principle of provincial influence in broadcast programming matters, even though at this time the justification appears to be popular in some parts of Canada. The bill raises more problems and questions than it solves. It fails to answer whether such a proposal has much appeal for the provinces.
Other members will speak on this important matter, but before closing may I congratulate the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) for his original idea, although I feel it cannot be agreed to at this time for the reasons I have mentioned. However, perhaps there is some room for the idea after further federal-provincial discussions and agreements have taken place.


Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, approximately four or five years ago I was the original seconder of the bill of the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie). As a matter of fact, we were seat mates, as well as being ex-school board trustees.
I am disappointed in the contribution made by the hon. member of Welland (Mr. Railton). He seems to have found a difficulty for every solution. I doubt very much if he will be
December 20, 1977

voted man of the year by the Welland school board after the 15-minute dissertation we have heard with respect to the duties of the CBC. According to the hon. member, the autonomy of the CBC will be destroyed if school children are allowed to see its programs before they are aired publicly. 1 never heard more rubbish in a shorter time than I heard today from the hon. member for Welland.
The CBC's autonomy is evident to everyone. The corporation produces excellent programs in an attempt to assist in the teaching of social studies. That has been the strength of this bill, and the strength of the movement toward making CBC programs available for use in the classroom.
The school boards that have gone into video tape equipment are faced with difficulties. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre referred to school board No. 63 which invested in VTR facilities. 1 was chairman of the Victoria school board when it invested in VTR under the assumption that the CBC was a public corporation working for the good of the Canadian public and would welcome a wider audience for its programs. I assume the corporation would welcome wider audiences for those excellent documentaries and for its excellent coverage of current affairs. The CBC was determined that no one would see its programs unless a stiff price was paid, particularly school children, which was a shocking thing to occur.
In British Columbia, the Kamloops school board set up video tape recorders in almost every school. It was able to tape every decent program produced by the CBC. The facilities were used quite freely. The effect was good. Then suddenly the school board was threatened with a lawsuit if it continued to tape off-air CBC programs for use in its schools.
This subject was raised in the House in 1974 by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. We were amazed at the quick response we received from all educators. We were promised, by the minister responsible, that he was working toward a solution. We were offered compromises, which we accepted, but they were never delivered. Nothing seemed to happen, except it was prevented from becoming the public shame it was.
A taxpayer pays for these programs to be produced by the CBC and I do not see why the taxpayer, who also pays taxes to the school district, cannot get a program by just paying once for it-why can he not pay the tax once and then his kids can watch the program? Once should be enough. There is the problem of residuals for creators of creative work. I do not know how much creative work goes into a newscast. Sometimes when I look around the House of Commons I realize there is much more creativity here than people realize, particularly in answers to questions, although there is a certain amount of creativity in questions also. I am sure that the problem of remuneration for the artists for truly artistic work could be solved.
On this side we would like this to go to committee. We want these problems to be solved and we want to come up with better solutions than we have now, which is not to leave some
Broadcasting Act
of these things which could be so useful to the education world forever in the vaults until they disintegrate perhaps a thousand years from now. It is ridiculous to think that there is something here that might be useful to schools and to our young people, but that we cannot solve the problem.


Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief in my participation on Bill C-217. As someone who has been a member of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts since my first election to this place in 1972, and also having the honour at present of being chairman of that committee, I am quite interested in the contents of this bill, but 1 also see a great many problems. As someone who has earned his living in the past, before becoming a member of parliament, in the field of radio and television, and specifically recalling my obligations as a member of some unions to carry out functions on television and, I think more specifically, of the Canadian Association of Radio and Television Actors, of which even newsmen had to be members, although the news people hate to admit they are actors or performers but that is part of the business, obviously 1 can find many aspects in this bill to commend to the consideration of the House.
But once you go past the good intentions there are some real difficulties which I do not think can be overlooked. To say that the CBC happens to be a Crown corporation, subsidized to a great degree by the Canadian public through federal taxes, is not to say that further down the line there will not be complications in the material that is put together to be presented. Simply to say that this material, after it has been introduced, belongs to the Canadian public and therefore should be distributed freely to school children, as this bill suggests, and that it is evil to deny them access to this material for which we as federal taxpayers have paid, I suggest, is a simplistic argument.
The hon. member who spoke before me went over some of the problems involved, but I do not think he did so with much thoroughness. Should a performer who chooses to perform for a production that is being used by the CBC waive his or her rights to residuals for repeats when the same performer, acting for any other type of media or production house or film centre in Canada, has the right to those residuals? Is it fair to say that the CBC, when it has responsibility not only to spend our money to produce programming and make it available to the Canadian public but, as some of us know in some frustration they have not done well, can come back and say they have done well and have recovered money where they can, in the interest of carrying on a viable operation, and yet try to meet their responsibility under the Broadcasting Act? I say that the cost is real within a complex society where other competitive organizations, be they other television networks or other producers of theatre, drama, or public affairs, operate under the separate rules in the business world. I suggest we cannot do that easily, as good as the idea may be.
The fact is that cost comes down to a line somewhere, and the waiving of it either puts back on the CBC an additional burden, which will be born by federal taxpayers indirectly, or

December 20, 1977
Broadcasting Act
it means that parliament or the Government of Canada would pick up the additional cost of the responsibility for a settlement of residuals rather than the CBC.
The CBC, with a budgeting range of half a billion dollars, is under great criticism, and 1 suggest we cannot easily add to its cost load and argue that we will be tough with it. In turn, when we have a massive deficit, which we now have, and we hear from the other side the arguments they put forward about restraining government spending, when we hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) ask, as he did in the question period yesterday or today, what the government is going to do to get the burden off its back as suggested by the Lambert Commission, in transferring points to the provinces whose jurisdictional responsibility is involved, I cannot see how the opposition can do what my predecessor often used to call sucking and blowing at the same time. They play a fine harmonica, but the cost of the tune must be covered by someone. In this case the cost would either directly fall on the taxpayer through the CBC or would have to be directly paid by the taxpayer through the government assuming the burden.
1 cannot see how we can do that responsibly when education is primarily the responsibility of the provinces, especially primary and secondary education.
It is a commendable proposal that the material should be made available where contracts and agreements are such that there are no additional dues owing to the people involved in the production. That is fine, but where cost factors are involved, as they are in most cases, and where the CBC has the responsibility to recover costs when it has spent money on productions, I do not think it should be the responsibility of the federal taxpayer, simply because we are not answerable for that area of jurisdiction and it distorts the whole process of our political system.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker,
I do not intend to be long but I feel I have something to contribute to this debate. I know there are problems. The arguments brought forward by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Railton) about school children and school trustees interfering in the programming of the CBC left me flabbergasted. I have not heard arguments of such vacuity put forward by the hon. member in this Chamber before, and I am quite surprised. As I see it, school teachers would be aware of the program that would be available and would apply for it, and not try to guide the CBC into a particular form of program.
I know there are problems, and we have just heard about them. The suggestion is that the matter go to the committee where these problems could be worked out. ACTRA has indicated its readiness to face these problems.
I can recall having tried when I was abroad to get a particular ballet program from the CBC. Ballet programs are most useful to use in countries where there is a language problem because ballet is a universal language; it speaks for itself. It is not a matter of having a play where you must have the translation dubbed. A ballet can be used by an embassy abroad. I tried to get one, but the CBC put up a fight and
[Mr. Fleming.)
refused, presumably on the grounds which are being advanced now that there are residuals available to the performers.
There are two solutions which I can suggest. First, I believe a school board has already agreed what a nominal fee might be. The other one is that the performers in the original performance might be given a higher fee on the understanding that some of these programs might be used in schools.
I just do not see what the government is trying to do by preventing good programs-I do not want to see bad programs in schools; there have been enough of them-which teachers could learn about and use for current affairs programs, as the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) said. Some of the historic programs we have seen on the CBC deserve to be given a much wider distribution. They could be used as a basis for discussion in social sciences classes. I just do not see why the government is trying to prevent this matter from going to committee. I would like to call for the question now so that this matter can go to committee.


A. Daniel McKenzie: It worked out in the United Kingdom.


Donald W. Munro: It worked out in the
United Kingdom, and if it can work out there where unions are strong I do not see why we cannot work it out here in Canada.


Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Hon. members opposite want to have their time to say something, but when someone else gets up to avail himself of the same opportunity they suggest he should be stilled and not allowed to rise. Those same members suggest that when time allocation is imposed they are being muzzled. I find this absolutely incredible.
Everything which has been said indicates that the hon. member has a good idea. I think all hon. members have indicated that the kernel of what he is saying is a good idea. No one denies that, but what has not been indicated is the direction that the CBC is already taking.


A. Daniel McKenzie: This matter was raised previously.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: I think this matter was initially raised in July of 1975. Since that time the CBC has made available, according to some notes I have, some 200 hours of French and English programs for circulation. New releases are being made at the rate of about 90 to 100 hours per year. A radio further use project is being developed this year with the same kinds of objectives as for TV.
The CBC's further use project is quickly gaining acceptance across Canada, and at its present rate of growth it will soon be the largest collection of Canadian programs available for use in schools. This is to say nothing with respect to the programming available through the National Film Board.
December 20, 1977

In view of the various considerations which Bill C-217 raises such as jurisdictional constraints, copyright obligations and control and responsibility of the corporation for programming, the further use program of the corporation becomes an even more logical approach to distributing CBC programs for postbroadcasting use. Already school boards and service clubs are greatly benefiting from this program free of charge. Nothwith-standing that, the letters the hon. member brings forward make no mention of this particular program, which is already in use by those same school board. However, he claims the letters support this bill.
The corporation has accepted, I submit, the responsibility of meeting the heavy demands from the public for its programs. Constrained as it is with respect to copyright and talent agreements, the corporation is nevertheless making an increasing amount of programs available for post-broadcast distribution.
That the corporation is developing a post-broadcast use program for radio attests to the seriousness and importance attributed by the CBC to the wider distribution of its programs to the public. In this respect I ask the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) to reconsider his proposal. It seems to me that there is already a response being made by this government and by the CBC. In fact the CBC has taken it upon itself to develop this post-broadcast system.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I would not have had to introduce the bill if what you say is true.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: The hon. member says he would not have had to introduce the bill if what I say is true, but he fails to take into account the fact that there have been more than 200 hours of production available to school boards and the like since the hon. member brought forward his bill in 1975.


Donald W. Munro: One hundred hours?


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: I said 200 hours. The hon. member should be listening. Two hundred hours is a fantastic amount of time. If the hon. member was being fair, where was that in his speech?
If the hon. member was being fair, he would not have said to us that the government and the CBC are denying the children of this country the opportunity to see CBC programming. In fact there is a library full of it, and it is being relied upon rather heavily.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Say that to the school boards.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: I do not have to. The record speaks for itself. The school boards are already using it, and they are using it to a greater and greater extent. While I am speaking of that, one needs only to look at the kind of advertising that is taking place with respect to the new technology of which the hon. member speaks and what in fact is being developed.
With the new kinds of videotape cassettes and the new technology that is being used we are now getting to the point where virtually every individual in the country will have the opportunity to tape off air, and it is obviously going to be
Broadcasting Act
something in addition to the post-broadcast policy that the CBC is following. Individuals such as hon. members opposite and myself will have the opportunity to tape off air, and I wonder whether that will create problems. There have been arguments about the availability of that kind of off-air taping. It seems to me that we would be in a position to invite our closest friends to watch programs we tape on cassette machines.
Notwithstanding that, the hon. member does not seem to recognize that the CBC is moving forward and is not going to deal with the issue in the way the hon. member proposes.
To follow up on some of the comments made by my distinguished colleague, with whom the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) took such issue, I point out that the language of sub-paragraph (k) needs clarification since, among other things, there is a difference between the French and English texts. For example, the English version refers to "any broadcasting productions which are the property of the corporation" while the French text refers to "toutes production radiodiffusees appartenant a la Societe." It is not specified whether this amendment applies to all broadcasting productions including radio or just to films as it is stated in sub-paragraph (c). The expression "any broadcasting productions which are the property of the corporation" is so broad as to include any kind of radio or television broadcast, including news.


A. Daniel McKenzie: You are not married to the language.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Without wanting to cast any disrespect on the hon. member, if so little has gone into the preparation of the bill as to afford this kind of ambiguity and difficulty, I would have difficulty supporting a reference of this bill to a committee. It seems to me that perhaps we should go back to the drawing board.


Donald W. Munro: Why do you introduce so many amendments to your bills?


A. Daniel McKenzie: Move an amendment.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: The hon. member suggests I introduce an amendment. Perhaps that should be done, but I say that this measure should be sent back to the drawing board. It is certainly not something I would agree to referring to a committee. One has to have a kernel of something to work with in order to send it to a committee.
In addition to what I have indicated, the hon. member will no doubt agree that, if it is assumed that the amendment is intended to cover all productions by or for the CBC, there appears to be irreconcilable differences between this proposed amendment and that in sub-paragraph (c).
If we accept for the moment that these drafting problems can be overcome, the CBC must then make the assumption that in order for these amendments to have any meaning in practice the corporation will have to be aware of all the opinions of the thousands of school boards across Canada even
2064

December 20, 1977
Royal Assent
before a particular program is produced or acquired for broadcast.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: Hon. members opposite are having a lot of fun shouting "Question". There are several other comments I would like to make. It will only prolong the debate if they use more time by shouting "Question".
There is also the consideration that there are at least two parties to every contract. The program rights market is not regulated by price lists and is highly competitive. As soon as it became known that the CBC was required to obtain educational rights in addition to broadcast rights, the hon. member can no doubt see that the corporation would have little or no bargaining position left. The cost of this service would become prohibitive-


Steve Eugene Paproski: The men with the white gloves are coming to take you away.


Robert Mose Patrick Daudlin: If they have white gloves, I will be very comfortable.



ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the Chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the House went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the House that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bill:
Bill C-5, an Act to amend the Canada Elections Act-Chapter No. 3.
Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[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 other nations of the world.
Maurice Dupras: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs on a point of order.


Maurice Dupras: Mr. Speaker, I believe there is general agreement among hon. members that speeches be limited to 15 minutes each for the remainder of the debate till ten o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Hon. members have heard the proposal by the parliamentary secretary. Is it agreed that the time of each member be limited to 15 minutes?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It is so ordered.
[ Translation\
The hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont.


Mr. Claude-Andre Lachance (Lafontaine-Rosemont):: Mr. Speaker, 15 minutes is not much to formulate a foreign policy, but it is enough to express in a few words my views on some matters of concern to this House and the country as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, I consider it a privilege to take part in this debate, as it is the first time in 17 years that we have had the opportunity in this House to look fully into the implications of a foreign policy which has considerably evolved in the last few years, and to readjust our aims if needed so that our country may be more implicated at the international level.
Mr. Speaker, the interest of Canadians in external affairs has considerably increased during the last ten years, and if one considers the participation of Canada in several major international activities, and I think particularly of Canada's decision to participate once more in the Security Council and its subsequent election to the UN Security Council, the participation of the Deputy Prime Minister as co-chairman of the fourth conference of the United Nations on trade and development, the invitation extended to the Canadian government to hold the United Nations Conference on Human Settlements in Vancouver, Canada's decision to go ahead and face the facts and thus recognize China, one of the first western nations to do so. Mr. Speaker, the ever increasing involvements of the Canadian government show the Canadian people's determina-
December 20, 1977

tion to become increasingly aware of what goes on in other countries.
Mr. Speaker, I had the privilege and the honour to serve my country in the last three months as Canada's representative at the thirty-second session of the UN General Assembly, more specifically on the fifth commission, the administrative and budgetary commission. And I was in a position to become familiar with the internal operations of the United Nations, its various mechanisms and the reasons why that institution has been criticized and also why it is so necessary. This is the subject with which I should like to deal briefly this evening in the House.
Mr. Speaker, we must recognize that the UN has considerably evolved during the last 32 years. It must be kept in mind that it was created after the second world war during a difficult period following a very painful conflict, and it was created by a number of sovereign states, 57 at the time, which had interests themselves throughout the world.
Later, in subsequent years, with the fall of colonialism or at least of official colonialism, an increasing number of new nations which had gained their independence at the end of the fifties or at the beginning of the sixties joined the United Nations, and that trend is keeping up since the organization is now composed of 147 member states.
Mr. Speaker, an organization had been devised for 57 member states, with appropriate mechanisms and structures, and it is now made up of 147 member states. So, it is easy to understand why the rules of the game have changed. What was at the beginning a conflict, a potential conflict between socialist and capitalist countries, later became a conflict between colonial and decolonized countries, between developing and industrialized countries, and it is now more or less a conflict between rich and poor countries. And it is normal, Mr. Speaker, that this new majority at the United Nations, this new majority composed of poor countries, of those countries which obtained their independence and are now developing, it is normal, Mr. Speaker, that those countries stick together and often show some impatience and resentment towards richer countries which they accuse, often rightly, of being indifferent to them.
Mr. Speaker, if one is to analyse objectively what has happened to the UN in recent years, it is essential to have good understanding of the new rules of the game. Beyond the problems related to the working of the UN, with which, unfortunately, 1 will not have time to deal this evening, we have had more than an idea of those difficulties, confrontations and frictions in the working of the UN which again merely reflect the difficulties that exist between rich and poor countries, because it must be kept in mind that the United Nations are not a world government but rather a forum for discussion, a meeting place.
Therefore, we have witnessed a whole series of stances that were more or less acceptable, let us admit it, more or less applicable and often a little unrealistic, but, Mr. Speaker, they
External Affairs
didn't really have the effect that had been expected. If one understands well this esprit de corps among those poor countries, one understands better, Mr. Speaker, that some resolutions which may seem unacceptable to our country were carried with a majority. Mr. Speaker, there is a new majority in the United Nations, we have to accept that fact if the organization is to carry on, and 1, for one, Mr. Speaker, believe that the UN is a worth-while organization which must go on with its work.


Mr. Prud'homme:: 1 agree.


Yvon Pinard: It is certainly worth improving.


Claude-André Lachance: Mr. Speaker, my colleague, the hon. member for Drummond, says that it is worth improving. Any organization, and the first that comes to my mind is this very House, is worth improving. I, for one, trust that he will put all his energy into it.


George Albert Proud: And good luck!


Claude-André Lachance: Mr. Speaker, 1 have presented the facts in that light, it is because again this year Canada has not followed up its wish which was expressed in other forums, not to get involved in conflicts which only concerns us indirectly. Mr. Speaker, Canada is a country which is highly respected internationally in several respects. As I said earlier, this is due to the fact that our involvement in various areas, a direct involvement demonstrated by an obvious interest in various conferences.
Generally speaking, Canada has such a good image abroad that it is a sad thing that a certain emotivity should sometimes lead us to take positions that are misinterpreted by the global community and somewhat tarnish some of our efforts in other areas. This at least is the impression I got during my stay in New York.
Canada has been a leader in the area of development, and a few months ago, as all members are aware, we erased the external debt of the least developed countries. That initiative was greeted in an extraordinary way by the countries involved and by the group of underdeveloped countries as a whole. In such instances, people come forward to tell us how, marvellous it is Canada could take such a leading position. It is unfortunate that in other areas, and I think of the Middle East in particular because this is making headlines, we should take more contentious positions.
I urge the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), when the time comes for this country to take a contentious position, to seriously weigh the pros and cons of both sides of the issue. In the UN we are fortunate in having a third way, open to us. I know that in Canada abstention is sometimes crucified by those who would like us to take more outstanding, extreme positions. But it is a fact at least in the United Nations forum, abstention has become an accepted way of voting that changes the name of the game. This is used on occasion by every country where, for a reason or another,
800 2 7-61 '/i

December 20, 1977
External Affairs
neither extreme reflects that country's real position in respect of the issue at hand.
Mr. Speaker, I must admit that before going to New York, I myself was reluctant to chose abstention. Since that time I have seen the organization at work, and 1 have come to the realization that in some cases it is better to abstain than create enemies without reason. In the present case, and I think once more of the Middle East, there has been a tremendous opening, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs himself suggested, when Mr. Sadat on the one hand and Mr. Begin on the other made the necessary steps for a first and now a second meeting.
Why should we Canadians have a finger in the pie instead of letting both parties settle their conflicts, for they will have to live together peacefully? Once again I urge the Canadian government to change its emotional approach and not to play partisan politics as it has been the case many times in the past when time came to appreciate the situation.
As I do not want to be long, Mr. Speaker, and my time is running short, I will take a few minutes to deal with the francophone Africa issue. A few days ago in Abidjan the Agency for Cultural and Technical Co-operation concluded its meetings. Unfortunately, institutional conflicts between France and the Quebec and Canadian delegations prevented the Agency for Cultural and Technical Co-operation from making a head start toward fulfilling the aims which were at the base of its creation, that is multilateral co-operation between Francophone countries.
Mr. Speaker, I regret that those poor countries in Africa or elsewhere have to wait for any kind of help from rich and industrialized country, and in this case they had a tool they could have used to help those countries fulfill their aspirations and develop themselves. I regret that once again conflicts- and I repeat, institutional conflicts-stood in the way of progress. I cannot help blaming the French government, however mildly, for its somewhat unflexible position towards multilateral co-operation. All of us know that after the colonization, France created special relations with those countries bilateral relations, and I suppose it does no want other Francophone countries such as Canada to share that co-operation with Francophone nations. For our part, we are wrong sometimes, we are concentrating too much on domestic issues and we do not like to see a full-fledged Quebec delegation attending those international meetings.
Mr. Speaker, let us forget our little domestic problems until the next conference, let us have bilateral relations with France in order to settle those issues so that once and for all co-operation between Francophone countries might work, that we might have, and 1 put them between quotes because they are banned words, a "Francophone Commonwealth".


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to be participating in this debate, not the first foreign affairs debate in 17 years. It is quite wrong to suggest that;
[Mr. Lachance.)
there have been a larger number prompted by the opposition over that period of time.
I want to congratulate the minister for the high tone he took in leading off the debate. I say to him now, as I said to him in the committee not long ago, that we are proud of him as an eloquent and articulate spokesman for our country abroad. On occasion we do not agree with him, but we admire the way he expresses himself. His speech the other day was a credit to him, to his country, and to the department. 1 was very proud of the whole tone of the debate. Almost without exception, no one descended into party politics at any time. Our leader, who has proven himself knowledgeable on national issues, demonstrated a dimension of statesmanship the other day, showing he has a grasp of international issues which bodes well for the potential prime minister of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I was particularly pleased at his reference to the late L. B. Pearson. There never was a finer or nobler Canadian. I admired what my leader had to say about the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche), a leading expert in the study of aid and development who proved himself, as he always does, a most competent, perceptive, and sensitive statesman.
The Middle East has been a major concern of mine for many years, Mr. Speaker, but the subject will not form a major portion of my truncated speech. Like all people of good will who believe that love is better than hate and peace better than war, I rejoiced at the recent meeting in that ancient and beautiful city which our old hymn describes as "Jerusalem the Golden". I predict that President Sadat will become the winner of the Nobel Peace Prize and I hope nobody will think me anti-American if I say that it is an even greater designation than being named Time magazine's "Man of the Year." But we must not allow our yearnings or our responses to the theatre and the drama of the Jerusalem meeting to blind our perception of some sombre truths. Psalm 85 in the Presbyterians' beloved Old Testament contains a pregnant message "Mercy and truth are met together; righteousness and peace have kissed each other."
No matter how amiable are the relations or the accords between Prime Minister Begin and President Sadat, there will be no lasting or worthy peace in the Middle East which forgets the suffering or ignores the rights of the chief victims of the Middle East situation, the Palestinians. It was not a good omen when the Israeli delegate to the Cairo conference the other day refused to participate in the presence of an empty chair which had been designated for the PLO, and called for the hauling down of the PLO flag outside the building. Whether we like it or not, the PLO is the most widely supported Palestinian organization at this time.
Until the Palestinians have a state of their own they will not be able to go through the process of formally selecting a government. And not all members of the PLO are terrorists, as we are so often told they are by the biased media. President Sadat aired the case for the Palestinians well in the Knesset.
December 20, 1977

Let us hope it will not be lost in any bilateral discussions which take place.
The return of Sinai to Egypt and a separate peace between that country and Israel will not solve nor settle the Middle East crisis. There is a danger in rushing some of these things too fast. The American word "momentum" has been used in connection with the operation: it is being said we must maintain the momentum. We should be less interested in momentum, I believe, Sir, than we should be interested in peace.
Other states must be involved. I refer to Syria, whose commitment to the suffering Palestinians has been both powerful and painful, and to Jordan, whose moderation and wisdom are and always were a hopeful and helpful element. I congratulate His Majesty the King on the celebration of his twenty-fifth anniversary of his reign, as we did the Queen of our own country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Saudi Arabia is a thoroughly dependable ally for peace and good will. There is long suffering Lebanon and, most of all, the Palestinians. These people must be in the equation if a successful formula is to be worked out. As for our role in connection with a recent UN resolution, I made clear my view on that at the committee meeting and 1 shall not repeat it tonight. The hon. gentleman who spoke before me talked about the use of abstention. On that resolution, 32-20, instead of voting with El Salvador, the United States and Israel against everybody else, it would have been wise to have abstained. I regret profoundly that we did not do so.
When the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) was in my party I hardly ever agreed with him. Quite often at national meetings the party supported his view rather than mine, which leads me to believe that at times parties, like individuals, deserve what they get. In the instance of the boycott 1 am more inclined to be with him in his realism than with certain other people. The main issue is surely not the Arab boycott in its primary, secondary and tertiary elements. The main thing is to settle the reason for the boycott, namely, the insistent state of war. That is why there is a boycott. It is because these states are technically still at war. Can you imagine Winston Churchill saying "In war we can use only certain kinds of boycott"? He would use them all, of course. The settlement of the issue is of the essence.
I think we could do more in the Middle East if we were more objective. I heard Professor Peyton Lyon on radio this morning saying we had lost our capacity there because we are regarded as being too pro-Israel. I should like to see the day when we could regain true objectivity. It is conceivable that the nations may not v ant to go to Geneva for renewal of the conference. They cer:?inly would not wish to go to Washington because a meeting there would be held under the wing of a great power. I would like to see Canada in a position to invite all the participants to come to Ottawa. We are peacekeepers. We are proud of this role. We had a great tradition in the days of Mr. Pearson when there was a crucial, troubled time in the Middle East and Canada was in the forefront. Perhaps an
External Affairs
objective Canada, unbiased, might be the scene of a renewed conference of Middle East states.
I was interested in what the minister had to say about South Africa. I am being careful not to be hostile, but I am a little troubled. I think it is sometimes dangerous to be too brittle in one's attitude toward these matters. I wonder if I were allowed a question a day by Mr. Speaker and if every day I brought up to the minister cases of a country in which human rights were being grossly violated, and asked if we were going to sever trade relations with it, how many days it would take and how much international trade we would have left. This is a very serious situation. If the minister wishes to read Amnesty International he will find there are a great many countries involved. But more serious than that and something which troubles me is that perhaps outside criticism makes it more difficult for the moderates within South Africa.
There are men of good will inside South Africa. There are moderates there, and the ganging up of the outside world has the inevitable result of making the extremists more popular in that country. That is a great danger with this sort of thing. We want to give room to the moderate men, to people of good will. There have been some forward steps taken in South Africa but no one ever mentions them. Their system, of course, is iniquitous, but do you bring improvements to the people one wants to help most by ringing them round with a circle of hostile criticism?
I am always a little ill at ease when I hear these criticisms of the majority at the United Nations. I am old enough to remember when majorities in the United Nations General Assembly were good things because they were nearly always controlled by the United States and they were nearly always from Latin America. So it was a great thing to be in the majority. I remember all the work which was done to bring that majority into play to create the State of Israel. But now majorities are considered bad. It is unwise for Canadians to get into that act as to whether a little state is as important as a big one. Does Canada say that being a small province is less valuable than being a big one? There are troubles when one gets into that seeming condescension of criticizing countries which are both small and non-white.
It is strange that there are certain occasions when the majority is damned, but when it comes to Africa we justify our actions by indicating that we are with the majority. An inconsistency such as that troubles me. If I had more time I would wax eloquently and logically as to where that will lead us.
The hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp) is getting pretty senior around here, as 1 am. He spoke about the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, of which I have long been a senior member. If I were in the United States Senate 1 would be referred to as a ranking member of that committee, and 1 would have a staff of 100 people. My long-ranking membership here seems to be of no

December 20, 1977
External Affairs
good, except that I am usually told, "You have said that before, Macquarrie".
I agree with what the hon. member said about the usefulness of Senate committees. Whether he is preaching for a call, or I am, I can only say that I have always felt that way about Senate committees. Their work in regard to the Commonwealth Caribbean was absolutely definitive, and they deserve great credit for it. The hon. member was somewhat unfair to our standing committees and to the hon. member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme) when he suggested that they were not doing enough. Many months were spent on a very serious study concerning aid and development. The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona was very accurate when he commented on that. The hon. member was correct when he indicated that there is no proper term of reference; but that is not the fault of the committee, it is the fault of the government.
I am too young to be in my anecdotage, but when the Hon. Paul Martin was secretary of state for external affairs I was the spokesman for foreign policy on this side of the House. We agreed that the ministers' reports would be sent to committee. By doing that, we had an opportunity to examine any issue on the entire global surface of international relations. That should be done now. We need a broader term of reference.
I liked what the hon. member said about the non-partisan approach, but we should not bind ourselves to total non-partisanship. As St. Paul would say, there are times we in the opposition can "shew unto you a more excellent way," and therefore we have the right to disagree. When Canadians travel abroad, they do not kick around the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), nor the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson).
This has been a very excellent debate. If I had not had the guillotine put on me, I was intending to give an excellent lecture on Canada-United States relations. 1 hope to publish a paper on that soon, and I will send a copy to everyone.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 intended to deal with a number of subjects, but since 1 am limited to 1 5 minutes 1 will avoid that temptation. 1 should like to talk about the situation in the Middle East. I talk about that subject not only because it is one of the most important up front subjects in international affairs today, but because I am a Jew and a Zionist.
For the past 35 years that the State of Israel has been in existence, it has been pleasing to note how strongly Canadians support it and its right to existence. That state is supported by Canadians for a number of important reasons. It is recognized that Israel is the historic homeland of Jewish people because they have a special historic claim on it, and also because Jews have been present there for thousands of years. An hon. member opposite suggested that it was a Palestinian state from which the Palestinians had been ejected, which is not true. It was as much a Jewish state as it was a Palestinian state at any time during the recent past. Strong colonies of Jews lived in Israel during the period when it was a trustee territory and

during the period when it was a colony. Thus, it is not a Palestinian state.
Canadians support Israel as well because they remember the holocaust and the near destruction of the Jewish people during the Second World War. No one can view that situation without seeing some sense of justice in the result achieved by the Jews in being able to re-establish the Jewish homeland in some small corner of the world. Canadians recognize and appreciate that Israel is a solid democracy, at a time when democratic states are few in number, particularly in the Near East. Israel is a democracy. It shares many institutions with Canada. It has our admiration and respect for that reason.
Israel is watched with interest and respect because of the social experiments which take place there. Even Canada, with its longer history and its vastly different situation economically, socially, and politically, has learned things from the small state of Israel and its willingness to experiment.
Finally the courage of the state of Israel, surrounded as it has been since its formation by hostile neighbours, and the courageous manner in which Israel has conducted itself and protected itself, are respected and admired by Canadians.
The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) indicated that the Arab boycott would end when there was peace in the Middle East. There will be peace in the Middle East when Israel's right to survive is accepted by her neighbours. Israel's enemies would like to argue that peace is being held up because of occupied territory. I remind the House that Israel was facing hostilities and enemies when there was no occupied territory. How can it be argued that it is the occupied territory which is standing in the way of peace? Before there was occupied territory, there was war against the state of Israel. The Palestinian question is raised as a reason why there will not be peace in the Middle East. Before there were any Palestinian refugees, there was war against the state of Israel. Thus it is not the Palestinians and their legitimate aspirations to be settled and cease to be refugees-that is not a fundamental cause of the problem.
Also it is argued that there should be a Palestinian state, and if a Palestinian state were established on the occupied west bank then there would be peace in the Middle East. This has been put forward as an impediment to peace. The west bank belongs to the Arab side. It belonged to them before 1967. If the Palestinians wanted a homeland on the west bank, it could have been established before Israel occupied the territory, before the last two wars were necessary.
None of these alleged problems is the reason for the hostility. The survival of the state of Israel is the issue. The Palestine Liberation Organization claims to represent Palestinians, and if it were willing to acknowledge the right of the state of Israel to survival then there would be peace in the Middle East. As well as the hon. member for Hillsborough, I yearn for peace; but also I should like to make it clear that there could be peace in the Middle East and there could be negotiations with the Palestinians if only the PLO and Israel's other neighbours were prepared to recognize Israel's right to exist. It is because of that, I think, that the Canadian people stand so strongly at
December 20, 1977

the side of Israel and, I am pleased to say, the Government of Canada does so as well. Israel is not referred to by her neighbours as the state of Israel but rather as the Zionist entity. There is an unwillingness after 30 odd years to grant to the state of Israel its designation. But things are changing rapidly.
The Middle East stands today at a crucial crossroad hovering between movement toward peace and movement toward war. The major countries involved in determining the future of the region-Egypt, Jordan and Israel-are showing important signs of moderation and a willingness to negotiate. Other Arab countries-Syria, Iraq, Libya, Algeria, South Yemen-are consolidating an extremist, destructive, negative stance that calls for the destruction of Israel and the continuation of conflict and warfare. At the recent Tripoli conference these latter states, together with the Palestine Liberation Organization, all signed a communique attacking Egypt for its peace initiatives and refusing to do anything that would help bring about peace in the region. On the contrary, those states and the PLO called for the destruction of the "Zionist entity", and, in the words of U.S. President Carter, have thus provided a totally negative response to all the recent positive developments.
The Kingdom of Saudi Arabia, a major behind-the-scenes power broker, has kept its views quietly to itself; however, it is generally believed that King Khaled and his advisers support the Egyptian initiative and seek its success. I wish only that the hon. member for Hillsborough would do the same.
Israel has always sought peace with its Arab neighbours, and its prime ministers have always been willing and eager to go anywhere in the world to discuss peace. Every Israeli prime minister has publicly declared his willingness to go to any Arab capital to discuss peace. Thus it did not surprise anyone when Prime Minister Begin made the same offer made by President Sadat only six months earlier. The Egyptian leader stunned the world with his announcement because it represented a major shift in the stance of the major Arab country-a shift from an emphasis on war to one on peace.
At the present time Egypt and Israel are negotiating directly, in a face-to-face manner, at the Cairo conference. In and of itself this represents a vindication, even an initial triumph, of the position taken by the Canadian government under successive secretaries of state for external affairs-and that position was embodied in the texts of UN Security Council resolution 338 of 1973, which incorporated UN Security Council resolution 242 of 1967-a resolution in whose development Canada played a major role. That position to which I refer is the call for direct negotiations between the parties as the only viable and potentially successful form of such talks. The Canadian government has repeatedly said that the breakthroughs that are required would only develop via such a framework, and it may in some way be due to our reiteration of this position that the Egyptian government has come around and accepted this
External Affairs
perspective-one, I might add, that Israel has always shared with our government.
In the present context a major destructive element is played by the United Nations. I do not agree with the hon. member of Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) that the right thing to do is to go along with the majority, whatever that majority might want. I would rather agree with the hon. member for Hillsborough that the policy of following the majority for its own sake can only lead to difficulty when the majority takes a swing in a different direction at some subsequent time.
The right thing to do in foreign policy, and in particular in our voting at the United Nations, is to try to take positions on resolutions which correspond with the fundamental moral stance of the Canadian people. I agree with the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp) that our foreign policy in this country is bi-partisan. It generally happens that the Canadian people know their mind on major foreign issues. I think, in connection with the issue of the Middle East, that it would be indefensible for this government to come forward with a policy of abstaining or of voting with the majority for its own sake. No one expects or would want the government to do that.
I am very pleased that of late our delegation has taken important and strong stances on a number of UN votes, stances of which all Canadians should be proud. In an era when courage of convictions seems to come very cheap and where company in UN votes is often sought at too high a price, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) took a strong and clear position in voting together with Israel, El Salvador, and the United States against a blatantly biased resolution on the situation in the Middle East. This was a resolution which would undermine resolution 242 which has been responsible, I would argue, for laying a foundation upon which Egypt and Israel could meet.
That resolution completely prejudged the outcome of the Middle East negotiations and called for complete Israeli withdrawal from all occupied territory as well as for PLO participation in the peace process. It condemned the continuation of the occupation by Israel, ignoring the basic reason for that continued occupation, the reason I referred to at the outset, the Arab refusal to discuss peace. This is all to the good. Now would certainly have been the wrong time to introduce gratuitous, biased resolutions that would have Israel surrender everything and receive nothing in return. The minister was correct in being irritated by these senseless resolutions, and so will all concerned and aware Canadians. Similarly, in recent votes on even more vicious resolutions on the Palestine question, resolutions that called for the destruction of Israel, Canada stood firm and opposed their passage.


Louis Duclos: Mr. Speaker, I am all the more happy to take part in this debate that we seldom have the opportunity in this House to discuss our foreign policy. At the same time, I regret that the House generally devotes so little time to the discussion of matters concerning foreign

December 20, 197
External Affairs
affairs. In doing so Mr. Speaker, we unfortunately give support to the suggestion that among the many government activities, foreign affairs is somehow a marginal area to which attention is called simply in case of parliamentary missions abroad. For many people foreign policy can only be of continuing interest for a few star gazers who cannot see real problems which confront a politician.
Mr. Speaker, is view of this unfortunately widespread attitude in political circles, it is no wonder that Canadians in general see very little importance in the foreign policy of their country. 1 believe that the House should set an example and bear witness to the vital nature of our international relations by once a year setting aside at least two or three days to debate the foreign policy of the government.
Mr. Speaker, that a government should establish realtions with as many countries as possible or participate in the activities of various international institutions, is certainly not a luxury. On the contrary, it is the government's duty to contribute to the establishment of harmonious relations between all countries of the world and, hence, to safeguard world peace, without which everything is meaningless because, Mr. Speaker, what good would it be to eradicate unemployment in this country, to stabilize prices, to ensure material security for all Canadians or to make the country more united if we were to wake up tomorrow in a world faced with a nuclear holocaust? We should not kid ourselves, if a major world war should break out, it would be extremely difficult not to use the ultimate weapon.
Mr. Speaker, there is a great number of questions relating to international relations that have direct impact upon Canadians' day-to-day lives, but none can evidently match disarmament in importance. Since the end of World War II, the destructive capacity of nuclear weapons has steadily increased, both in quantity and quality. Moreover, the risk of proliferation of these weapons is greater than ever. We also see a disturbing proliferation and an ever greater degree of sophistication of conventional weapons. In short, although eight international multilateral agreements have been concluded since I960 and although a dozen other bilateral agreements between Soviet Union and the United States have also been signed, the arms race is nevertheless gaining momentum. The world military expenditure, established in 1960 at $100 billion annually, have escalated to $400 billion a year, a situation all the more revolting and absurd that there are so many developing countries taking part in this foolish race, at the expense of the well-being of their own people.
Furthermore when we consider that the two superpowers actually have the military capability to kill over 100 billion human beings and that 40 per cent of all research and development expenditures in the world are used for military purposes, one question comes to mind: is man the reasonable animal described by ancient philosophers? Mr. Speaker, it is rather discouraging to see that the pace at which the various ongoing negotiations are progressing is such that it cannot match the pace of the frightening progress made by military technology.
[Mr. Duclos.l
According to experts, the world is about to konw a real explosion, a real revolution I should say as far as new nuclear and conventional weapons are concerned and this, in a context where nuclear proliferation and terrorism are also becoming more and more threatening. Mr. Speaker, having said this, the nations of the world should put a good deal of hope in the special session of the general assembly of the United Nations on disarmament which is to be held next spring. As sponsor of the resolution asking for this special session, Canada will have to bring an original and positive contribution.
Having renounced a long time ago all desire to belong to the nuclear club, although it had the capability, our country enjoys in this area a sort of moral authority which permits it to demonstrate a leadership which unfortunately escaped it some 15 years ago, except of course in the area of nuclear arm non-proliferation, for it is a well known fact, Mr. Speaker, that Canada was one of the first countries to decide last year to export its nuclear technology only to countries which agreed to submit their whole nuclear programs to international controls.
Mr, Speaker, as it is important for Canadian parliamentarians to contribute to the drafting of the policy which the Canadian delegation will support during this special session of the General Assembly of the United Nations, I suggested recently the setting up of a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, a subcommittee which would hear expert opinions on the disarmament issue and report to the House on the position Canada should adopt before the United Nations on this occasion. Therefore I sincerely hope, Mr. Speaker, that the government will realize the importance of such an initiative and that the House will authorize without any further delay the establishment of this subcommittee which already has the approval of many of my colleagues from both sides of the House, including the Chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence-


George Albert Proud: I support this idea wholeheartedly.


Louis Duclos: who is telling us that he supports this idea wholeheartedly.
Mr. Speaker, among the other issues that might directly affect the life and welfare of Canadians, one is certainly the Middle East issue. Talking about this, we must remember how concerned all Canadians were at the time of the last conflict between Israel and the Arabs in the fall of 1973. In this respect, it is to be hoped that in the future our country will never again be in such an embarrassing position and that its neutrality in this conflict will be so obvious that, should the conflict flare up again, which of course I and all others hope would not happen, we will not have to be afraid of finding ourselves cut off from our oil supplies.
It is always touchy, Mr. Speaker, to deal with a matter so fraught with emotions and involving a country with which many Canadians have special ties and of which they can rightfully be proud. Moreover, special care and caution must be exercised in dealing with this matter since for the first time
December 20, 1977

peace does not seem to be out of reach any more in the Middle East.
Israel being the only truly democratic state in the Middle East, it is only natural that Canadians in general feel quite sympathetic toward it. However, it is also quite natural that occasionally Canada has to show amicable disagreement over certain policies of that state. Indeed, it is fundamental that the Canadian policy on the situation in the Middle East be first dictated by the interests of Canada and by a desire to help establish peace in the world. I am happy to note that over the years the Canadian policy is more and more characterized by objectiveness and neutrality, but unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, it still happens that positions endorsed by the United Nations general assembly seem to spring from considerations that have very little to do with the contents of the resolutions we have to decide upon.
There is now a lingering hope of peace in the Middle East, but we must not entertain any illusions, as has been indicated by the hon. member for Hillsborough(Mr. Macquarrie). Whileit is important that the fundamental right of the state of Israel to exist within safe borders be recognized, it is also important to give satisfaction to the legitimate interests of Palestinians and to obtain their full involvement in any negotiations concerning their future as a community. Any hope of a final and definitive solution of the Middle East issue will be an illusion unless it is decided to establish a homeland or some territorial framework enabling Palestinians to assert themselves politically.
1 think it is up to the Palestinians themselves to decide whether their homeland should have complete political autonomy or whether it should be part of a larger political entity of a federal or confederal nature. Mr. Speaker, I was extremely pleased to learn about the Government of Canada's new policy toward South Africa and its policy of apartheid. I want to congratulate the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs who has been responsible for those major changes in our foreign policy. 1 always believe that it was not enough to denounce racism, but that it was also necessary to express in a tangible way our disgust at any policy denying human dignity, even though certain sacrifices had to be made. The steps announced yesterday by the Secretary of State for External Affairs are a very appropriate extension of the policy statements which up to now Canada, with a few exceptions, had found satisfactory and I am sure the government will have the support of a majority of Canadians in the implementation of those measures.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to deal briefly with a matter about which I feel very strongly, the human rights issue. Canada, in due time, did condemn countries like Chile which are guilty of human rights violations, more particularly at the UN General Assembly. I am surprised, however, that international financial institutions which had somehow starved President Allende's leftist regime, should show new generosity since the coming to power of the military junta of the bloodthirsty dictator Pinochet and that Canada's representatives
External Affairs
within those international institutions should support such a position. For example, 1 would mention that the World Bank withheld any economic assistance to Chile in the years 1971, 1972 and 1973, but that country received $13, $20 and $33 million from the World Bank in 1974, 1975 and 1976. The Inter-American Development Bank provided Chile with $158 million worth of economic assistance in the years 1974 and 1975 when that assistance had only reached $7 million in 1972 and 1973. I do not agree that we should not make moral judgments and that economic decisions should only be made based on the credit worthiness of the countries involved. I hope in that respect that the Secretary of State for External Affairs will soon be able to have a surprise for this House as beautiful as the magnificent Christmas present he offered us yesterday in the form of our policy toward South Africa.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, there are a couple of good things about being on the backbenches-I will start with the first one-especially if you have been on the backbenches for quite a while because you get a feeling of deja vu-of having been through this thing before.
1 recall in 1965 when Walter Gordon, a great and good man, was minister of finance. He spoke to some of us privately about what he was going to do with Time and Reader's Digest. He said they were not going to get away with things. But somehow or other he was not able to persuade his cabinet colleagues of the wisdom of that policy and when he introduced legislation regarding magazines, Time and Reader's Digest were exempted. Since he could not take care of that kind of situation I would not have minded if he had left it at that, but he was not satisfied to do so. He dragged out poor Lord Thomson and made him the butt of everything that was evil in the publishing industry.
I feel tonight as I did then. I never thought I would rise to come to the defence of Lord Thomson, nor did 1 think 1 would ever rise to come to the defence of South Africa. The same kind of hypocrisy, the same kind of cheap morality, and the same kind of double standard, however, have been foisted on this House not only by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) but by spokesmen of this side of the House.
When we look around the world and see the kind of evil that is manifest in country after country, to single out South Africa as the object of our new found morality is too much. It is just too much. It shows how much a tool this country has become of those forces in the United Nations. Foreign policy is not made on Sussex Street any more; foreign policy is made in New York on behalf of the United Nations, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, like Walter Gordon, a great and good man privately, now becomes a kind of mouthpiece.
There was a time when 1 would have been proud, as an early supporter of the United Nations and of the League of Nations before it, to have found myself in harmony with the United Nations and its resolutions, but not any more. I cannot feel that way when I see the kind of double standards that exist in the United Nations. Things used to be simple for us reformers.
2072

December 20, 1977
External Affairs
Things were black or white. It was simple even to the extent that the white was always bad and the black was always good. It is no longer that simple; it is no longer clear that being poor makes you always right and being rich makes you always wrong when it comes to nations.
I do not see that the former colonies, the ones that have achieved independence since World War II, are exercising any more superior morality than the regimes they succeeded.
When I think of some of the things that have been done in Uganda-and there has hardly been an action on the part of this government-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: No.


Max Saltsman: Have we withdrawn our commissioners from Uganda? Do we cut them off?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No.


Donald W. Munro: Come on! You have never been there.


Max Saltsman: When I think of the atrocities that have been recorded in Chile, and consider the cheap shot we have taken at South Africa-it is a cheap shot. After all, what harm is it going to do South Africa? What harm is it going to do Canada? That is cheap morality. It is not going to cost very much. As just one indication, our exports to South Africa total under $100 million, of which less than 10 per cent was financed by the Export Development Corporation. Imports from South Africa were about $140 million last year. That trade pattern is not going to change very much because South Africa is not dependent on our export financing. We are not going to lose much business as a result of this great burst of moral fervour.
Let us look at what is happening in Chile. The Bank of Nova Scotia is participating in loans amounting to $360 million to the Chilean government. The loans are meant to finance a Chilean government-owned steel complex, an iron ore mining and industrialization program, foreign debt payments, and various other things. But there is not a word against Chile. Because it is a respected member of the United Nations there has been no condemnation.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Last week.


Max Saltsman: Withdraw our ambassador then. Do to Chile what is being done to South Africa. I have nothing against morality if the minister wants to be moral, but this is typical. I want to know the rationale for the sudden burst of this nice nellyism of ours. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) at least is consistent. He does business with everybody and says that as far as morality is concerned we will just close our eyes and not worry about it. That, at least, is consistent. I may not agree with it but I can understand it.
When the Prime Minister rose during question period today and tried to explain to the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) how he makes the distinction regarding South Africa so that South Africa is singled out, the Prime Minister in his own words said, "I know murder, mayhem and all the rest is going on in other countries, but we do it to South Africa because South Africa has technically, legally, constitutionally, apartheid in its system." He is like Professor Higgins when he talked about the French-they really don't care what they do, just how they pronounce it. The fact that people are being murdered in Chile does not count because it is not in their constitution to murder people in prison. In South Africa it counts. That is really what I find so offensive. If we are going to tackle this let us do it with an even hand. There is an argument to be made for morality. I do not underestimate morality but why do things in this particular way? We can only be suspicious of this easy, cheap way of getting off by showing the moral superiority of the government.
The minister knows, and examples have been brought to his attention, of Canadian companies that are being blacklisted and blackmailed in the Middle East. Yet there has not been a word of public condemnation of this kind of action. I can understand them not wanting to publish it. I am reluctant even to raise the question because the people involved are so frightened. They have reason to be frightened. They can be made or broken by this kind of black-list, yet the government on whom they depend and rely does not have the courage to stand on their behalf and take some action.
If I use strong language like cowardice, it is because I do not know what other language to use to describe what is going on. I listened to this debate meander all over the place with everybody saying nice things. It is an advantage of a backbencher that you do not have to be nice and you do not have to say nice things. In fact, things are neither nice nor clear. The government can always say it is only a backbencher sounding off.
I suspect that some of the sentiments I am echoing probably more closely reflect the way people in this country feel that the noble sentiments of the minister, certainly the decision that he is going to make an example of South Africa. One can only come to the conclusion that the example is purely political in scope.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Shame! Small! Cheap!


Max Saltsman: The minister can say that if he wishes. I can understand that he feels very strongly about it.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Shocking!


Max Saltsman: I will not take exception as I have said some strong things as well.


Donald Campbell Jamieson: You certainly have.


Max Saltsman: As the minister knows, I am not normally in this kind of mood. However, I do not feel proud of the kind of

December 20, 1977

program and the kind of foreign affairs policy that has been presented to this House in the last couple of days. 1 do not see the kind of distinction that the minister and his department make on this issue.
There are others who wish to speak who feel as strongly as 1 feel about this issue. However, I did want to raise it tonight, even though the language is considerably in excess of the language I usually use. I want to say that the government is wrong, it is in an indefensible position and is not being morally courageous and morally correct in what it is doing.


Mr. Howard Johnston (Okanagan-Kootenay):: Mr. Speaker,
I would like to compliment the minister on his delivery yesterday. Through an hour and a half of that golden voice I was almost led to believe that he was part of the heavenly chorus of this season of the year and we had truly peace on earth. However, under the glittering tinsel of the golden voice was a pretty shabby tree that had been tinselled up for the occasion. There was no smell of frankincense or myrrh about it, but the reek of a double standard.
1 was driven to look at the New York speech of the minister.
I was particularly struck by the opening there where he had the pleasure of welcoming two new members to the assembly, the Republic of Djibouti and the Socialist Republic of Vietnam. My mind went back about two and a half years ago when something called the Republic of South Vietnam was set up and recognized by this government with indecent haste. It disappeared as one of the most ephemeral governments ever to exist on the face of the earth, now incorporated into the Socialist Republic; no vote of the people, no majority rule, no one man one vote there. No mention of the boat people who find it necessary to risk their lives in open boats to reach Australia or some other sanctuary and are doing that at the cost of enormous suffering.
I am sure he got through that welcome without for a moment losing his smile, and his crash course in diplomacy has provided him with that.
As we prepared for this debate, 1 noticed that the Ottawa Citizen came out with a major article entitled "Canada's Shiny Image Tarnished at U.N." written by Azhar Ali Khan. As usual it lists the standard litany of left wing causes that we apparently backed in past years and ones that would bring the praise of the entire world for doing so. 1 have not time to list them all tonight, but they are there.
It also takes after the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson). Here is one place 1 do not agree with them. I would like to praise the minister at this time for at least bringing a breath of fresh air into the United Nations General Assembly.
In spite of that, the author of the article says it was a scathing attack and an unexpected tirade. He even said it was reminiscent of former U.S. ambassador Patrick Moynihan. That did make me smile a little. Certainly compared to the polished harpoons of Moynihan with their explosive charges, it was bit of squid jigging that went on in the United Nations that afternoon.
External Affairs
The important thing is that, even as mild and meek as the minister's reprimands were at the United Nations, they landed on him. He was landed on with enormous weight as though he had done irreparable damage to the cause of Canada by pointing out that those carefully drafted resolutions on Israel and South Africa were a waste of time, repetitive, and bringing the assembly into disrepute.
The hon. member for Lafontaine-Rosemont (Mr. Lachance) picked up this enormous urge of the press and of some people that we should always be popular at the United Nations. I am glad the minister found the courage to vote and to join a handful of countries; Canada, the United States, Israel and El Salvador. It was about time that we ceased the pattern of abstention on outrageous resolutions before the United Nations. The problem with the continual abstention is that it adds to the fiction that there is a moral world community. We have heard that expression. The minister uses it himself. It is as if there was a commonality of interest displayed at the United Nations with which we can safely go along almost all of the time when no such thing exists.
There is no peace in this world and a great danger. When Moynihan said we were assailed, meaning the United States, but it would apply to us, because we were democracies and because we were right it is true. That is the enemy totalitarian forces on either side, be they communist or be they fascist on the other side, and they exist in this world. The kind of democracy we have in this country is open to attack at all times.
I wonder if we are as vigilantly on guard against extraterritoriality when the threat is from Arab states as we were when it was from Americans and we wanted to trade with Cuba. That, of course, is one of the left wing issues that is held up as a marvellous high point in Canadian external affairs. Of course nothing is said after the passage of time about what has grown out of that and the position of Cuba in the world today.
I was struck by lines in the minister's speech to the effect that this is the thirty-third Christmas without a global conflict. Again one was almost lulled into the thought that peace had arrived. However, there are wars going on in this world. They are dirty and miserable wars. There is one in Ethiopia versus Somalia, and versus Eritrea and goodness knows who all else. It brings back haunting memories to one such as myself who is old enough to remember that earlier war in Ethiopia that the world tried to ignore when Mussolini's Italy invaded it. Now that country is in agony again. Who is there to complain now? Who can name the dead? Who can number them, either in Addis Abbaba or elsewhere? The conscience of the world is less bothered. I know that this country is less concerned about Ethiopia now than it was in 1935 at its most isolationist stage.
There is a war going on in Morocco and Mauritania. Who will name the dead there? Who will number them? We probably would not have heard about it at all had the French apparently not strayed into that the other day. It suddenly became newsworthy once it was not confined only to African countries.
80027-62Vi

December 20, 1977
External Affairs
There is another war going on in Angola. There we have some names and we can bring them to the attention of this House. Let me quote Betty Bridgman, repatriated missionary from Angola. She said this:
On June 1 we rose to find Cuban and government soldiers had invaded the hospital and a neighboring village. They rounded up all the mem of every age and marched half of them away. Then they lined them up and shot and killed 16, leaving their bodies for their families to find the next day. One of those killed was Frederico Kacuku, one of our senior nurses, a gentle and peaceloving man, who had spent his life relieving the suffering of others. Another was Eduardo Morim, the carpenter who made artificial limbs for the amputees at the hospital. One old man was nearly 80, and he was killed along with his son who left a family of small children.
I know that Steve Biko is mourned, and rightly so because of his youth and ability and because of the loss of a person who might have made a difference in South Africa. But who will mourn Jonas Zavimbi when and if he is hunted down in Angola and destroyed? He was a leader who grew out of the work of this country in that land but was abandoned by the western world when Cuba moved in. I still wonder what it is about that state that permits it to supply mercenaries for the rest of the world without criticism on the world scene.
I wonder how the minister could have got through that section of his speech on South Africa yesterday knowing that our handling of native affairs in this land has been almost an unmitigated disaster from beginning to end. It seems to me that one of the qualifications for any Secretary of State for External Affairs in this country is that he first serve a year in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development as minister. If he had to wrestle week in and week out with the problems of that department, I do not believe he would be able to speak as sanctimoniously as the minister did yesterday.
1 was very much concerned to hear the minister promise peacekeeping forces. He said that if he thought conditions and the time were ripe he would send them to Rhodesia, and that the same was true with Namibia. This reminds me of a warning from the Times of London, whose reporter filed his story from Johannesburg. Speaking of South West Africa he has this to say:
Strategists believe that the Ovambo homeland which faces the border could be overrun in 48 hours if the South African army pulled out.
I do not believe that this nation knows what is being promised on our behalf, as we seem willing and prepared to move into situations about which we know little, where the danger is enormous and where the results could divide this nation. It seems to me it was a former prime minister, Mr. Meighen, who made the mistake of saying "Ready, aye ready" many years ago when intervening in a dispute a long way from here. It is startling to find a minister of this government, this late in the day, saying virtually the same thing, that he is ready to become involved in a situation which can bring no good to this country nor to South West Africa. No encouragement should be given the United Nations to continue its rather insane adventure in that part of the world.
Trade measures were mentioned. It is just unbelievable that the trade representatives in Johannesburg and Pretoria are to

be withdrawn when there has been a large mission from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce sent to Indonesia, including a representative of the Export Development Bank, particularly in view of the Amnesty International report. Amnesty International has had tough things to say about South Africa. It has drawn the attention of the world to that country for many years. However, speaking of Indonesia, Amnesty has this to say:
The unchanging pattern of political imprisonment in Indonesia presents the gravest challenge to the concept of international responsibility for human rights.
They put it beyond South Africa.
In no other country of the world are so many political prisoners held without trial for so many years as in the Republic of Indonesia.
That is but one excerpt from a lengthy report. Our representatives have just spent five days in that country discussing Canada's participation in a billion dollar project, a coal mining operation, I am sure the announcement will come early in the new year-yet we have the nerve-to withdraw our representatives from South Africa. Again one wonders where is the logic in the approach we are taking.
Then again today during the question period there was the warning of continued co-operation with and loans to Cuba. Why should we finance that government so long as it is maintaining its forces in Angola? The same reporter in the United Church Observer says that her impression is that there is now more oppression than ever there was under the Portuguese in their day. I cannot believe that we can still be engaged in financing Cuba in any operation there.
There is a terrible selectivity to the approach of this government to external affairs. I find it remarkable that there is no mention in this report of the return of parliamentary democracy under a constitutional monarchy to Spain. There is a miracle of the modern world-that that nation could go from the dictatorship of Francisco Franco to a parliamentary democracy modelled much like ours without any intervening civil war. Surely our government could have taken note of that at the first opportunity, because it serves as a reminder to us that the system we have is not all that bad. I suspect one of the reasons it is not mentioned, and one of the reasons why an earlier motion of mine was turned back by that side of the House, is that it indicates the usefulness and importance of the constitutional monarchy in a country which has deep and important divisions.
Although I find some things to praise in the minister's speech I hope the minister will take a more realistic attitude in the United Nations, in spite of the evils of apartheid. We are trading with nations we treat as partners. We are welcome there and we welcome them and trade with them. We know that their prisons are crowded with political prisoners, this happens all over the world. But why should we single out just one or two nations? The problem with the United Nations is that their resolutions now single out only two nations, Israel and South Africa, and the fiction is created, aided and abetted by this government, that somehow the world community as a moral force is united in its condemnation of those two nations.
I do not believe that we should put ourselves in the position of
December 20, 1977

continuing to contribute to that sort of nonsense. Until such time as we have solved the problems in this country-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity of debating, along with other members of the House, Canada's stand on various international relations and to hear so many members speak on these matters with such enthusiasm and interest. It is regrettable that we cannot have such debates more frequently, as we do not have the forum that we have here in the House of Commons in the Standing Committee on National Defence and External Affairs. However, I hope things will improve in the future.
This debate on Canada's international relations is very timely. It comes not one day too soon as we follow with amazement the swift pace of the historic negotiations between Israel and Egypt in this last month of 1977 as well as the progress of another history-making meeting which is now taking place in Belgrade which is reviewing the implementation of the commitments contained in the Helsinki Final Act and the conclusion of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe.
In saying this I do not discount the importance of the war between Ethiopia and Somalia, as well as other wars and upheavals in many parts of Africa which are heating up each passing day. We must not forget the people who have lost their lives in these wars and upheavals and we must not fail to speak out, as these tragedies are tremendous ones. Canada, as a member of NATO and the Commonwealth, has a particular interest and concern in these grave developments.
Economics dominated the international scene last year. The economic situation has important implications for Canada whose growth depends a great deal on international trade and co-operation. It is to the credit of the federal government that we are making great efforts to work for an orderly and equitable evolution of the international economic system, for example, by participating in the Conference of International Economic Co-operation and expanding its development assistance program. The possibility of an interdependent world order based on peaceful relations and justice depends upon collective action in a world which inexorably is becoming smaller, more populated and increasingly industrialized.
We must, however, face hard facts and come to terms with the real world. The explosion of east-west trade and moneylending by western banks has generated not only opportunities for profit, but also problems of debtor-creditor relations. Debt servicing difficulties encountered by east European and other borrowers is only one aspect of these problems. Prudent foresight is necessary if we are to avoid an international market and banking breakdown. I hope Canada and its partners will work co-operatively to help resolve this problem without delay. This trade and lending explosion developed in the atmosphere of detente.
External Affairs
For this reason, as well as for others, we must also review the development of this detente especially as it has affected compliance or non-compliance with the commitments undertaken in the Helsinki Final Act. This is what the Belgrade review meeting of the Helsinki Final Act is all about. The major and most popular subject of this meeting is the need to respect human rights. The world-wide trend to assert individual and collective aspirations has produced human rights movements which must not be ignored. This trend carries significant implications for east-west relations, and in particular for NATO-Warsaw Pact relations and relations within the Commonwealth.
Having observed the Canadian delegation working at the Belgrade meeting, I can report to this House that Canada's stand on human rights in particular is being clearly and courageously expounded and upheld. Our team is on the offensive and is bringing to task those signatory countries that have violated their commitments and are suppressing human rights principles enshrined in the Helsinki Final Act and in other human rights covenants and declarations as well as in many modern constitutions, including those of the Soviet Union and the east European countries.
Furthermore, the Helsinki Final Act recognizes the collective rights of peoples to self-determination and equal status in the international community as well as freedom of religious belief and practice. Western advocacy of respect for human rights must be intensified and apply equally to all countries, not just on a selective basis; it must arise from our genuine appreciation of the intrinsic value of each human being and from our conviction that respect for human rights is the best guarantee for peace.
The pursuit of justice in international relations transcends every other obligation. Unfortunately, the Charter of the United Nations has been breached many times. We sadly recall the invasion of our sister Commonwealth country, Cyprus. Last month, both the UN Security Council and the General Assembly spoke in favour of an early and just solution of the Cyprus question. Because the members of the United Nations are obligated by these resolutions, I urge Canada, through the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), to pursue their implementation vigorously. The people of Cyprus stand on the side of legality and justice. They demand not just sympathy, not just judicial endorsement of their rights, but action.
As in the case of Cyprus and that of many other unfortunate countries where human rights are being violated, we, most fortunate among the countries of the world, are challenged for the sake of justice and peace. In facing this challenge we support the efforts of Canada's representatives under the leadership of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the hope that a rule of justice will bring in true and lasting peace.


Maurice Dupras: Mr. Speaker, yesterday this debate got under way with a very remarkable speech by the minister, who offered us the hope that this debate could be conducted on a level which would enhance Canada's standing

December 20, 1977
External Affairs
in international affairs. Unfortunately some of the speakers who followed sort of spoiled the possibilities that this debate presented in that regard.
Before 1 turn to the main theme of my remarks I should like to draw the attention of the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston) to the fact that the minister did more than mention Spain in his speech. He went to Spain last month on an official visit to that country-the first visit of a Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs to Spain. In my judgment that is more significant than mentioning a country in a speech. I should like, also, to express the regret felt by some of my hon. friends that they did not have an opportunity to take part in this debate.

I particularly wish to mention my colleague from Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), the chairman of the committee on external affairs and national defence, who asked me to add his name to the list of speakers. He would have liked also to make his contribution and state some arguments which are worth listening to. 1 also regret that some of my colleagues who were well prepared and ready to take part in this debate were unfortunately unable to make their contribution for lack of time.

1 should like to begin by expressing Canada's regard for a most important group of nations, the Commonwealth countries. Canada remains strongly attached to the Commonwealth and confirms the positive role it can play in world affairs. It continues to evolve as a valuable association of equal, sovereign states which have voluntarily agreed to consult and co-operate in a uniquely flexible and pragmatic manner. Combining 36 countries of different races, languages, cultures and states of economic development from all parts of the world, it reflects accurately the world's current major problems and provides a forum in which consultation, co-operation, and consensus have been developed to a high degree. The Commonwealth has played an important role in a wide variety of political, economic, and social problems of international concern, including that of disparity between rich and poor nations.
The Commonwealth heads of government, meeting in London last June, directed their discussion to major world and Commonwealth trends. A major topic was the situation in southern Africa. They reaffirmed their full support for the struggle in Zimbabwe and Namibia and for the demands of the oppressed in South Africa. They recognized the need to increase the reasons available to broaden Commonwealth programs of humanitarian and technical assistance in that area.
Another major topic was the world economic situation in the light of the results of the North-South Conference and the London Economic Summit. Discussion included the final report of the Commonwealth Group of Experts, which has made a significant contribution to international efforts to evolve a new economic order with particular emphasis on the problems of developing countries. Heads of government

indicated that the Commonwealth has a useful role to play in achieving a global consensus in economic affairs, and considered how it could assist in specific problems such as commodities, energy, food production, trade and finance.
Other topics discussed included the Middle East, Cyprus, the Law of the Sea, human rights, and a review of the large number of functional areas in which Commonwealth co-operation is carried on through the Commonwealth Secretariat and related institutions.
Believing as it does in the ideals and the consensus approach of the Commonwealth, Canada plays an active role in its major ongoing economic and social programs. These are largely co-ordinated through the Commonwealth Secretariat in London and designed particularly to assist developing countries. The Commonwealth Secretary-General said that the Commonwealth has one fourth of the world's people, but it has nearly one half of the world's poor. This adds to Canada's responsibilities.
In pursuing its Commonwealth role, Canada also reinforces its commitment to the broader world community and the ideals of the United Nations. It is also of interest and gratification to Canada that the Commonwealth now includes two other members that also participate in La Francophonie, namely, the governments of Mauritius and the Seychelles.
I should like to turn to the question of disarmament. The hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) asked what initiatives Canada will be taking at the United Nations special session on disarmament. Also they asked what arrangements were being made for participation by members of parliament and other interested Canadians at the session. The definitive Canadian position for the special session remains to be developed in the next few months, and it is the subject of intensive study. However, even at this preparatory stage Canada has already submitted a number of action-oriented proposals relating to the special session. These have included the establishment, under the auspices of the United Nations Secretary General, of an international register of arms transfers to which all member states of the United Nations should submit full information; a conference between both recipients and suppliers to restrain such transfers on a regional basis; regional arms control conferences to deal with local arms races through agreed measures of restraint; and the holding of a follow-up special session at an unspecified interval to review progress in the specific targets to be set by this special session.
It is not expected that the delegation to the special session will be chosen until a month or so before the session begins. In the meantime contacts and consultations are under way with Canadian experts, non-governmental organizations and private individuals concerned about disarmament questions.
The hon. member for Greenwood expressed some apprehension as to the development and the production of the neutron bomb. Perhaps I should indicate that Canada has spoken out in regard to the neutron bomb. The government was asked what position Canada was taking in NATO on the neutron bomb. While Canada has no plans to acquire such weapons,
December 20, 1977

we have been participating in discussions at NATO headquarters in Brussels regarding the possible acquisition by certain NATO countries of enhanced radiation reduced-blast nuclear weapons. These discussions are continuing. The military usefulness of the weapon is not in question but, like our allies, Canada is also conscious that its possible acquisition raises very complex questions which must be examined with utmost care. Any decision regarding these weapons will not be taken lightly.
I believe the hon. Leader of the Opposition, as well as the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro), raised questions concerning the maritime boundaries negotiations. In their remarks they stated that the Canadian public has not been made aware of the scope of the maritime boundaries negotiations, and that Canadian fishermen, as the most vitally interested constituency, have been denied input with respect to the bilateral negotiations.
The Department of External Affairs, in a press release on October 21, 1977, published the entire text of the Joint Report by Chief Negotiators on Canada/United States Maritime Boundaries and Related Resource Issues, signed by Ambassadors Marcel Cadieux of Canada and Lloyd N. Cutler of the United States, together with annexes on the principles for a joint fisheries commission to be established by a convention between Canada and the United States, and the proposed principles for offshore hydrocarbon shared-access zones.
A subsequent departmental release of November 28 announced the extension of the negotiators' mandates to January 31, 1978, noting that the extra period would permit careful review of the elements involved in the negotiations, for example, management and sharing of fish stocks off both coasts, hydrocarbon sharing arrangements in maritime boundary areas and delimitation of maritime boundaries. The release went on to say that additional time is also required to ensure consultation with and participation by industry, state, provincial, congressional and other interests of the two countries.
From the start the Canadian negotiating team has made every effort to ensure that the fishing industry has been fully and regularly consulted at every stage of the negotiations. Most recently at an east coast fisheries meeting in Boston, from November 28 to December 2, and at a west coast meeting in Vancouver from December 6 to 8, Ambassador Cadieux and his officials held lengthy and extensive consultations with representatives of a wide variety of industry interests. I have a list of 32 interested industries that have been invited to attend those negotiations.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I might give some more information about the involvement of the Canadian government as regards Frenchspeaking countries. I wish to add to what the minister said on another aspect of our foreign policy, the French-speaking countries and the fifth general assembly of its main institution, the Agency for Cultural and Technical Co-operation which has just taken place in Abidjan, Ivory Coast.
The French-speaking countries are an essential element of our international relations because, Mr. Speaker, they are the
External Affairs
natural outside extension of French Canada's vitality and culture. It is also a very useful area of international co-operation. That is why the Canadian government has played a paramount part in the establishment and development of the agency and of ministerial conferences in the areas of education, youth and sports. This is why as well we have facilitated the development of the agency and its programs of training and cultural, educational and technical exchanges, as well as their extension to the scientific field and economic co-operation, two very important areas for the young developing French-speaking countries
From the very beginning, Quebec, New Brunswick, Ontario and Manitoba have contributed to the work of the agency through federal government participation. It was with our help that as early as 1971 Quebec obtained the status of a participating government, and was able to participate very actively in the works of the agency, in co-operation with the federal government. We had given our support to the granting of such status, precisely for governments of federal countries like ours and we consider that such arrangements give evidence of the capabilities of the federal system.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that speaking at this time in the debate before we adjourn for the Christmas recess in my chosen profession it would be more appropriate it I were to announce the benediction rather than offer any remarks with respect to the issue that is before us in terms of the motion.
I doubt whether in my time as a member of parliament I have ever debated a motion which offered as much possibility to literally cover the world horizon as has this particular motion. In the course of the two day debate we have covered enough different opinions and enough of the areas of international conflict and contact to realize that, as the minister himself said in his closing remarks, in the words of Dickens I think, "It was the best of times and it was the worst of times." In some ways that is partially a description of this debate.
We have heard some encouraging words and some discouraging words. In fact I think in almost every speech that was delivered in the House in the past two days we have received both encouragement and discouragement. That was evident in the tempo and mood of the debate in the opening day, in first, the comments of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner), who is not here, inadvertently, I suspect, in his answer to the hon. member for Yorkton-Mel-ville (Mr. Nystrom) with respect to the Export Development Corporation. It was evident also in the speech of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) who, interestingly enough, stepped from the portfolio of industry, trade and commerce into external affairs.

December 20, 1977
External Affairs
Encapsuled in their remarks, and as picked up by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) today, we have the essential conflict that is at the root of so much of the difficulties we face as a country and as the world. It is the conflict of the question of crass politics or economic interests as against the higher levels of mankind with respect to questions of morality and altruism. None of us can claim to be disinterested in either aspect of that debate. Certainly when the Secretary of State for External Affairs introduced the new initiatives that were to be taken with respect to South Africa which he described as the most clear cut case of specific institutionalized discrimination, many members on all sides could agree. In the context of what has happened at the United Nations since its establishment in 1945 there has come to be a unanimity of opinion with respect to the total abhorrence for institutionalized racial discrimination.
However, what is not so clear, and what came out in the course of questioning earlier today and in some comments over the past two days, is that increasingly we are called upon to make moral decisions with respect to economic and political activity. This should not be surprising to anybody in the House if we look at the major conferences at which the United Nations has focused its attention over the past five to ten years on questions of environment, population, food and habitation, and the last two special sessions on developing a new international economic order. It is fair to say that in each of these instances we were dealing with technological problems, historical problems, and problems related to our own ability to cope with developments in the world community. But I think in the final analysis, when we look at any one of these problems, we realize that whether we would make progress with respect to them really depended on political will.
Recently in speaking to another group I was tempted to suggest that in all the ages of mankind which we have been experiencing in the past few centuries, from the age of steam and the age of steel to the nuclear age, perhaps future historians will look at the period of the late 1960s and 1970s and describe these times not so much as the age of technology or computerization, or as the nuclear age, but rather as the age of morality.
Certainly if we look at the most powerful country in the world led by the new Carter administration, the leading edge of their activity in the international field has to do with accepting some form of moral responsibility. In a way this is what the minister touched upon in his speech, and to the degree that it is a moral responsibility, which we take without hypocrisy and in a genuine attempt to let the world know, and specifically let the authorities in South Africa know, that the system of apartheid is no longer acceptable in the world community, we support him in that initiative. To the degree, however, that it may not, or in some way may touch upon more difficulties for those who are presently suffering from discrimination and from the kind of deliberate or accidental economic and social disparity which exists in these countries, we will need to be more convinced that our approach will be consistent and, in the final analysis, just.
[Mr. MacDonald (Egmont).l
I,	as one individual, welcome the opportunity to debate the matters that have been brought before us today. If I had more time in this debate I would have wanted to talk about the importance of the upcoming UN session on disarmament. Quite frankly I had hoped that the minister, in his quite long address yesterday, might have touched in more detail on what our position was going to be with respect to that assembly. In the time I spent at the United Nations this fall it was not easy to discover whether or not we would either be joining other initiatives with like minded countries or whether we would be taking some initiatives ourselves with regard to this important special assembly next May and June.
I had hoped we could have paid more attention to what is now a new perception on the world food question. Since the World Food Conference met three years ago there have been a number of major changes regarding our understanding on how we are going to solve world food needs, and when we talk about human rights there is no more important and basic human right than the right to a daily nutritious diet.
These are matters that cannot be dealt with in the context of a two-day debate, but I hope the final remarks of the Leader of the Opposition urging a consistent and continuing reference to the major committee which has served this House, namely, the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, will be taken seriously by the minister and by other members of the cabinet.
If Canada is to play an increasingly responsible and constructive role in the world community it will not be seen to be just a matter of debate once every 17 years of a general nature as we have had in the last two days, but the government will accept, with the support of all members in the House, a continuous and perhaps a deepened responsibility in the realm of that committee. A number of members of the committee- the former chairman has just spoken-in the experience they have given to that committee have shown that it can play a responsible role for this parliament and for the Canadian people. If that suggestion alone is acted upon, this debate will have achieved a good deal in terms of Canada's responsible performance in the world community.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, as the last point of order in 1977 there are two matters which I would like to raise. First 1 wish to extend to you and your colleagues in the chair, to the clerks at the table as well as members of the staff of this House of Commons who serve us so well, every good wish for Christmas and for the new year on behalf of all members of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: My second point, Mr. Speaker, is much more mundane. I should like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of Privy Council
December 20, 1977

(Mr. Pinard) what legislation we will be dealing with when this House resumes its sittings in January.
[Translation\


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to join with the Leader of the Official Opposition to extend our best wishes to the Speaker, to all his assistants, to the whole staff as well as to all my colleagues on both sides of the Elouse. When we meet again, on January 23 of next year, we should proceed to the consideration of Bill C-16, an Act to amend the Bank Act and the Quebec Savings Banks Act, and of Bill C-18 amending the Anti-inflation Act. For the time being, that is the order of business when we return to the House in 1978.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we thank the parliamentary secretary for indicating the business that we will be starting off with in 1978, but may I join with the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the parliamentary secretary in the very warm Christmas greetings which have been extended to you, Sir, to your family, to the Table Officers and to all those who serve us in this House. Perhaps I might be permitted on this occasion to put in a special word for the members of the protective service.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Recognition of why 1 was doing that came a bit slowly, but at least it came. We do join in these greetings, and we all extend them, all of us to each other, and may 1978 be a better year for the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to join in the good wishes which have been expressed to you, Sir, and to all who support you and who serve us in this Chamber and to say how very much we have appreciated the manner in which you have conducted the business of the House this past year, in very trying times.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Campbell Jamieson: I would also like to extend to hon. members opposite, to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), to my colleagues in the government, and to hon. members on this side my best wishes, and particularly to express how fortunate 1 think we were to have had the hon. member for Egmont (Mr. MacDonald) wind up this debate. I think he gave it just the right tone, and it was entirely appropriate that it should have been so in these last days and hours before the Christmas season.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Allow me to respond and to echo those sentiments by saying to all of the staff who serve the members of the House of Commons and the House as the institution
Adjournment Debate
that it is my pleasure to extend on behalf of all the members of this House all our best wishes and to extend to all members and to our usual guests at this time of year, since we are approaching an adjournment, an invitation to join one another in Room 16 before we depart for other events during the Christmas break, and to wish one another a Merry Christmas. I hope all will be able to join us and receive good wishes personally.
The motion which stands in the name of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson), of course, remains a government order.
An order made December 19 by the House provides that at the time of adjournment later this day the House will stand adjourned until Monday, January 23, 1978, at two o'clock in the afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 2 (1).
However, prior to coming to that point it has been agreed that we will proceed, pursuant to Standing Order 40, with two questions on the adjournment motion, one in the name of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and the other in the name of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), and that after these questions, under the usual terms and conditions that apply, the House will stand adjourned until Monday, January 23, 1978 at two o'clock. In the meantime all hon. members and others who are usually invitees-our staff and others-are welcome to join us in Room 16 for a short Christmas greeting before everybody departs for the holiday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, on November 14 last. I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Gillespie) whether the government intended to implement a program urging Canadians to use renewable energy resources such as solar energy, wind energy, geothermal energy and a host of other sources of renewable energy.
Up until recently, people in Canada and elsewhere were taking for granted that the available amounts of energy, those most readily available in the form of wood fossils, coal, were inexhaustible. After the advent of offshore oil, energy was so cheap that we could disregard insulating our oil-heated homes, build big cars without worrying about fuel consumption, manufacture cheap electricity in power hungry oil-fired ther-

December 20, 1977
Adjournment Debate
mal generators. Oil then became the wealth running the world. Because of the escalation of black gold prices of limited supplies, of the economic impact on several countries, we now have to reconsider our position particularly with regard to our oil reserves which we all know now are not inexhaustible. Based on the best predictions, oil production will not be able to meet demand by the year 2,000, and shortages could start between 1985 and 1995.
As far as energy conservation is concerned, we have no alternative. On the other hand, to obtain new sources of energy, we must choose among the possible options those which suit our needs better without going deep into debt or destroying our environment. So, in addition to conservation, we will have to seek a solution through research and development of our renewable energy resources.
In answer to my question as to whether the government intended to implement a national incentive program for conservation, research and development, the minister stated the federal government had decided to significantly increase its expenditures in that area. The government now has a $128.2 million budget for energy research and development. Indeed, the increase proposed for 1978-79 is $15 million. I am also informed that the increase will be from $7.7 million to $15.7 million for research and development of renewable energy sources, which is not bad, and there will also be a $5 million increase to $16.7 million for research and development in energy conservation.
Therefore, it is encouraging to note that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources puts an emphasis on renewable energy sources by doubling next year's estimates, and that he stresses energy conservation measures. The announcement made this week by the minister that his department will propose a $21.9 million funding for the federal labour-intensive program to create jobs and help Canadians save is also a forward step.
Access to information, Mr. Speaker, means perhaps helping Canadians to better insulate their homes and better estimate the performance of their oil or gas heating facilities. It is also perhaps helping Canadians in information and energy conservation oriented projects undertaken at the local level. All of that will contribute to a better utilization of our energy resources. These programs will certainly be useful if we want to explain the urgent nature of the situation and make people understand the kind of challenge that has to be met. Perhaps we might also have to switch some day to incentive programs such as subsidies, grants, tax relief if we want to encourage Canadians to invest and perhaps change their traditional use of what is commonly referred to as energy forms such as oil, coal and gas.
Today, Mr. Speaker, I received a letter from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources informing me that he intends to create in my riding a community centre for energy conservation. This community centre will employ some seven people and its objective will be essentially to inform the public, to give
[Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier).l
assistance to volunteer agencies, schools, industries, municipalities and citizens' committees to plan and implement energy conservation programs. I can only command the minister for the emphasis he puts on the use of renewable energy resources. I hope that some day we might be able to engage in national programs that the Canadian people may be required to implement, and I leave it to the parliamentary secretary to tell us whether we have or may expect such a national incentive program for the conservation of these renewable energies.


Mr. J.-Gilles Lamontagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), I must confirm at the outset that one of the main objectives of the national energy policy regarding self-sufficiency is to find possible energy sources which would replace those now being used. The use of solar energy to heat water in private homes and in industries as well as to heat buildings could considerably improve our national energy budget in the long run.
Building insulation is a well established technique used in a modern market and well suited to classic consumer incentives. However, solar heating is only at the exploratory stage. It will soon become economical but it is not yet suited to the above-mentioned classic incentives.
Some other issues must be resolved before the development of an incentive program. It includes the formulation of technical standards for solar heating systems, consumer protection, judicial rights concerning solar rays, zoning and other problems under provincial jurisdiction. The renewable energy resources branch recently created within the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources actively studies those matters in co-operation with other government organizations, at federal and provincial level.
In the solar energy field, the federal government directs its efforts towards research, development and demonstration of the technical feasibility of solar heating in Canada. Spendings in that area have rapidly increased from $100,000 in 1975-76 to more than $4 million for this fiscal year. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources announced during the debate on the Speech from the Throne that the quasi totality of the supplementary amount of $15 million that must be spent for research and development in the energy field will be directed towards renewable resources and energy conservation. The technical developments of solar heating in Canada take advantage of those research and development efforts. The production and distribution of solar heating equipment will require federal government support as the industry will expand and develop. If such traditional consumer incentives as the Canadian Home Insulation Program are not adequate now, they could become so later on following the research that has been undertaken. So we are very optimistic as concerns the future development of solar heating and other resources of that kind.
December 20, 1977


INDUSTRY-NICKEL-REQUEST FOR MEASURES TO PREVENT LAY-OFFS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a most disheartening sight to see members get ready to leave here in order to have a Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. As the members exchanged greetings, I thought of the 5,000 to 6,000 unemployed or about to be unemployed workers in the Sudbury basin who will not be able to contemplate dumplings and sugar plums over this Christmas season. With that in mind, I was prompted to ask the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) today what specific measures the government has and is prepared to announce in the New Year with regard to the nickel industry in order to avoid the lay-offs that will occur there at the end of January or the beginning of February.
Already the workers are receiving notices. It is now extending to the salaried workers. Workers with 21 years' experience at INCO have received their notice-48 years old with 21 years' service with the company. Workers today started receiving notices informing them that they are now being downgraded in terms of the jobs they are doing. If you are a machinist, you are now a labourer. Of course it involves a pay cut. All of this is taking place in the Sudbury basin. It has created a very unsound economic picture there.
I felt it was my responsibility to place these questions before the Prime Minister today. I asked what steps he is contemplating to put before the House when it returns in January with regard to the unemployment situation in the nickel industry. The Prime Minister stated it would take some time before they could get around to that. He says it takes time to plan a strategy. This is not new. We have been living with a hinterland economy for a long time.
A majority Liberal government has been in power for the greater part of the last 50 years. We have lived in Ontario with a provincial Conservative government for the last 40 years. Therefore they cannot hide behind any excuse that they have been unable to plan. But they have failed to plan and thus have developed one industry communities such as we have in the Sudbury basin.
I asked the Prime Minister to consider the pattern that has been set by the French and the United States in stockpiling nickel. That was not an idle suggestion of mine; I have suggested it for a long time. I used the example of the government's approach to uranium when in the 1950's and 1960's the industry was faced with the disaster of the community of Elliot Lake being on the verge of collapse.
Let me quote from the 1973 report "An Energy Policy for Canada". This report gives the concise rationale for stockpiling uranium. I quote:
Following the completion of the second uranium stockpiling program in 1970, the federal government announced that, in view of the continuing poor shortterm marketing situation it would consider further assistance for established
Adjournment Debate
uranium mining communities. Subsequently, the federal government entered into an agreement with Denison to jointly stockpile-
What the government did was to stockpile uranium for seven years. The rationale for this was that it was not just a strategic mineral. The fact is that the government was concerned about the economy of that community. We are now suggesting to the government that the same rationale should be used to stockpile nickel today.
Who caused the lay-offs at INCO? Surely it was not the workers. Who was it that made the decision 30 months ago to continue to stockpile nickel? Who was it made the decision to continue demanding overtime for production workers? Surely it is not the workers who participate in such decision making. No, Mr. Speaker, it was INCO and Falconbridge, in full knowledge of the situation. They have always kept that information close to their breast and have never shared it with the government, as we know from the record, or with the workers. It was the company which made a unilateral decision to continue to stockpile nickel.
The Prime Minister said that the companies are carrying a seven month supply. According to INCO's 1976 annual report, the company's nickel inventories at year end were equivalent to a five to six months' supply as compared with a normal level of two to three months' supply. We know that a the end of 1976 the company was carrying six months' stockpile. We are now told they are carrying a seven months' supply. In other words, over the period of one year they have maintained their stockpile. It is rather interesting that from the end of 1976 to the end of 1977 they have maintained a seven months' stockpile when they normally carry two or three months' supply.
The question has to be asked; if the company is prepared to carry that kind of stockpile, surely it is well aware that the turnaround of the nickel market is just around the corner? All of the experts in the nickel industry have told us so. We have been through the copper downturn and copper is now taking off. The American government is about to announce the stockpiling of copper. Therefore we have told the government that it has a responsibility to the workers in the Sudbury basin. It cannot leave the workers to the vicissitudes of the unilateral decision by the company to plan its production level; the government is culpably responsible for the conditions of the nickel mining industry in the Sudbury basin. Only they can lift the sword of Damocles from the heads of the workers in the Sudbury basin-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his allotted time has expired.


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member's question on the possible stockpiling of nickel, may I say that the parallel with the uranium stockpiling program is fairly distant. In the case of uranium we were faced with the reality of total mine closures and the economic collapse of the community of Elliot Lake, whereas in the present nickel surplus situation we are facing grave prob-

December 20, 1977
Adjournment Debate
lems of cutbacks in production and employment but not total closures.
Let me repeat what the hon. member already knows. There is a world surplus of nickel production capacity in relation to demand. For going on to three years now, world nickel production has exceeded demand and, as a result, producers around the world have been accumulating inventories which are now at a level far in excess of what has been considered normal. Besides being an onerous burden for the companies, these large inventories have also had an effect in the market place. No easy solution is foreseen for the world-wide problem of oversupply and declining prices. Producers in other countries are facing the same problem as Canadian producers and many of them have announced cutbacks in production similar to those taking place in Canada.
The financing of additional excess nickel inventories directly or indirectly by the federal government would extend the period of excess nickel supply and would involve large financial commitment. It could also be an open invitation for similar programs for other metals which are now in over-supply, and these are many. However, serious as these disadvantages are, the government continues to study urgently all potential solutions and does not rule out any possibility of a workable scheme including those which may involve stockpiling elements.
The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) mentioned this afternoon the stockpiling program in France. Mr. Speaker, France is an importing country, and when it does stockpile it is to protect herself against a fluctuation in price. When a Canadian company stockpiles it is because it is confronted with a very soft world market and, as I mentioned earlier, stockpiling is a very expensive process. There is a world of difference between the two reasons for stockpiling.
Mr. Speaker, considering that this is the last intervention in the House of Commons in the year 1977, with your permission I should like to extend good wishes to Your Honour and all members of the House in a language which I do not think has been used so far in this connection, though I have heard hon. members on both sides extend their seasonal wishes in English. I should like to say it in French.
[ Translation]
I wish everyone a Merry Christmas and I even wish for the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) that the year 1978 will be a very happy one for all men of goodwill, and we certainly need that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until January 23, 1978, at two o'clock.
At 10.25 p.m. the House adjourned until 2 p.m. January 23, 1978, pursuant to Special Order.

Monday, January 23, 1978