1978-05-31

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, namely, that in view of the UN conference of western leaders in Washington, and the UN General Assembly in New York on disarmament indicating the deep concern of the United States, although Canada has been virtually silent both in parliament and outside with respect thereto, regarding Cuba's warring intervention in Africa, with Soviet inspiration, by which the U.S.S.R. has taken over Angola and now threatens other countries, 1 move:
This Flouse, recognizing that the Prime Minister of Canada is an intimate friend of President Castro, believes that if the Prime Minister were to make a public condemnation of Cuba's military operations it could be most influential in causing Castro to desist in his course of warlike action that may lead to a third world war, calls on the Prime Minister publicly to demand that Castro desist from his war operations and return the Cuban troops to their homeland.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that women are still being discriminated against in making career choices with the Canadian armed forces, and whereas the minister undertook some time ago to review his department's policies regarding women who wish to apply for
training as pilots but who are now rejected solely because of their sex, and whereas the chief human rights commissioner has expressed an opinion that this could be in violation of section 2 of the Human Rights Act, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this Flouse instruct the minister to make a statement to this House on policy changes and steps he is taking, or intends to take, to ensure that our daughters, as well as our sons, may train for whatever career they desire.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


GOVERNMENT INFORMATION
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent necessity concerning remarks made to a joint Senate-House of Commons committee yesterday by the Secretary of State on the subject of freer access to government information, and particularly widely-published press reports today that the Secretary of State advised the committee that he was generally in favour of such a thing "rather than on the side of holding back''. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the Secretary of State immediately qualify the gross inconsistency between his statement of yesterday and his remarks in an address to the Toronto Liberal forum on May 10, 1978, in which he vowed that as long as he is Secretary of State, members of parliament will not be allowed information on the reasons for awarding Canada Council grants. Specifically, this House deplores what appears to be a two-faced policy by the Secretary of State, and also requests an immediate statement from the minister as to whether he was speaking for the government when he said, in regard to making information public, "In a literal sense there is not a government policy".


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
5908

May 31, 1978


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas farmers and responsible members of reputable gun clubs have reported difficulty in acquiring permits to transport firearms for legitimate purposes, and whereas there appears to be confusion in the interpretation and administration of firearms control regulations, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halton-Went-worth (Mr. Kempling):
That firearms control regulations be suspended until they can be administered fairly and efficiently so that responsible Canadians will not be deprived of legitimate use of their firearms.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


OLD AGE SECURITY
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), I move:
That this House notes the many occasions when delegations appearing before the Ontario Royal Commission on the Status of Pensions insist that the time has come for a substantial increase in the pensions paid under the Old Age Security Act and under the Canada Pension Plan, and this House calls on the government to bring in legislation to this effect at an early date.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion for debate at this time would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
1978, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Rynard):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare take adequate steps to determine the reasons for the annual doctor migration which could reach an all-time high in 1978 and, with her provincial counterparts, work toward creating a better atmosphere for job satisfaction for the medical profession wherein this skilled group can regain a sense of identity in Canada and will not be forced to seek a less hostile work environment outside the country.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday):
That this House authorize the Department of Agriculture to increase the national quota for industrial milk production in order to assist the Canadian cheddar cheese industry in increasing its production of cheddar cheese, as this industry is now in a very precarious position due to an insufficient supply of milk for its waiting markets.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Some hon. Members:: No.


REASON FOR MIGRATION OF DOCTORS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move a motion of urgent and pressing necessity which affects the health care delivery system at its grass-roots. In view of the fact that a record number of doctors left Canada in the first quarter of 1978, and that the Department of National Health and Welfare estimates that 1,500 doctors will have left by the end of
(Mr. Speaker.]


REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF GUARANTEED ANNUAL INCOME-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Leonel Beaudoin (Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a motion relating to a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Given the fact that poverty is still a very cruel plague in Canada and that current social measures are just not enough to improve the plight of the poor, and given the fact that the new negotiations concerning a guaranteed annual income program are not yet under way, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert):
That the House order the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) to introduce as soon as possible legislation creating a guaranteed annual
May 31, 1978

income program geared to the gross national product and to undertake immediate negotiations with the various provincial governments in order to implement that program.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The House has heard the hon. member's motion. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, this motion cannot be presented for debate without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the communique issued yesterday by the Quebec finance department announcing that its deputy minister would contact his federal counterpart today-needless to say we are happy to see the resumption of communications-could the Minister of Finance tell the House, in light of today's talks on the possible financial arrangements regarding the sales tax, if the compromise he has in mind will respect the selective principle on which the National Assembly insists?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have no comment to make.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I think that Quebeckers are quite anxious to have answers to those questions. Given the circumstances and this communication, would the Minister of Finance tell us if he is aware of the visit of Mr. Caron in a few days and if his officials will meet him or if he himself intends to have a meeting with Mr. Parizeau?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Caron is already in Ottawa; so it is not a matter of a few days.


Roch La Salle: The minister is telling us that Mr. Caron is already in Ottawa. Would he have at least the decency to assure the House that he will make a statement tomorrow about this meeting to clarify the situation about this legislation which we cannot support as long as the minister is not more talkative than he is today?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 am quite surprised to hear the word decency from the hon. member but I will certainly report to the House as soon as progress is made.
Oral Questions


QUEBEC SALES TAX-GOVERNMENT FORMULA FOR COMPENSATION
Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to continue the questions asked by the hon. member for Joliette. Because this sales tax dispute resulted from the federal government's direct intrusion into a field of provincial jurisdiction, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance, now that he has had a chance to reconsider and reflect, if it is his intention to withdraw the federal government's formula of direct tax rebates to individual taxpayers in the province of Quebec, in favour of a limited income tax collection agreement with the government of that province?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, after five weeks of explanation, the hon. member does not understand yet that what we did in the budget was reduce the federal income tax for all taxpayers across the land, with an agreement with the provinces, except Quebec, that they were to increase their provincial income tax and with the proceeds were to cut their sales tax, on an agreed formula. We had no agreement with Quebec, but we had with the rest of the nation.
There is no intrusion into a provincial field. When we cut our income tax, we are in our own field and the provinces can do whatever they want in the provincial field. Eight provinces agreed that my scheme to stimulate the economy by cutting income tax was acceptable, and on the night of the budget they signed the agreement. They did it on a voluntary basis. Quebec did not want to sign an agreement. That was up to them. I am still free to cut federal income tax.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, what the minister fails to recognize, after two months of supposed negotiation, is that there is a great difference between an $85 individual cheque by way of rebate and an agreement with the governments of other provinces. That is the difference.
I should like to ask the minister if he will guarantee that any agreed upon mechanism reached between his deputy minister and the deputy minister in Quebec, or between himself and the minister in Quebec for provincial compensation will recognize and respect the right of the provinces to adjust their provincial sales tax according to the priorities they establish, as has been done in the province of Quebec.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member does not realize that when you are cutting taxes, you rebate money to the payer of taxes. It is pretty simple. The provincial government can cut its sales tax any way and any time, and that is exactly what the province of Quebec has done. But they have not accepted doing it like the other provincial governments. They did it with their own money; they were completely free to do what they have done.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: A final supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister tell this House that he is willing to
5910

May 31, 1978
Oral Questions
apply the same mechanism that is being used in section 30 of Bill C-56 with regard to one province, to every other province?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the principle of this article is that I am reducing the income tax and giving the opportunity for all provinces to raise their income taxes. We have agreed that in the case of Quebec having conformed with my scheme for $40 million it was not necessary to have a special collection agreement for these $40 million. We have accepted to pay directly for the part they have complied with the scheme and that was accepted by the other provinces.


INDUSTRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 put my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. The minister's predecessor, the Minister of Finance, visited Israel when he held that post. At that time he expressed interest in having a Canadian company facilitate the Israelis in modernizing their telephone system.
As the minister is aware, Bell Canada is the only company in Canada that, to my knowledge, is capable of doing this kind of work. It has signed a contract with Saudi Arabia which stipulates it will not do business with Israel. Given the circumstances, can the minister tell the House what will happen to the hundreds of potential jobs that would have been created in Canada by Bell had it participated in and obtained the contract for the work in Israel?


Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think the onus implicit in the question really rests with the State of Israel. Whether or not they want Canadian firms to bid on the installation of a new telephone system in that country has not come up to my knowledge.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the minister is being naive or is demonstrating lack of information-one or the other. Is he not aware that a Bell Canada senior official has acknowledged they have not submitted a bid? I do not have the precise wording, but after they entered the contract with Saudi Arabia, Bell Canada indicated they were unlikely to submit a bid for the Israeli project.
If that is the case, will the minister not recognize the reality, which is that in effect there is a boycott under way because Saudi Arabia has effectively stopped Bell Canada from obtaining a work project of some significance in the State of Israel which could have provided jobs for Canadians?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, Bell Canada, in signing a contract with Saudi Arabia, met the requirements of the government. No discriminatory clauses were accepted in signing that contract. Whether or not Bell Canada bids on a similar
contract in the State of Israel depends upon the State of Israel and Bell Canada. We cannot force them to enter into a contract with another country.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, is the minister not aware that the kind of contract Bell Canada signed with Saudi Arabia would not be permitted in the United States? For example, there is a clause in the contract which states that Bell Canada is not doing business with Israel. That clause is in there for one purpose, and one purpose only that the minister should recognize, which is discrimination. If he does recognize that, why would the Government of Canada not take more definitive and concrete action to remove this discrimination which is costly both in terms of civil liberties and in terms of Canadian jobs?


An hon. Member:: What about the Human Rights
Commission?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, with regard to United States boycott policies, in my opinion their policies have many loopholes. All one has to do is set up a head office of one of the multinationals inside Saudi Arabia and then they can go ahead and sign any contract they want. So our policy is working far more effectively than theirs.

[Translation\


HOUSING
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs.
According to my information, an agreement on RRAP was entered into last March by the federal and the Quebec governments. Can the minister tell the House whether, following this agreement, his departmental officials or CMHC officials have issued regulations to allow municipalities to submit their application directly to the federal government, as this alleged agreement allowed the federal government to negotiate directly with the provinces? Has this agreement been finalized? Are the municipalities aware of it and what criteria are applied?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I confirm that an agreement has been entered into by the two levels of government with a view to extending the housing renovation program. However, the process does not necessarily involve officials of the various levels of government, federal, provincial and municipal. It is a program financed solely by the Canadian government and especially designed for rural areas. So those who wish to avail themselves of this program must apply directly to local CMHC offices in the province of Quebec.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question. In light of the rules drafted by his officials, could the minister tell the House whether a quota

May 31, 1978

for applications from taxpayers has been set or if any taxpayer who has a dwelling to restore can file his application and expect a favourable reply?


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the funds will be shared by the Canadian provinces and allocated within each province to the regional or local offices of the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. In other words, a citizen who wants to benefit from this housing renewal program must apply as soon as possible at his local office to obtain the assistance to which he is entitled.
We have agreed that the national budget could not immediately cover all applications. However, it is a long-term program. We will not restore all Canadian dwellings which could qualify under this program. We will give priority to those who have the lowest income or who live in the oldest houses in Canada, but progressively over the next seven or eight years we hope to accept all applications in the best interests of Canadians.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a last supplementary question.
It relates to the fact that last week a regional weekly paper reported that the council of a certain riding held a meeting between its officials and the officials of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation for the Quebec City area. Is it consistent with the terms of the agreement that riding councils be involved in this program, or should it not be dealt with, as in the past, at the municipality level?


André Ouellet: It can be done at both levels, Mr. Speaker. In this case, it is an initiative exclusively taken by a number of officials of the Quebec City area. Having grasped particularly the advantages of this program, they set about, on their own authority, to make their fellow citizens aware of those advantages and to persuade them to draw full benefits from the program.
* *
*


INTERNATIONAL ECONOMIC BOYCOTTS
Mr. Bill Kempling (Halton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the very weak statement tabled yesterday by the minister concerning international economic boycotts, will the minister be bringing forward legislation to deal with this very serious matter, or is it his position that he will continue to give lip service to this problem by changing the guidelines to suit the situation?
Hon. Jack H. Horner (Minister of Industry, Trade and
Commerce): Mr. Speaker, we are finding that the policy
Oral Questions
announced in October, 1976, by the Secretary of State for External Affairs is working very effectively in curtailing Canadian business from adhering to the discriminatory factors of the Arab boycott question.


William James Kempling: Mr. Speaker, the guidelines referred to by the minister, issued by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in October, 1976, and the guidelines issued by the deputy minister in January, 1977, indicated that Canadian companies which complied with the boycott would be named. When the first report was issued, they moved away from that position. In the second report, tabled yesterday, they again moved, saying they will name them in some future report.
In this shifting position of the government on this serious matter, is the minister going to depend solely on the withdrawal of government service and the sanction of public opinion, as he says in his report, by naming companies? Is that the only clout he has in this matter?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, it is becoming very evident to the department that companies attempting to do business with the Arab world have to use the assistance of the department and, in most cases, the assistance of the Export Development Corporation. Withdrawing that assistance is a tremendous clout. I am certain it has worked and will continue to work very effectively.


William James Kempling: Certain countries in the Middle East rely on Export Development Corporation financing, but many of the rich oil countries do not need financing. Certain countries are endeavouring to blackmail Canadian companies, and in order to counter this the government is going to blackmail them by naming them. That is a very serious matter. Would it not be simpler to bring in a straightforward piece of legislation prohibiting this sort of thing, so that Canadian companies can say to the Arab countries which request such an undertaking, "We cannot comply because of the provisions of Canadian law"?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, we are doing a tremendous amount of business with the countries of the Middle East, and we expect our trade to grow considerably. With regard to the question of legislation, I notice that some time ago the government of Ontario announced its intention to bring in legislation but since then they have dropped the idea completely. Perhaps they, too, do not believe legislation is necessary and are of the opinion that our policy is working.


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. It has to do with one, Mr. William Teron, who is, of course, that


Dean Waldon Whiteway: I ask this question again in the House because it was not answered satisfactorily in committee. Is this not an obvious conflict of interest? Would the minister reconsider allowing his deputy minister to take a four-month leave of absence before returning as deputy minister and chairman of the CMHC?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. With all due respect, that is precisely the same question as was just answered.


Mr. Clark:: It was not answered.


INDUSTRY
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. It arises from the growing sense of urgency concerning the turnover of the Halifax shipyard to one of the groups negotiating for its purchase. Could the minister bring us up to date with respect to the status of these negotiations and tell us the name of the group with which his officials are negotiating? Is more than one group concerned?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I really do not think any comment of mine on the negotiations at this stage would be helpful to their successful conclusion. I would be glad to talk to the hon. member privately about the matter, but I would prefer to refrain from intervening now during the negotiating stage.


J. Michael Forrestall: I appreciate that observation, though I will not draw any conclusions from it. Does the minister feel free to bring the House up to date with respect to the department's thinking with regard to the construction of the "Panmax" floating drydock to improve the capacity to do the work required on the east coast?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: We are studying the drydock facilities on the east coast right now. No decision has yet been made with regard to specific assistance in the provision of drydock facilities at Halifax.
[Mr. Whiteway.J
[ Translation]


URBAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. Is the minister in a position to advise hon. members of the House of the latest developments concerning the construction, under the terms of the agreement between the Canadian government and the province of Quebec, of a sewage treatment plant on the Quebec side of the Ottawa River? That plant is supposed to be built in the former municipality of Templeton.


André Ouellet: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday, I sent a letter to the provincial minister, Mr. Leonard, confirming the acceptance of the Canadian government, its acceptance in principle of the points contained in the overall proposal described in the letter of Mr. Leonard. I trust the construction of that sewage treatment plant will start as soon as possible. So, I told Mr. Leonard that our representatives on the technical committee were authorized to make the various changes in the main agreement before going ahead as soon as possible with the construction of the treatment plant.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare in her capacity as Acting Minister of National Revenue.
[ English ]
These follow the questions the Leader of the Opposition and I put to sundry ministers on Friday. I am asking the minister whether she is aware of a letter written by a predecessor of hers in the portfolio of minister of Revenue Canada in which that minister doubted the legality of a certain agreement signed between the deputy minister and the solicitor general and the deputy minister of Revenue Canada (Taxation)con-cerning the right of search and examination of income tax files by members of the criminal investigation bureau of the RCMP.
Does she agree with the contents of that letter, or does she agree with the view expressed in this House last year by the then minister of national revenue who said that all the actions of the Department of National Revenue under this accord were legal?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I do not remember the exact terms of the mandate of the McDonald commission of inquiry, but it
May 31, 1978

seems to me that the question the hon. member put to me as Acting Minister of National Revenue in the House, at this time, deals precisely with what the commissioners are doing. I therefore have nothing to add. I read the official report of the questions put in the House Friday, and the leader of the government answered them very well.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I would refer the hon. minister to a news release attaching a copy of the agreement dated September 29, 1977, issued by the present minister for whom she responds in this House. In that letter, the present minister for whom she replies indicated that everything done under this agreement has been legal. I am not referring to the McDonald commission. I would refer the hon. lady to depositions-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: -before the Laycraft commission, and 1 warn the hon. lady-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will repeat what I said on Friday and suggest the hon. lady consider the Laycraft report due in late June, which will have a good deal to say about this matter. Will the hon. lady answer my question? Will she say whether she approves of the letter, since she was minister of national revenue, signed by her predecessor which is in direct contradiction to the views expressed by the minister she represents in the House today?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Leader of the Opposition could explain to his colleague how he may call me if he has difficulties when referring to our titles.
As for the question about the substance and legality of some actions by the RCMP, that is the mandate of the McDonald royal commission. As to the findings of the Laycraft inquiry, I will examine the report with interest and seriousness as soon as it is made public.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Wally Firth (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It has come to my attention that the native organizations in the Northwest Territories have not received funding for the purpose of land claims research and negotiations for the new fiscal year.
In view of the fact that the native organizations require funding in order to hire competent staff to conduct research,
Oral Questions
formulate proposals and above all, pursue land claims negotiations in good faith, will the minister please tell this House why there has been a delay in funding, and would he also indicate when the native organizations will receive notification of their funding?


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I should clarify an important point. The hon. member refers to native organizations in the Northwest Territories. In fact, he is talking about two native organizations in the Mackenzie Valley. The native organization, COPE, in the Delta is being funded. I just recently had a luncheon with the president of ITC and discussed an important meeting in Repulse Bay regarding the ITC claim. So we are talking about two organizations.
I think the hon. member understands as well as I do why I proposed, about a month ago, instituting a moratorium. The answer is very simple. We all agree that there should be one settlement in the Mackenzie Valley. There are two political organizations. I have said I am prepared to start negotiations with either the two of them together or a third one representing both. However, if we are aiming for one settlement in the Mackenzie Valley, there must be a negotiating team representing all the people in the valley: that is the reason for the moratorium.


Walter (Wally) Firth: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Metis Association of the Northwest Territories will be forced to lay off its land claims staff this coming Friday unless funds are forthcoming, and in view of the fact that this turn of events will negate several years of hard work done by this organization, I would ask the minister if he will take it upon himself to meet with this organization in good faith and see that the native organizations are provided with the means to bring the land claims question to a just settlement.


James Hugh Faulkner: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, I will be prepared to do anything to ensure that a just settlement in the Mackenzie Valley is achieved. That is my wish, the hon. member's wish and, I think, the wish of the people in the valley. I am also prepared to meet with the political organizations if a meeting with me would in any way facilitate the setting up of a negotiating forum which would allow for a single settlement in the valley, which is the type of settlement everyone is anxious to have.


FITNESS AND AMATEUR SPORT
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport). While participating in the federal-provincial conference of ministers responsible for sport, fitness and recreation, held in Montreal on April 13, the minister was reported to have said, "My clear mandate in sport and fitness does not in any way deal with recreation".

May 31, 1978
Oral Questions
Was the minister's rather bold statement reflecting a change in government policy based on a new and recent order in council which countermands an order in council of 1962 made under the leadership of the right hon. member for Prince Albert in which both fitness and amateur sport were defined individually as being directly related to recreation?


Hon. Iona Campagnolo (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the hon. member that there has been no change in my mandate; simply a change in the way it is described.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Iona Campagnolo: The provinces have requested that the Government of Canada no longer participate in recreation at the provincial level. The right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert, I think very temporally, foresaw that the real mandate of fitness and amateur sport in this country contained the words "physical recreation", so therefore we are continuing physical recreation but not recreation per se. Therefore, the Government of Canada will not be in the business of making macrame hangers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, that was a very interesting circumlocution. When does the minister anticipate that the green paper on recreation and fitness will be available? Will it contain any options and alternatives? Why has the minister decided to change the definition of "recreation" before issuing the green paper?


Iona Campagnolo: Mr. Speaker, I am amazed that a member of the opposition should be urging me to go against something which the provinces so devoutly desire as to have it written into their request for our federal-provincial meeting. The federal government is merely acquiescing in the request of the provinces to remove itself from this sphere by gradually diminishing services so that the provinces take them up. The provinces are prepared to move into this field as we gradually move out. I expect the fitness and recreation green paper to be into the process of public participation some time early this fall.


FISHERIES
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and the Environment. Today the minister received a telegram from some very irate fishermen in British Columbia because the minister made a very major concession to the United States by closing the Swiftsure Bank without getting anything in return. How much longer will the fishermen have to wait for an agreement, and what are they going to get in return for all their losses?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the telegram to which the hon. member refers. I met a group of advisers-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: With a commissionaire.


Roméo LeBlanc: Instead of shouting across the way, perhaps the hon. member might want to address the facts before he closes his mind. However, that is not usually his distinction.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am for the commissionaire.


Roméo LeBlanc: As to how long the resolution of this issue will take, I can tell the hon. member that it will not take very long.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the minister that the losses the fishermen are enduring amount to much more than parking fines in Ottawa. I want to point out that many fishermen are wondering whether the salmon enhancement program is designed to replace the concessions the minister has made, and I remind the minister of the losses the fishermen are incurring as a result of the agreement he has made. The agreement was supposed to have been reached last Friday. How long do we have to wait?


Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member really does not understand the agreement which was signed. The agreement foresaw the possibility of Swiftsure being closed for conservation reasons. We did not agree with those conservation reasons and we said that was not an excuse for the other side not to honour its commitment to increase access to Canadian fishermen off the state of Washington. I can tell the hon. member again that he will not have to wait very long. This issue will be resolved one way or the other very soon.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Some weeks ago the minister said that the government had approved in principle an extension of its program of remitting customs duties on cars imported into Canada from outside North America up to the total value of all parts exported to their manufacturers and not just the value of the parts used in these imported cars, but the government was still discussing the terms of the necessary orders with the auto parts manufacturers here.
Has the government as yet issued any such orders to implement this desirable new program? If so, do they cover the entire auto parts industry and, if not, when will orders be issued to have this new program fully in effect so that the

May 31, 1978

entire Canadian auto parts manufacturing industry and all its workers can take advantage of it?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Would you repeat the question?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Mr. Speaker, we recently signed an agreement with Volkswagen which allows Volkswagen to claim remission on duties paid for parts manufactured in Canada for their plants in Germany and in the United States. We hope to proceed with a similar agreement with manufacturers of automobiles which are not on the North American continent, in the hope that we will enhance parts production in Canada for some of the cars purchased and used in Canada.
[.Editor's Note: See page 5975for correction by Mr. Horner.]


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, if we could get back to the question of physical recreation for a moment, my question is for the Solicitor General and it relates to the escape from federal custody of convicted murderer Albert Marinello, who managed to beat his sentence on Monday night while Montreal's Expos were beating the Chicago Cubs at the Olympic Stadium. This gentleman escaped from custody while at the ball game with one guard and four other prisoners. In the belief that the Solicitor General does not want the prisoners under his care to adopt as their theme, "Take me out to the ball game"-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -especially the punch line, which goes, "I won't care if I ever get back"-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -can the Solicitor General tell us how this convicted murderer, whom the Quebec police force describe as being dangerous, was permitted to be in a type of situation from which he could so easily escape?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: Mr. Speaker, as 1 understand it, all the prisoners were cheering for the Expos at the time. With reference to Mr. Marinello, he was coming up for parole next week and the application was to be heard at that time. Therefore, as is usual in order to prepare inmates who may be released on parole, there was a temporary absence permitted under custody. In order to permit him to reintegrate into society, he was taken to this ball game. Unfortunately, the events the hon. member has described are relatively accurate: he did absent himself, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if the minister is aware that this convicted murderer escaped on three previous occasions, the last time being as recently as last year and, more notably, on Mother's Day of 1974 when he took the occasion to convert a pass home into a home run.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: 1 wonder if there is any sports program in federal institutions which would teach the inmates, for instance, that rather than three strikes and you are out the rule appears to be three outs and then you take a walk.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, the House appreciates the fact that the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham has hired a new joke writer. Indeed, I am glad he has taken a rather positive attitude in terms of this particular event. It explains the difficulty we have In terms of attempting to reintegrate convicts within society. If the hon. member is not aware, he can be made aware very easily with a briefing from my officials within the National Parole Board or, indeed, the Canadian Correctional Services. There is a judgment which has to be made relating to people who are up for parole. In this instance, this judgment was made. Mr. Marinello progressed from a maximum security to a medium security, and finally to a minimum security institution.


Mr. Gillies:: To escape.


Jean-Jacques Blais: This was based on the judgment that he was not a dangerous inmate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Jacques Blais: I point to the fact that during those other three absences to which the hon. member referred, there was no indication of any misbehaviour on the part of Mr. Marinello. Undoubtedly, the application which was to be heard next week is going to be negatively affected by Mr. Marinello s absence.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: You hope.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, there was no negative activity except that he failed to come back on all occasions. Will the Solicitor General confirm the understatement of the year as being National Parole Board policy when prisoner warden Real Benoit, after being contacted by the press on this matter, said:
I think he had a good chance to get out on parole before he escaped. Now, 1 don't know what will happen. His escape certainly won't help his chances of getting parole.
Is that a statement of National Parole Board policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Battle River.
5916

May 31, 1978
Oral Questions FINANCE


CAPITAL GAINS TAX AS APPLIED TO FAMILY CORPORATIONS
Mr. Arnold Malone (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, in this unique season of seasonally adjusted legislation for seasonally adjusted elections, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. It makes reference to his April 10 budget which had one very fine clause indicating that shares of family corporations are now eligible for rollover negotiations. Was it the minister's intention, in family corporations including farm corporations, that if a sibling was to go out on his own and apart from the incorporated structure he would have to pay capital gains tax-the corporation would have to pay capital gains tax if a sibling went on his own?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the question asked by the hon. member concerns the interpretation of the legislation. When the House goes into committee of the whole, if the opposition lets us get to that point, I will be able to explain each one of the budget items.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Approximately ten days ago I brought to his attention the very sharp cutbacks in programs in northern Manitoba in the fields of education and employment instituted by the provincial government. To a large extent, these programs were funded jointly by his department and the provincial government.
1 asked whether the minister was aware of the size of the cutbacks and what action his department had taken to monitor the cutbacks to see that the department was not continuing to pay its share of the money as if the cutbacks had not taken place. Can the minister tell us now what steps he has taken? What has he found as a result of his inquiries?


Hon. Marcel Lessard (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, what I would like to point out once again to the hon. member is that the cuts made by the Manitoba government in the programs considered will not substantially affect the program as a whole. But I can say again to the hon. member that if there are substantial cuts in the expenditures considered, those sums will not be reallocated to other programs not provided under the agreement entered into. But negotiations are going on with the government of Manitoba in an attempt to convince them of the soundness of the programs developed and agreed to by the federal and the Manitoba governments. We are still hopeful that we shall

manage to convince the government to reinstate, if not completely, at least to a large extent, some aspects of the program that they have cut so far.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister whether, in the inquiries his department has made, it found cutbacks in programs that were financed in part by that department? If so, has his department moved to reduce the amount of money which it was recommended to pay?


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, yes, definitely. If some cutbacks have been made, obviously the result will be a reduction of our total expenditures. As we are paying, after expenditures have been made obviously we will be reducing by that portion our contribution to that part of the program which might have been reduced.
For the time being it is a little too early in the game to judge precisely the amount of money we might be called upon to withdraw from these programs. As I have said, we hope to convince the government to reinstate at least some part of the programs, in the hope that people in the northern part of Manitoba will benefit from them.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary North.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I like the applause. I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice with reference to Bill S-8 which came before the committee. Clauses 18 and 23 indicate that the minister may not return a fugitive or a person who has an order for extradition against him either to the Commonwealth, the United States or other countries if the death penalty applies and that is the penalty the person would have to undergo. I ask this question in light of the fact that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and the hon. member for Toronto-Lake-shore were on the committee. Both those Liberals agreed with my position.
My position is that the bill provides that pursuant to subsection (1), the minister may refuse to order the surrender of a fugitive offender, who may be somebody charged with treason or murder, but must release such person. In light of that fact, will the minister bring the bill back in order to amend this clause, or does he intend to create a haven for people such as Charles Manson, the terrorists in Italy, and others like the Son of Sam who would have to be released by the minister? That is the position. How is he dealing with members of his own party on that committee?
May 31, 1978


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, It was my intention to have the bill recalled before the committee in order to explain those clauses which seem to have been grossly misunderstood in the committee. The clause makes it very clear that this matter is discretionary. It is drawn in line with modern extradition arrangements and with the wording that prevails in the Commonwealth, which is standard practice in the European community in respect of extradition and is embodied in a number of our treaties. It has also been in the British extradition and rendition law since 1945. None of those countries has, because of these provisions, become a haven for terrorists, as far as 1 am aware.
The hon. member and some members of the committee misinterpreted the clause as meaning that the minister would not deliver prisoners to other countries if capital punishment prevailed. That is not the meaning or the intent of the provision at all.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 am sure hon. members who have contributed to this point will realize that this discussion is one which ought not to take place during the question period but, rather, before the committee when the bill is there.


TABLING OF EXTRACT OF MINUTES OF MEETING OF COMMISSIONERS OF INTERNAL ECONOMY RESPECTING SALARY REVISIONS
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Before moving to routine proceedings I should like to state that the matter of salaries for the staff of the House of Commons has been one which has been in my hands for quite some time. Ordinarily in each year we have endeavoured to bring forward the Minute of the Commissioners of Internal Economy, who bear ultimate responsibility for salary changes, by April 1.
This year we endeavoured to address ourselves to the continuing problem arising from disparities between positions in the House of Commons and those in the public service. It was generally agreed that disparity ought not to occur and that, in fact, as much as possible, uniformity ought to exist between relative positions in the service of the House of Commons and in the public service.
The House will understand and recall that the House is autonomous in this regard and, therefore, approval of Treasury Board has not been sought on this or on previous occasions. However, there has always been a desire on the part of the House to conform as much as possible with the general ambitions and aims of the salary program in the public service, and to attempt to ensure that equivalent positions in the service of the House of Commons were maintained on a salary level either equivalent to or slightly ahead of those in the public service.
In attempting to do this we have, over the years, allowed some positions to get further ahead of equivalent positions in the public service than was desirable, and for this reason it has
Point of Order-Mr. Woolliams always been an ambition in respect of salary amendment arrangements each year to try to bring them closer into line. On the other hand, to attempt to do that in one year would always, it would seem to me and, I am sure, to all hon. members, unfairly burden those incumbents of positions in the service of the House of Commons.
I think all of us are generally agreed that the service rendered to the House of Commons by our staff at every level, by some 2,500 employees, is absolutely first-class and of top quality.
To take an approach in any one year which would place all the burden of this on any one incumbent or group of incumbents in our service of the House of Commons would mean an unfair program. Therefore an effort was made, and this is the reason the discussions have been rather longer and more complex than in other years, to find a formula which would at one and the same time recognize the need for fair salary treatment for those in incumbent positions, and yet draw closer into line those positions in the service of the House of Commons which have gone too far ahead of equivalent positions in the public service.
Accordingly, the opening of discussions related to the possibility of combining for the first time a percentage revision in respect of the positions themselves and a cash contribution to those incumbents who might, because of the necessity of a low percentage increase in their own classifications, be unfairly burdened. This is a new and rather complex approach, and it has taken some time to finalize it.
I am pleased to report to the House today, where a number of members have inquired, both on the floor of the House, through correspondence and in contact with me, on the progress, that the matter has been finalized. I have, of course, endeavoured to maintain a flow of information to the extent that was permitted, to the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services.
This matter has been finalized to my satisfaction, and I am, therefore, able also to say to the House that the Commissioners of Internal Economy have come to the same agreement. Therefore, I am able to table the minute of the Commissioners of Internal Economy touching upon salary revisions which, for the first time, and we hope this is a one and only time, include not only a percentage increase to the classifications of the salary groups in the House of Commons service, but also a once and for all cash payment which we hope very much reduces the burden on those who are present incumbents, yet recognizes the need to draw the general classifications closer in line with those in the public service. That minute is now final and official, and I table it forthwith.


POINTS OF ORDER
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would agree with your earlier
80045 - 81/2

May 31, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. Malone
suggestion if the bill were still before the committee, but what has happened is that Bill S-8 has silently died. The committee held one meeting at which Liberal members, and I mentioned them as being the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) and the hon. member for Toronto-Lakeshore (Mr. Robinson), agreed with my point of view.
1 want to read this clause because I think it is very important. If someone was guilty of murder or treason in Britain for shooting the monarch and had come here, they would be released, because the clause states:
(2) Where, pursuant to subsection (1), the minister refuses to order the surrender of a fugitive offender, he shall order the discharge of the fugitive offender-
This does not say "may", it says "shall". I am not suggesting for one moment that those Liberal members on the committee are wrong, but I am saying that when the minister suggests members of the committee did not understand the clause, he is not correct. The measure is very clear. But with the greatest respect to you, sir, that bill died in committee and we do not know where it is. I hope that the minister will see his way clear to proposing the amendment suggested by his own members when 1 put the problem to the committee. It is those Liberal members who opposed the minister after I brought this anomaly to the floor of the committee. The minister says they do not understand the law. I am sure the minister knows what "shall" means. In this case it means "shall surrender the offender." Do we want Charlie Mason or the Son of Sam, if either of them escaped and came here, to be released in our communities? This does not say "may", but rather says "the minister . . . shall". I ask the minister very seriously to consider this.
I referred a very serious problem to his attention and he did not explain. He said we misunderstood the clause. There can be no misunderstanding of that wording, and the minister knows that. He also knows that his own members believe this is a complete anomaly in the law, and 1 would hope that if the minister brings this bill back to the committee he will amend, change, or delete that clause. It does not matter how he tries to slide over the words, or what he suggests; this is what it says very clearly, and what is spelled out in the bill.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, without entering the debate on the matter may 1 just say that subsection (1) contains the word "may". Someone such as Charlie Manson would be returned to the United States. The bill has been before the committee and has been dealt with. The scheduling of business is undoubtedly a responsibility of the chairman and the steering committee, and that is where the matter is now.


MR. MALONE-SUPPLEMENTARY QUESTIONS
Arnold John Malone: Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise on a point of order, not to challenge your ruling, but rather to seek clarification regarding supplementary questions during the question period. I had a question for the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) today which was of considerable
[Mr. Woolliams.l
importance. My supplementary would have been directed to the Acting Minister of National Revenue. My supplementary question is related to the fact that the Commerce Clearing House of Canada Limited is at present giving rulings across Canada which say that people who operate outside a family corporation, through a sale from a sibling, end up in a situation in which they are in fact unable to collect the tax supposed to be relieved by the minister's budget of April 10.
I would like to have clarification of what makes a supplementary question out of order. Is it simply the statement that the minister makes when that statement is yet unclear, or is there some automatic rule that means a person does not get a supplementary when asking a preliminary question?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member raises a very valid point of concern and one that gives the Chair great difficulty. In the question period today, and on many other days, there were and are occasions on which I grant members supplementary questions, and some which I do not. In the hon. member's case a question was put which clearly sought an opinion on an interpretation of a section of the law, and it is very difficult to permit such a matter to be followed up when in fact the minister recognizes and indicates that advice will have to be taken before an answer can be given.
It is very difficult for the Chair to grant a supplementary question on an answer that is to be deferred until some other time. On occasions where a minister has said it is a matter of investigation, not so much legal advice but merely investigation, 1 extend the benefit of the doubt to the member because I know that the member will want to say, "While the minister is undertaking the investigation which he has promised to the House, will he please pursue certain specifics that I have in mind?" Even at that point I will allow it to be pursued, but in today's case the hon. member put a question which clearly sought an opinion from the minister, and the minister's response was that he would have to obtain advice for the opinion. It is very difficult for me to permit that matter to be followed.
If the hon. member, in fact, had had a specific question about a particular bulletin-and 1 do say this to members generally-often members are tempted to try to set up a question of a specific nature with a question of a general nature. That may be a temptation for some purposes which members have in mind. In fact, in terms of the limited time available in the question period, it is a very counter productive practice.
If the hon. member's main concern today was a bulletin of a specific nature in the authority of the hon. minister for revenue, it might have been more advisable to make that the preliminary question which clearly would have been the subject of a supplementary. However, he began with a question seeking an opinion, and the minister indicated he would have to take advice before giving the opinion. Therefore, it seemed to me I did not have the choice to permit him to pursue it in that particular way.
May 31, 1978



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have been giving some consideration to whether it might be desirable to extend the period for examination of estimates, and certain committees, through their chairmen, have suggested that they might profitably spend some more sessions on the examination of the estimates. If it is the wish of the House, and with the approval of the House, I would like to make a motion to provide that for certain committees the period of examination of estimates be extended. 1 would therefore move:
That, notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order 58, the Main Estimates, 1978-79, that were referred to the Standing Committees on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts; External Affairs and National Defence; Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs; Flealth, Welfare and Social Affairs; Indian Affairs and Northern Development; Miscellaneous Estimates; National Resources and Public Works; Privileges and Elections; Regional Development; Transport and Communications; and Veterans Affairs shall not be deemed to have been reported from the said Standing Committees until the third sitting day before the Final allotted day in the present supply period.
I would make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that this is not a command to the committees; it is permissive. It is up to the committees to determine their own pace of work, and it is at the request of the particular committees that this motion is being made.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, it may have escaped the government House leader's mind that this whole matter came about because of a request of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) made to the House, and one which I supported, with respect to the very short period that evolved in the over-all work of the House of Commons because of the "off again, on again, off again, Finnigan" attitude of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with respect to an election. That is where the request originally came from and having said that, sir, I want to say we welcome the extension of time. Of course it follows that the committees will decide themselves what they should do.
The situation, however, points up once again the complete inadequacy of our rules in this House with respect to the examination of the expenditures of government and the examination of programs and policies of this government, which is the job of parliament. It is long past due that this aspect of our rules be looked at very, very carefully.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we agree that this is a reasonable resolution to the problem that has arisen. In fact, we feel to have extended the time of all the committees dealing with estimates would have created as many problems as might have been solved. I gather that the 11 committees listed are all the committees the chairmen of which have requested an extension of the time.
Estimates
While I am on my feet, 1 should like to join the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) in saying that I hope some day, and some day in the not too distant future, we will find a better way than we have at the present time for handling the expenditures that must be approved by parliament.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to signify our agreement with the motion put by the President of Privy Council and thank also-that is a rare event-the Minister of Finance who took it upon himself to translate the motion from English to French and to bring it to my seat. He certainly deserves an expression of gratitude and 1 do so publicly because it is so much nicer to hear that than to hear unpleasant things.
In any event, 1 think the time has come for us to amend our procedures, and I truly hope, as all the speakers before me said, that in a near future procedural amendments will be brought in so that we can operate in a regular fashion without having to resort to temporary expedients.


Mr. Speaker:: I have heard the House leaders in respect to the consent that is required to introduce the motion. The motion, of course, will be debatable and subject to comment. The motion is that of the President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) which requires consent to be introduced at this time.
Is there unanimous consent? Order. 1 am not in a position to hear commentary. In terms of consent I heard the party leaders to determine if there was agreement. Is there consent for the introduction of the motion at the present time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the words of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) when he introduced the motion this afternoon. However, I regret I did not hear him state that one of the committees of which the activities would be extended would be the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry. If he has so stated, I stand to be corrected.
I say this because it was only yesterday that our committee met at the request of the minister and the government, and we were told that it was not possible to hold our regular meeting as scheduled on Tuesday evening, at which time we were to have before the committee the negotiators on the boundary dispute, Mr. Cadieux and Mr. Clark. We were informed that they were holding serious negotiations with the United States over the boundary dispute which applies to both Atlantic and Pacific Canada.
We did not wish to create a situation whereby discussions in committee would in any way interfere with the serious negotia-

May 31, 1978
Estimates
tions that are going on and which are of vital importance to the citizens of Atlantic Canada and the west coast, so we unanimously agreed to defer the meeting on Tuesday evening with the officials, with the expressed understanding given by the government officials that, upon conclusion of these negotiations, Mr. Cadieux and Mr. Clark would appear before our committee. It was with that understanding that we agreed to defer our hearings Tuesday evening.
My question to the minister is this: will he indicate when these meetings will be held, and will additional time be given to members of the House who are members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry in order that there can be further examination, discussion, and debate of these urgent matters which apply to our boundary problems? If he cannot do that, can he guarantee us a special reference at a later date when discussions have been concluded?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the question of the hon. member I have described the process which has been followed, namely, to consult with the chairmen of the committees and, at their request, to bring forward this motion. 1 am not aware of what the deliberations have been of the committee to which the hon. member refers. I agree that it is an important committee and that there are important questions relating to fisheries and boundaries, but 1 would prefer to consider that matter with the chairman to see if a way can be devised to accommodate the needs of the committee.


Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief, but I just wanted to ask the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) about the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. As the minister is aware, that committee did not meet for a long time-until I used various parliamentary techniques to get the chairman to call a meeting. In the steering committee of that committee, as well as in the committee itself, I asked the chairman for an extension of time, but there was no quorum at the time and he said he would report back saying that the committee had decided that we did not need extra time. I challenged him on the fact that there was not a quorum and that no decision could be taken. I would therefore ask the minister whether the chairman of that committee reported that no decision was taken but that a view had been expressed that additional time should be given to the committee.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I do not have before me the precise reports received from each chairman. They were collated by a member of my staff. I cannot describe to the hon. member exactly what each chairman has requested. All I know is that this is the motion based upon consultation, and if the House wishes to give these committees further opportunity it can do so through this motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House has heard the terms of the motion in the name of the Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen), seconded by

Mr. MacDonald (Cardigan). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 805, 806 and 1086. I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt: Is the government aware of the public statement by Mr. Igor Gouzenko carried by news media on Sunday, November 27, 1977 that he disclosed information to the government on nine Soviet espionage rings operating in Canada and that the government had only followed up by investigating one of these and, if so (a) is Mr. Gouzenko's information accurate (b) what are all the details (c) for what reason did the government fail to act (d) will the government investigate the statement and inform the House as to any action it intends to take in this connection?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Solicitor General: 1. Yes. (a) It is true that Mr. Gouzenko claims that there were several espionage rings operating in Canada, however, it is not true that the RCMP only pursued the investigation of one network, (b) It is not the policy of the government to comment publicly on individual police and security investigations. All information relative to Mr. Gouzenko's testimony and the documentation he brought with him on his defection which the government felt could be publicly disclosed is contained in the report of the royal commission (27 June 1946). (c) and (d) The government is satisfied that all leads flowing from Mr. Gouzenko's information have been exhaustively pursued and that no further action is required.


Mr. Cossitt: Are any pages or sections of the Mackenzie King Diaries dealing with the Igor Gouzenko case missing from the Public Archives and, if so (a) what are the exact pages or sections (b) on what date did the government become aware they were missing (c) does anyone in government service or formerly in government service have knowledge of the contents of the missing pages or sections (d) has the government taken steps to investigate all aspects of the situation specifically as to what became of the missing pages or sections and (i) if so, what are all details of the results (ii) if not, for what reason?


Hon. John Roberts (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the Public Archives Canada as follows: yes, there is a gap in the regular Mackenzie King diaries preserved in the Public Archives, (a) It is for the period from November 10, to
May 31, 1978

December 31, 1945. (b) The literary executors discovered the gap when they gathered the diaries after Mr. King's death in 1950, and they notified the Public Archives at the time, (c) Not to our knowledge, (d) Extensive searches were made by the literary executors and the staff of the Public Archives when the gap was noticed.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Were the so-called Taschereau papers on national security taken from the National Archives to the Privy Council office-Prime Minister's office and, if so (a) on what date (b) under whose authorization (c) for what reason?
2.	Are the Taschereau papers in the possession of the PCO-PMO and (a) if so, for what reason (b) if not, where are they?
3.	With reference to the answer by the President of Privy Council to a question by the hon. member for Leeds on November 29, 1977, page 1355 of Hansard, to the effect that he would take the question as notice and answer it as soon as possible, what are all the reasons that he has not followed up with any further statement on the matter?
4.	Will the President of Privy Council or the Prime Minister make known immediately when a decision will be made as to whether or not the Taschereau papers will be made public and, if not, for what reason?
5.	If the papers are to be made public, on what date will this occur?
6.	Is it the government's intention to permit the documents to become public as is permitted by law after thirty years in the National Archives and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. Yvon Pinard (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: In so far as the Prime Minister's and Privy Council offices are concerned: 1. Yes, to the Privy Council office: (a) January 21, 1976; (b) secretary to the cabinet; (c) routine review of 30 year-old records (see Hansard of May 1, 1969, pages 8199 and 8200).
2.	(a) No; (b) returned to Public Archives.
3.	This answer fulfils that commitment.
4.	Public access to the transcripts of in-camera hearings is not authorized. The release of these papers may violate the right of privacy of many persons who testified before the commission and who are still alive (see reference to Hansard in 1 (c) above).
5.	The papers will be reviewed in 1986.
6.	See 4 above.


Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Paproski:: Mr. Speaker, we would like to have a copy of the questions.


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, I will be very happy to provide the hon. member with a copy of the answers if he wishes to look at them.
Human Rights MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


Roger Carl Young: Mr. Speaker, 1 ask that all notices of motions or the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the notices of motions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Charles Joseph Clark: That this House deeply regrets the inadequate response of the government to the persistent violation of international human rights, and in particular the violation by the Soviet Union and the Communist bloc of the Helsinki Accords.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have the opportunity to initiate this debate on a subject of very real and direct concern to the people of Canada. I am sure, even though this is a short sitting day in the House of Commons, that my motion will draw an active response from members on all sides of the House.
I am particularly honoured and pleased that this motion has been seconded by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: 1 think that no member of this House, and indeed no citizen of this country, has been more steadfast in his dedication to the cause of human rights in this country and throughout the world. That dedication was recognized last month by the extraordinary award of an honorary degree by the Ukrainian Free University in Munich to the right hon. member for Prince Albert, and it is symbolized further by the Canadian Bill of Rights which that member brought to parliament as Prime Minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It is well for us to start the debate on human rights in Canada with reference fo the Canadian Bill of Rights. One of the basic principles enunciated in that bill is as follows:
Men and institutions remain free only when freedom is founded upon respect for moral and spiritual values and the rule of law.
That is a statement of principle for Canada in a bill that applies to Canada. Our first responsibility as legislators in this country is to strive to ensure its respect and application in our own country. Indeed, the degree to which we succeed in this

May 31, 1978
Human Rights
regard will, in a very real measure, speak to our capacity to pursue the cause of human rights in the world.
That principle is not limited to Canada-it is a declaration for mankind-and we in this House, we in this country should never be reticent or apologetic in our effort to have these principles accepted and respected by all nations and all peoples throughout the world. Certainly we have made some progress in that regard, but it is slow progress and it is uneven. There remain far too many countries and far too many governments for whom respect for individual freedoms is a meaningless phrase and for whom terror and suppression are the daily tools of their power. That is particularly true of countries of the Soviet bloc. The evidence of that fact is no further removed than today's press reports of the arbitrary arrest of Czech citizens prominent in the field of human rights, for no nobler purpose than to avoid any potential embarrassment for the visiting Soviet leader, Mr. Brezhnev. The fact is very much alive, too, in the hearts and minds of thousands of Canadians who themselves suffered in the past under these repressive regimes, and whose relatives and friends continue today to be denied even the most elementary rights and freedoms.
I do not want to enter a long catalogue, but I think there are some of these restrictions, limitations and suppression of freedom to which it is important we give specific attention in this House today.
Not long ago I raised in this House, as did other members, including the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leg-gatt), the case of Mr. Danylo Shumuk, who at 62 years of age had spent almost 35 years in prison for an assortment of crimes, mostly political, against the Soviet Union. That definition can cover almost anything. Relatives of Mr. Shumuk in Canada enlisted my support to see if Mr. Shumuk could leave the Soviet Union to emigrate to Canada. We were told that the Soviet Union does not view Mr. Shumuk's case as viable under the family unification provisions of the Helsinki Accord because his relatives in Canada are not sons and daughters but, rather, cousins. This is a narrow, legalistic interpretation designed to suit the purposes of the Soviet Union and not the humanitarian goals of the countries signatory to the Helsinki Accord.
We are seeing an easing of religious persecution in some countries within the Soviet bloc-Poland is the best example. But there is still a long way to go. Other countries in the Soviet bloc, Czechoslovakia is the most prominent, take active measures to prevent the free worship by its citizens in the religion of their choice.
There is also, as we know, the problem of emigration of Soviet Jews to Israel. The record of the government of the Soviet Union in one of harassment of those seeking to leave- of putting in place unnecessary road blocks. It is one where the doctrine of fairness is not allowed to exist, where families are separated, because one member is allowed to emigrate but another is not.
[ Translation]
What makes these violations of human rights so awful is the fact that Soviet Union authorities are not willing to respect the provisions of the Helsinki Agreement. The Secretary of State for External Affairs says that this agreement as well as others signed by the Soviet Union have no legal authority and that they cannot therefore be forcibly enforced. This is true, but it is also true that no country, including the Soviet Union, was forced to sign a single agreement ensuring the respect of human rights. When they signed these agreements, countries like the Soviet Union committed themselves in principle. Mr. Speaker, countries such as Canada must constantly remind violators of the contents of agreements such as that of Helsinki. This is the mistake that is being made in the foreign policy of Canada: there is too much reluctance and unwillingness to speak plainly.
It is always easier for us to turn our attention away from violations of freedom and dignity, particularly when those violations occur in other lands. If we in Canada indulge in that luxury we leave those who are victims of oppression in the world without defenders, because there are other countries, including other countries in the west, which rely more exclusively on Soviet trade or whose populations might be subject to unusual pressures, and are consequently less free than Canada is to speak up.
We in this parliament must face the fact that if countries like Canada and the United States of America do not play a leading role in speaking up for human rights in this world, then no one else will.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The reticence of the Government of Canada in accepting that obligation is often justified by reference to so-called quiet diplomacy; the claim that human rights issues are best pursued quietly and privately with other governments. That may well be the proper case in negotiations on individual cases, particularly concerning the reunification of families. But we on this side of the House of Commons reject any notion that the Government of Canada should be quiet in its commitment to the principles of human rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: That commitment does not belong in the back rooms of diplomacy. It should be set forth clearly and publicly by this government so that the people of Canada, and the nations of the world, know exactly where this country stands.
Without that kind of public evidence of the government's commitment to human rights Canadians will be entitled to suspect that quiet diplomacy is just some kind of evasion, some kind of a cop-out. Particularly will that be the case when we have a government, as we have today, which has shown so little
[Mr. Clark.)
May 31, 1978

concern for the fundamental rights and freedoms of its own citizens.
It is important for us to turn some attention for a moment as we discuss our impact upon human rights in the world to consider the impact of the example of Canada in terms of respect for rights in this country. In this country we have a government that tried to gag a member of this House with threats, and having failed there, is now harassing a newspaper editor whom it does not happen to like. This is a government, and we heard the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) on this subject only yesterday, that condones secret trials. This is a government that continues to use writs of assistance 200 years after they were abolished in England. This is a government that, as we saw again today, is all too ready to take away from parliament and hide, with a royal commission, responsibility for looking into the illegal use of the private tax and medical files of individual Canadians.
This is a government which wants to inhibit the basic freedoms of charitable organizations by limiting their right to petition their government and their parliament. This is a government that finds no fault with the systematic surveillance of political parties and candidates. This is a government that passed an order in council making it illegal for any Canadian even to discuss the activities of a uranium cartel, of which the Government of Canada was a part. This is a government which, under the Immigration Act, claims the right to give foreign workers in Canada a special social insurance number so they can be singled out.
This is a government which increases postal rates by executive fiat, in defiance of the law and in defiance of parliamentary principle. When Canadians look at a record like that we are entitled to ask ourselves: is this government so committed to quiet diplomacy in the defence of human rights internationally because quiet diplomacy works, or because it is a convenient way to evade action and avoid scrutiny?
If this government has been too silent in asserting Canada's commitment to human rights, it most certainly has been inconsistent and hypocritical in applying those principles to its own policies. On occasion we hear lofty statements of principle on this matter by government ministers. We heard one in the House of Commons last December made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson) when he was talking about commercial relations with South Africa. We noted, to give him credit-and he is in the House now-the strong statement of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Cafik) in summing up the tragic failure of the Belgrade Conference. We heard a statement in recent days from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in respect of our aid policy toward Cuba. The rhetoric in these statements is fine. The record unfortunately, does not measure up.
To take some of those examples, we are told that the government is ending its support of commercial dealings with South Africa. But the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) sees nothing wrong with the Export Development Corporation continuing to support activity in that country. Indeed, he gives us to understand that his
Human Rights
concern for human rights begins and ends with credit ratings. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), when he finally understood the arrangement he had made, was happy to have South African banks participate in propping up the Canadian dollar. The Prime Minister's statement in regard to Cuba was just as empty. He made the grandiose gesture of cutting off aid that in fact had already stopped. Even after that statement in relation to Cl DA, the fact is the Export Development Corporation continues to finance sales to the Castro regime.
The government would have us believe that it is concerned about the massive repression of civil liberties in Chile, and yet it continues to support commercial dealings with that regime. An all-party group of members from this House, as you will recall, reported evidence of terror and suppression in Argentina, and the government sold that country one Candu reactor and tries to sell it another.

Even though the resolutions introduced in the House concerning Mr. Shcharansky and Mr. Orlov received unanimous consent, it is obvious that the government does not take these matters seriously. Even though there was agreement to give unanimous consent, we are not doing enough to follow up on the statements made in parliament. It seems that we are not using these statements. Moreover, the government does not express steadfastly enough its concern about cases such as those I have mentioned. They are usually put aside and quickly forgotten.
Canada should take the initiative and raise at the United Nations the obvious cases of violation of human rights. A few weeks ago, the House of Commons agreed unanimously to a motion by the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane), supported by my colleague from Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), about the Shcharansky case. I then proposed that this motion serve as a starting point for a Canadian initiative at the United Nations. Nothing has been done in this regard, but the proposal is still valid and I hope it will receive serious consideration.
Canada should also reveal and publicize the violations of human rights in other countries. We should not allow the continuation of current repressions in Chile, in Latin America, in Indonesia and in South Africa without objecting to them.
In sum, this is a government whose commitment is doubtful and whose record is shabby. The people of Canada expect better of their government in support of human rights. I say to this House and to the people of Canada that the government we form after the next election will provide a better example and a better quality of life.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: First, we will put our own domestic house in better order. A government which believed in freedom of

May 31, 1978
Human Rights
information for its own citizens would have more credibility in asserting the rights of citizens of other countries. A government prepared to rewrite an outdated and frighteningly vague Official Secrets Act, and to end the use of ill-defined procedures like writs of assistance, will be a stronger voice for human rights in the world. We will take those initiatives.
Second, we will never be quiet about our commitment to the principles of fundamental liberties for all mankind. We will assert that commitment at every opportunity, and back it up with concrete international action. Our government, for example, will be an active, not a passive, supporter of the appointment of a United Nations Commissioner of Human Rights.
Third, we will apply the principles to which all Canadians are committed, openly and consistently. We will not provide Canadian aid to governments guilty of gross violation of human rights, and we will not use agencies like the EDC to do by the back door what we condemn at the front door.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Fourth, we will be both forthright and realistic in our recognition of the motives of the Soviet Union. The kindest thing one can say about this government in relation to the Soviet Union is that it is remarkably naive about the motives of that country.
The Prime Minister's external affairs adviser confesses he would have liked to have kept the lid on the most recent example of Soviet espionage in Canada because he was worried how the Soviet government might react if the people of Canada were told about it. When that same case came to light, the Prime Minister sought to downplay it because he said he was concerned about its impact on our trade with the Soviet Union. And now this week we have our Prime Minister virtually isolated among NATO leaders in his apparent lack of any serious concern about the continuing build-up of Warsaw Pact forces in central Europe.
Canada's national interest is ill-served by such naivete. The Soviet Union will continue to buy our grain and other products because it needs them, and because we are able to supply them at the right time and right price. That is the essence of Soviet commercial policy, and no amount of pussy-footing around on spies or human rights will change it. As for the Soviet build-up in central Europe and its expanding activity in Africa, what is required of Canada and all NATO countries is not to turn a blind eye, but to respond forcefully and effectively, as proposed by President Carter and President Giscard d'Estaing.
Finally, and most important, we will make our commitment to human rights a legitimate priority in formulating Canadian foreign policy, as is the case in the United States.
I began with references to the Bill of Rights. The principles set forth so eloquently by the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert in the Bill of Rights are real. They embody the most essential beliefs of our society, of our very raison d'etre as a nation, and Canadians have a right to expect that these real principles have real meaning in the policies of their government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: First, Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to thank the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) for his generous words concerning myself. At the same time, I express my fear at the number of ministers who are here this afternoon of a government as multitudinous as the sands of the sea, a cabinet that has been multiplied in numbers.
A matter is before the House of transcendent interest to all who believe in freedom, and the total number of ministers present is three. That indicates the attitude of this government and the degree to which fundamental freedoms have been undermined, to an extent never before known in my day, and I have been here for a long while. A number of examples were set forth by the Leader of the Opposition.
Where is Canada going? That question is in the hearts and minds of Canadians everywhere today. What about human rights and fundamental freedoms? What about international rights set out in agreements solemnly entered into by the U.S.S.R., and as solemnly disregarded? It is that I am going to speak about in particular today.
1 simply want to make a general reference to an honour that came to me. The Leader of the Opposition made reference to an honorary degree from the Ukrainian Free University in Munich, Germany, a university composed of men and women who, in the interests of freedom, have been forced out of their own countries and are endeavouring to keep alive the fire of freedom.
1 want to mention particularly Dr. W. Yaniw, the Rector, and Dr. Sakaluk, the Pro-Rector, who came to Saskatoon for the purpose of joining in that award which, of the many I have received throughout the years, none has touched me more deeply.
From the time that we went to western Canada to the Northwest Territories, in 1903, to Carlton, I saw something of the injustice being done to those of racial origin other than the two basic races. 1 saw shocking examples of discrimination on the basis of race and colour. I determined when I was only ten or 11 that I would devote my life to bringing an end in this nation to discrimination on the basis of race, colour, or otherwise.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I saw the Indian ill treated. We lived on the old Carlton-Edmonton Swan River-Winnipeg trail. The Red River carts were still moving by, not in large caravans, but five or six in line. We saw people who came from Continental Europe being treated in a way that was as unjust as it was unChristian.
Each one of us has in his or her heart something that no one else has, something placed there by the Almighty, it must be. They will be a minority who follow that something. Ultimately the minority will become a majority if what is being undertaken and tried is for the welfare of people in general.
May 31, 1978

The Leader of the Opposition mentioned that this government is noted for its quiet diplomacy. 1 certainly agree with the quietness. As far as the diplomacy is concerned, it has been a government that has refused to stand internationally and nationally.
When I first brought before parliament the question of a bill of rights for Canadians, members of the government paid lip service to the objectives which I had in mind. Beyond that, nothing. It took years and years before any advance could be made. If there had not been a change of government in 1957, Canadians today would not enjoy the freedom which is inherent in the legislation passed by parliament in the Bill of Rights.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: They gave vocal support to the idea, and that was all. Mr. Speaker, I am not here for the purpose of advertising myself, but over the years-and I was at the bar scores of days every year-I never charged an Indian if he had a just case, and where there was injustice on the part of those of different racial origin inherent in what had taken place with regard to them, I took the case.
As far as the French language is concerned, it is sometimes forgotten that I had the largest support in the province of Quebec any Conservative leader had received since the days of Macdonald. It was on the basis of the stand I had taken in 1921. As a young lawyer I was asked whether 1 would take an appeal order which was made in the trial of two French Canadian trustees, Boutin and Ethier, who had been convicted of permitting the teaching of French beyond the extent contemplated by the law. Everybody knew my objective was parliament. My friends came to me and said, "If you take that case you can never hope to be in parliament." And they almost proved it. Four times in succession they proved it. The case of Boutin and Ethier is not a figment of my imagination, Mr. Speaker. It can be found in the law reports of 1921. I went ahead with the case and, as things turned out, the appeal was allowed. Since then, throughout the years, French Canadians in Western Canada have not forgotten than when they had no friends in the law to take their appeal it was a lawyer in the small town of Wellkum who did so. In other words, believing in freedom and the maintenance of those principles in the constitution without which Canada cannot survive, I took trial after trial when it was not popular to do so.
The Leader of the Opposition mentioned parliament in a passing way. Mr. Speaker, this is no parliament such as I saw, first, in 1940 in the dark days of war. Mackenzie King was prime minister. It is of interest that my dad taught him in the primer.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: I think my dad was the only person in Canada who asked Mackenzie King when he was prime minister, "What shall I call you now?" And he said, "Willie". But I
Human Rights
want to tell you that the "Willie" did not apply to Willie's son-my father's first name was Willie. Mackenzie King insisted upon parliament being upheld. We didn't have cooling apparatus then. We had a slight attempt at it. And by this time, the latter part of May and the early days of June, when Mr. Mackenzie King had decided that parliament had sat long enough, even that cooling apparatus was turned down to nothing and the temperature was greatly added to. He knew how to act in order to achieve results.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will make a note of that!


John George Diefenbaker: I am not passing this on to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen), because he is astute, I listened to his motion today and I was convinced that he has inherited some of Mr. King's unusual political acumen.
For some reason the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) seems to have an aversion to having consideration given by parliament to the diabolical cruelties which have been perpetrated and which are being perpetrated today on captive peoples in Europe.
Where do I get the affection I have for people of Ukrainian origin? It goes back to those early days on the homestead when we were surrounded by Ukrainians, Hungarians, Polish immigrants. I formed for them an affection which the years have not eradicated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: You talk about international freedom. Well, I intend to give you some examples of that. In connection with the conference in 1975 to which the Leader of the Opposition has referred, the Helsinki conference, I wanted parliament to take a stand. Will parliament take a stand? So long as there is a Liberal government of the kind which exists today, regardless of injustice, whenever motions are moved under Standing Order 43 there are one or two members opposite who are, apparently, personna designata. The hon. member for Pontiac (Mr. Lefebvre) is one of them, I think. He sits back there behind the whip of the Liberal party and in that squeaky voice says "No". And that ends the discussion. A gramophone record, I suggest to the whip of the Liberal party, would be more effective.
What I am saying is this: parliament has been emasculated. Look at the order paper. There are a thousand questions left unanswered. That is my estimate in round figures. Ask a question this government doesn't want to have answered, and it simply dies on the order paper regardless of whether the election is to be on October 26 or on some other occasion when the Prime Minister finally determines that the people should have the right to make known their views.
What about this Helsinki conference? I was a pariah. I said: This is all wrong. It means nothing. It is dangerous. It will enable the U.S.S.R. to surround by boundaries, gained as a result of conquest, freedom-loving people such as the Ukrainians and the Baltic peoples and others whose only crime is that they dare to believe in freedom.

May 31, 1978
Human Rights


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: I suggest that the Government of Canada take a stand. In the last few days the Prime Minister has been taking stands both in Washington and in New York which have been so uncertain that nobody can possibly conclude what Canada stands for. Indeed, some of the observations indicate that he rather supports the attitude of the U.S.S.R. with respect to NATO.
Where are we going? I brought a question before parliament just before Helsinki. I will not read it in detail. I asked the question on July 24, 1975. I said:
Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Next week there will be a meeting of 35 nations in Helsinki. We in this House have no idea whatsoever as to the stand that the Prime Minister will take on behalf of Canada, there having been no day set aside for the purpose of discussion and ascertaining the feelings of members of this House with regard to the tremendous problems affecting the peace of not only Europe, but of the world, which will come up. I therefore ask him whether he has received representations from organizations such as the Ukarainian Canadian Committee-
That committee is dedicated to freedom, stands for freedom, and maintains courage at all times in that connection.
I specifically ask the Prime Minister .. . whether any treaty signed by Canada should include a definite commitment by all signatories, including the U.S.S.R., to implement within their jurisdictions the principles embodied in the universal declaration of human rights and, second, that in the establishment of boundaries in eastern Europe which are the result of conquest, that such establishment should be conditional on the principle of self-determination being accepted by the U.S.S.R. and the other nations. I ask what stand Canada is going to take on this matter. 1 speak on behalf of representations made to me for hundreds of thousands of Canadians of Ukrainian origin and also Latvian, Estonian and Lithuanian origin. They are very concerned-
They wanted to know what was going to take place. That is a summary of what I asked. The Prime Minister answered, with the usual clarity which characterizes him when he endeavours to conceal completely what this House wants to know. He said:
Mr. Speaker, as to the matter of representations, I do not believe 1 have received any specific representations about this conference 1 am attending next week. Of course, I have heard from Canadian groups of various origins about the subject many times. I have always responded to them and given them my views on it. They are well known.
All he meant by that is that they were well known to him and no one else.


John George Diefenbaker: What are they?


Mr. Trudeau:: As to the conference itself, it has been in preparation for about two years. It has been discussed many times. I have answered many questions and I have had a press conference on it.


John George Diefenbaker: We are talking about parliament, not press conferences.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Parliament never deigned to ask me any questions on this.


Mr. Stanfield:: I deigned to ask you a question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Every time I have been asked questions on foreign affairs, I have attempted to deal with them as best I could. I have no recollection of having been asked specific details about this particular conference. However, I have said in various places that Canada's role in this conference has been a very constructive one indeed.
Constructive in what regard? Silence? The Prime Minister went on:
We are the ones who insisted on doing the most on what is known as the third basket, the principle of free movement of people's ideas and exchange of information ... It is not a negotiating conference. There has been agreement reached by the various governments on the document which will be proposed in Helsinki next week. I will, of course, be pleased to table that document in the House when I return.
I then said that that was not what we wanted to know. We wanted to know what the Prime Minister was going to say. Hon. members all know what the answer was, about 200 words of complete innocuity, ambiguity or nonsense.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. Perhaps the right hon. member will allow me to inform him that his time has expired. However, with the unanimous consent of the House he could continue. Is there consent to allow the right hon. member to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There does not seem to be unanimous consent.


An hon. Member:: Who said no?


Charles Joseph Clark: The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) said no.


An hon. Member:: So did MacFarlane.


Mr. MacFarlane:: You asked us to put him on in that position. We did not think he would exceed his time.


Mr. Alexander:: Mr. Speaker, there is complete agreement, because hon. members opposite would not say no at this time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. 1 hope hon members do not expect the Chair to put the question three times. I can ask it once more, but I think that will be the last time. Is there unanimous consent to allow the right hon. member to complete his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Charlie Caccia, Davenport. Caccia said no.


Hon. Norman A. Cafik (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, I noted that in his remarks the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) attacked this government on a number of accounts in connection with human rights, and I would like to spend a few moments, before going into the body of my remarks, talking about that. We are accused of not really taking a lead role regarding human rights. I was present at Belgrade on behalf of the Government of Canada.


John George Diefenbaker: And said nothing.

May 31, 1978


Norman Augustine Cafik: There was very broad support for the position we took, and which I took on behalf of the government. There was considerable praise by the communities in Canada whose origins rest in eastern Europe for the strong position we took. I know of no government at the Belgrade follow-up conference which took a harder or more direct position regarding human rights than this government.


John George Diefenbaker: What was that stand?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I did not interrupt the right hon. gentleman while he was speaking because of my respect for him as a human being. 1 will deal with his question if the right hon. gentleman will exercise a little patience.
The second point 1 want to make is in relation to a comment made by the Leader of the Opposition, who seems to feel that members of this government or of this party have a naive attitude toward the Soviet Union and perhaps other countries which violate human rights. I certainly do not have any naive impression as to the motivation or the idealogical differences in regime between some of those countries and others in the world, including Canada. Canada is a democratic society with a very strong base, historically and presently, of respect for human rights. It is evident that other regimes of this world do not have such an attitude or disposition, and we suffer no naivete about that whatsoever.
The other suggestion which was made by the Leader of the Opposition, which I felt hit a little below the belt and which, to my knowledge, has no foundation in fact, related to the expulsion of Soviet spies from Canada. If I interpreted the hon. member's remarks correctly, he seemed to want to leave the implication that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would rather have dealt with that quietly.
That is a strange, anomalous position to be taken by the Leader of the Opposition who, on the other hand, often seems to think that the Prime Minister makes all the decisions. In this particular case the Leader of the Opposition seems to think that the Prime Minister was overruled. The fact is that the decision to expel Soviet spies was made by the cabinet of Canada. The Prime Minister, myself, all other cabinet ministers and members on this side of the House unanimously support that decision, in spite of ramifications which may result regarding Soviet-Canadian relations. We do not want spies of any country in this country, and we took steps which any self-respecting government would take. We are not naive in this respect either.
The right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert, for whom I have a great deal of respect, wanted to know what happened regarding numerous motions under Standing Order 43. I would like to say that my respect for the House of Commons, to my knowledge, has not been challenged very often, if at all. When 1 was in Belgrade, in my speech on behalf of the Government of Canada, I referred to unanimous resolutions of the House of Commons, in order to substantiate the strong position we were taking, and to indicate that all Canadians, through their elected representatives, unanimously supported that strong, hard stand in relation to human rights. Also I
Human Rights
delivered personally to Ambassador Veronsof the resolution which was passed in the House of Commons in respect of the human rights issue. Just prior to my departure, I had that delivered directly to him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: There is no question whatsoever as to our position in relation to this. I draw the attention of hon. members opposite and the people of Canada to the fact that unanimous resolutions have been passed by the House on a variety of human rights issues. Some of them have been brought forward by hon. members of the opposition, some of them have been brought forward by hon. members of the government. All of the resolutions relating to this subject, to my knowledge, have been supported unanimously. There is more to unite us on this issue of human rights, if we were to set aside the partisan political considerations which perhaps motivate some people in their comments.
The other point which was made by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) relates to the Helsinki Final Act itself. He seems to feel that it was a bad thing to enter into. He may well adopt whatever position he likes. When the agreement was originally signed, there were some who felt, as he apparently does, that the signing of the Final Act solidified existing boundaries in Europe.
On December 19, 1977 in my speech in the House of Commons, I dealt with this question in a similar debate. I indicated, as is the fact, that there is no solidification or moral sanction of the existing boundaries in eastern Europe. There is nothing in the Final Act which in fact does that.


John George Diefenbaker: That is simply not correct.


Norman Augustine Cafik: It does indicate that the signatory countries will not use force to change the existing boundaries. That is altogether different than giving moral sanction to those boundaries, or to say that we, as a government, or any other signatory government, support that particular position.
I should like to refer to the motion directly. I am the first to agree that it is unfortunately true that there still exist all too many serious violations of human rights in many countries, violations which are a proper cause of concern to many Canadians. However, I find it difficult to understand, let alone accept, how this government can be accused of inadequacy in its response to these situations. For the record, I shall now outline what positive actions this government has taken in the international human rights field. In this context, 1 will deal with the more specific issue of the U.S.S.R., the Helsinki accords, the Belgrade conference and its aftermath.
Whether at the United Nations General Assembly, in multilateral fora such as the United Nations Commission on Human Rights and the recent Belgrade meeting, as well as in our bilateral relationships with a number of countries, Canada has expressed clearly and vigorously its concern with violations

May 31, 1978
Human Rights
of human rights, and has acted positively to resolve such issues.
At the United Nations we have joined with other like-minded countries in developing and sponsoring a series of resolutions which expressed the condemnation of the international community with regard to the persistent and often appalling violation of human rights in countries such as South Africa and Chile. As well, we have been involved at the United Nations in efforts to eliminate all forms of racial discrimination, torture, other cruel, inhumane and degrading treatment of persons, and of religious intolerance. In all, over 30 different aspects of human rights are currently being dealt with by the United Nations General Assembly, and Canada has played a prominent role in this important forum.
At the most recent thirty-fourth session of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights in February, Canada's delegation to that 34-member body was active in having the commission deal with a variety of human rights situations throughout the world, including Cambodia. As hon. members will recall, the commission's call upon Cambodia to explain its human rights record was cited in the resolution of April 7 of this House which condemned Cambodia. As well, the United Nations Commission dealt with the human rights situation in South Africa, Chile, Argentina, Uganda, Uruguay, Indonesia, Paraguay, Bolivia, the Republics of Korea, and Ethiopia. The human rights situation in the U.S.S.R. was raised by several delegations, including that of Canada. Our delegation brought to the commission's attention the unanimous resolution of the House with regard to the Shcharansky case.
Although the work of the United Nations does not always make the headlines and has no enforcement machinery, it is nevertheless a principal channel for bringing the weight of international opinion to bear on countries which persistently violate human rights. After an active campaign following the thirty-fourth session of the commission, Canada was recently re-elected by the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations to another three-year term on the commission in an open election, the results of which clearly reflected the high regard for Canada among the international community for our work on that important body. It is now our intention to continue to work to broaden the commission's scope and to improve its methods of work so as to ensure that it is made as effective an international instrument as possible.
Unfortunately there is no international consensus in the United Nations on many human rights subjects or situations, and no effective enforcement machinery. However, this does not mean that Canada will slacken its efforts at the United Nations, since that body does express considerable public opinion which in many areas, and for some violations, can be effective.


John George Diefenbaker: Did a public servant write that?


Norman Augustine Cafik: With regard to Cambodia and the April 7 unanimous resolution of the House, the government presented the text to the Secretariat of the United Nations and to its subcommission on the prevention of discrimination and protec-
[Mr. Cafik.l
tion of minorities. Also it was presented to all countries in the Asia-Pacific region with which Canada has relations, to Cambodia through its embassy in Peking, to the United States of America, and to a number of western European countries which, with Canada, had brought the Cambodian situation to the attention of the Commission on Human Rights. However, Cambodia's position of isolation makes it very difficult to have an effective impact on that country, whether it be through public opinion or any other form of United Nations or other pressures.
The situations in Cambodia, Chile, Uganda, South Africa, and the cases of Shcharansky and Orlov, are only a few of those which have been of concern to the government. That concern has been reinforced by many members on both sides of the House, particularly those members involved in the human rights work of the joint parliamentary committee. Also it reflects the interests of Amnesty International, other nongovernmental organizations, and individual Canadians who have written to the government, ministers, and other members, to express their concerns and views.
In my own particular case I have received representations from the ethnocultural communities across Canada. 1 have met with them by the hundreds and thousands to deal with our human rights' stance and position. Without fear of contradiction, the position I have taken in respect of this particular equation and very central human question has drawn enormous support in this country. I am deeply grateful for that support of my expression of the views of Canadians on these very important issues.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: Having dealt with the question of Canada's responses to violations of human rights in a number of countries, both through multilateral and bilateral channels, now I should like to turn to the specific aspect of the motion before us which deals with the Soviet Union, the communist bloc countries, and the Helsinki Final Act.
The response of the government regarding the way the human rights provisions of the Helsinki Final Act are being implemented by the U.S.S.R. and the Eastern European participants is based on two main considerations: first, the constraints imposed on us by the nature of the Final Act itself. It is a set of guidelines without any deadlines or any hard and fast rules as to how its provisions are to be implemented. There is no doubt there is a moral and political commitment rather than a legal one, and in my view an international commitment according to a very sacred document. The second is in respect of what action will be most effective in achieving our main objective, which is to improve the situation of those who suffer as a result of deficiencies in the respect being shown to the human rights provision of that Act.
Those who have taken the time to read the booklet "Canada at Belgrade", that was recently published by the Department of External Affairs, and which has been distributed to all
May 31, 1978

members of this House, will be well aware of the firm position of the Canada delegation at Belgrade.
I think our position was the envy of many countries of the world. There is no doubt whatsoever that it has evoked considerable concern on the part of the Soviet Union and many countries of Eastern Europe. I am not sure I am unique in this respect, and I certainly know that a former Prime Minister of this country, the right hon. member for Prince Albert, in his days as Prime Minister had the distinction and the honour of being attacked by the Soviet Union for some of his very tough stands, but 1 was very pleased the other day to note that in Kiev, in an official communist organ, a whole page was devoted to what I think was a slanderous attack, but quite accurate in some respects, on my position regarding human rights. If I can be attacked in that substantive way, 1 must be doing something right.
It is very difficult to end up building a case that this government has been weak on this issue, if in fact those countries are very much concerned with the tough stand we have taken and go to the trouble in a foreign country of attacking myself, particularly, because of the strong stance 1 have taken.
There is more than just words, of course, in relation to the human rights equation. We have to do more than just talk. We have to try to realize some positive achievements. There is talk here in this House and in the country as to the virtues of quiet diplomacy versus the virtues of taking an open, hard line stance in order to focus public opinion on these violations of human rights.
There is no question but that in individual cases the quiet approach is often the more successful. The statistics would indicate that this government, through the approach it has taken on individual human rights violations, has indeed achieved some marked success. 1 do not think we should take the risk of losing those opportunites to be successful simply for the polemics of the thing. Perhaps from time to time we have to move in both directions. The stance 1 have personally taken as the minister of multiculturalism could perhaps be categorized as less than quiet diplomacy. Quiet diplomacy has a valid position as well in order that we can maximize our opportunity of achieving success.
In Belgrade our position was strong. There the final document that emanated from Belgrade was a considerable disappointment to all the participants. It was a disappointment, I think, to all Canadians and all freedom loving people in the world. The fact is it was a consensus document. It does provide some hope that in two years down the line in Madrid, where there will be a second follow up conference, this government and other like-minded governments will be able to zero in again on human rights violations that still remain.
I am very hopeful that as long as we continue to conduct dialogue and talk between the two ideological camps of this world, dealing with these questions in an open and frank way, and continuing to insist that the application and implementation of the Final Act is a matter of public concern to this government, and a matter of international right for us to
Human Rights
express our views in respect of it, there is the possibility that change will come.
Change cannot come quickly, not because we would not want it so but because the simple fact is that the question of human rights within the Soviet Union and other countries in that part of the world boils down to a very basic and fundamental thing. It is felt perhaps by many of those countries in positions of authority that the giving of the kind of freedom that we enjoy and take for granted would destroy the very nature of their countries. I think they may well be right. It is for that reason it is difficult to move them to the kind of respect for human rights that is so inherent within our society. We must understand that, we must have patience, and we must never be reluctant to speak out powerfully and forcefully on behalf of all people anywhere in the world whose rights have been violated. That is my position and the position of this government, and it will continue to be the position of this government on behalf of all people all over the world.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister a question?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Has my time expired, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No, the hon. minister has a few minutes left, so if he wants to entertain the question I will recognize the hon. member for that purpose.


Norman Augustine Cafik: If I have two or three minutes left I would like to make one more point, and then I will be delighted to entertain the question.
The last point I would like to make, and I think it is very serious, is that two years down the road there will be a second follow up conference at Madrid on security and co-operation in Europe. The position that Canada has taken, a position that many other free nations of the world have taken at the conference at Belgrade, has indicated in a very forceful way to those who are not prepared to live up to the provisions of the Final Act of Helsinki that we do not intend to sit back and not deal with the matter again. There is enormous pressure now for those countries within the next two years to try, at least on the surface, to put themselves in a better light.
My last point relating to this is that we as a government have an obligation to deal with the work, between now and the conference that is to take place in Madrid, of encouraging all members of parliament and all Canadians who have a special interest in the human rights question to participate, provide information, to have input, and to assist the government in determining the stance that ought to be taken. As minister of multiculturalism I have already begun to encourage those communities, of eastern European background in particular, to share with me and the government their views, their attitudes and concerns in order that they may be taken into account in forming our policies and approach at the next conference to take place in Madrid.

May 31, 1978
Human Rights


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Assuming the minister consents to a question, I will recognize the hon. member for Frontenac-Len-nox and Addington (Mr. Alkenbrack).


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: Mr. Speaker, I have been quite impressed with the minister's attempt to outline the championing of human rights by this government abroad. The minister has outlined the government's interest in promoting and maintaining these human rights in many countries in the world. Why then does the government neglect human rights right here at home? For example, circular number 78-3 issued by Revenue Canada warned that churches and charities risk losing their tax exempt status if they engage in political activity, and such activity is defined as trying to change any legislation, or even maintaining existing legislation, or soliciting support for their aims through public meetings, or attempting to influence policy decisions. Why does the government adopt that posture vis-avis human rights here at home?


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, 1 thought that that cow would have been milked to death by now. In any event, there is no doubt whatsoever that charitable organizations, in my view, have a right to indulge in any number of things. The real question that needs to be addressed is, to what extent. For example, should we be funding as a charitable group some organization that may be a purely political operation?
However, I do not need to deal with that, but I would like to say that I believe it is just short of scandalous, and this is the second point that has been made today in a different context, that here we are dealing with human rights and human rights violations in parts of the world that are neither democratic nor free. They do not have even the semblance of our kind of freedom, and here we find two people-one a leader of a party and one a member of that same party-who are trying to draw the parallel that we in Canada are suffering from the same kind of human rights violations. That is absolute garbage. It is nonsense, and if that is the kind of freedom that those hon. members think we have in Canada, then 1 say, "God help this country if it ever falls into the hands of people with such a distorted view of the nature of our country."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my party I would like to say at the outset that the subject matter of this motion, which expresses regret, according to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), that the government's response to the persistent violations of human rights, particularly violations of the Helsinki Agreement by countries within the Soviet bloc, is a matter of very real importance. This subject touches upon, quite correctly, the issue of human liberty, and it is one that a demoncratic assembly, whether in Canada or anywhere else in the world, ought to regard as being of great importance, because liberty is not something that ought to be restricted as a value to a

particular country in which one happens to live as a matter of moral concern.
Human liberty is a matter not only of concern for Canadians but for all men and women throughout the world. It may have been preferable to include in the motion a reference to the denial of liberties in non-Soviet bloc countries, and I am thinking of Chile and Argentina. I was pleased to see the opposition leader make reference to authoritarian regimes of a kind other than those found in the Soviet bloc. I merely say in passing that it might have been useful in other circumstances to have a motion that pertains to human liberty universal in its application to all those regimes in the world where human liberties are denied, whether it is the Soviet bloc or somewhere else.
However, the issue before us today is the Soviet bloc, its denial of liberty, and the response that this government has or has not given to that question. I am in a bit of a dilemma, Mr. Speaker, and I say this candidly as a democrat, socialist, and Canadian, in coming to grips directly with this question. It is one thing to talk about what one can do within one's own state or one's society at a given time in order to achieve human liberty for one's own people or one's own community. The question we are really debating today, if I understand it correctly, is really what can one nation state do about influencing the development of liberty in another nation state. It is a difficult question, and anyone who is concerned about war and peace, and about civilized relationships between nations, as well as human liberty for people within a nation, has to come to grips with it.
We cannot simply rely on rhetoric or eloquent phrases about the need to promote liberty in other nation states. One has to come to grips with this serious question, when talking about national politics, of the limitations, if they exist, and the course of action that is open to one nation state believing in liberty, in terms of its effect on achieving liberty for individuals in other states where that liberty is being denied. This is the basic concern that we should be facing in this debate.
One of the elementary ways that a country, whether it is Canada or any other country, can demonstrate its concern about liberty and basic rights is to demonstrate, with unequivocal commitment, with unequivocal day to day action, its own demonstrable belief in liberty by practising that at home and by preserving and ensuring that the practices of freedom where they exist are maintained.
I have not been impressed by the present government's commitment to the basic principles of civil liberty as reflected in our systems, as they pertain directly to the principle of the rule of law. The minister who just sat down coined one of the great abominations in terms of language of politics in this decade not many months ago when he said, "From time to time in Canada the rule of reason ought to replace the rule of law." Anyone who knows about the rule of law and what it means in this country would shudder, I am sure, when they heard that abomination coming from that minister in the context of a serious debate about the limitations of the actions of the RCMP and the appropriate response of ministers of the
May 31, 1978

Crown in exercising control over the RCMP. That whole issue has, in the view of myself and every person in this country who is concerned with liberties-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The Minister of State (Multiculturalism). (Mr. Cafik) on a point of order.


John Edward Broadbent: I would debate-


Norman Augustine Cafik: It is a point of order, not a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hon. member rose on a point of order. The Minister of State (Multiculturalism).


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to take away from the time allotted to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), but he said that I said that the rule of reason ought to replace the rule of law. If I recall the context of my remarks and my remarks, I was really saying that the rule of reason is the rule of law. It is defined in many legal corners historically that law is the rule of reason, and that was what I was talking about. I would have thought the hon. member was intelligent enough to know that.


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


John Edward Broadbent: The hon. member has certainly demonstrated in the clearest possible way his attitude of having the rule of reason replace the rule of law, for if ever there was a non-point of order, that was it. There is no one, Mr. Speaker, who misunderstood the minister's remarks at the time, and I say that not as a cheap shot to a particular minister in this instance, but the whole ministry, as at the time-the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais), the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) and the minister for multiculturalism (Mr. Cafik)-it showed at the peak period of the debate about the mishandling of internal security matters by this government a shoddy respect for the whole principle of the rule of law, a shoddy neglect of the importance of preserving civil liberties. I have no intention of documenting that today, because we are on another matter.
I am saying that in any democracy one way of demonstrating clearly your own commitment to the principles of liberty is to practise that at home, and that is not what we have had in an unequivocal fashion from this government.
I would like now to shift to the other part of the motion which makes specific reference to the Soviet bloc countries. Mr. Speaker, at the end of my remarks I will deal with what I think are severe limitations in a nation state having an effect on the liberty of other countries. One of the things that we can do and should do from time to time, not in any state of self righteousness but hopefully because it reflects our commitment to the age old notion of human liberty, is bear witness to what is actually going on in other countries in the world.
Every speech about freedom should not merely be political rhetoric of a self-serving nature. From time to time world
Human Rights
leaders, prime ministers and others, have an obligation-as I think President Carter has demonstrated in the past couple of years-to speak out about liberty beyond the borders of their own nations and to give visible evidence of its denial, to show visible concern to the people within other states and to say that the situation ought to be rectified.
There is no doubt in my mind that the Helsinki Accord, which was ratified by the heads of 35 states three years ago, has been violated in a serious way by countries in the Soviet bloc. The expectations that were generated at the outset of the revolution in the Soviet Union at the conclusion of the first world war were for the emancipation of people in that part of the world in the fullest possible way. What we have seen is a regime, from Lenin on, that has imposed perhaps the most restrictive and coercive set of bureaucratic, to use a euphemism, practices which have denied human liberty.
There has been vivid demonstration of that in the works of Solzhenitsyn, and recently vivid and disturbing evidence has been brought forward that psychiatric practice even in the Soviet Union today is being used and perverted to equate discontent and criticism of the Soviet regime as visible demonstration of schizophrenia. It is being actively pursued by people who call themselves psychiatrists in the Soviet Union. It is a clear and utter abuse of the principles of human health sciences if there ever was one, Mr. Speaker.
There has been in the Soviet Union, of course, the persistent repression of cultural minorities. The Ukrainians stand out, perhaps, in our country as the largest group numerically. Many of us have been involved in individual cases of men and women who have dared to speak out simply for the right to emphasize their own cultural distinctiveness, their own uniqueness as part of the Soviet bloc. There is the case of Valentyn Moroz which is an outstanding example, but there have been many others. The reality is that the Soviet Union, preceding the Helsinki Agreement and post Helsinki, violates human rights in a way that is not acceptable to men and women anywhere who believe in the principles of freedom.
In the context of this motion I want to do what I think politicians in free societies ought to do from time to time, and that is to talk about a particular event that is going on that demonstrates the perversion of the principles of human liberty. In this particular instance I want to talk about that beautiful, exciting, creative country on the one hand, but also sad and deeply disturbing country on the other, namely, Czechoslovakia.
There have been few countries in modern history that have had the opportunity for the complete flowering of human liberty in all its aspects, including human equality, that compare with Czechoslovakia. It is a small country in the heart of Europe, highly industrialized, highly creative in the arts, highly developed in all the early principles of liberal democracy. In cycles beginning in 1938, then 1968-and I think in 1978 we are going to witness it again-it has had experiences of a particular cataclysmic nature that have denied the flowering of human liberty in that country. This is what a lot of us, experiencing and watching the development of mankind in this

May 31, 1978
Human Rights
century, had hoped would not take place. We had hoped to see a more positive and creative society emerge.
Just over a year ago in that remarkable country an 1,800-word statement was signed. It was a terse statement, relatively devoid of rhetoric, but moving because of that. It was signed initially by about 200 people in Czechoslovakia, and in it an appeal was made to the Czechoslovakian government, and beyond that to all the people of the world, to look at what was happening in the denial of basic human liberties in that land- the denial of free speech, of the right to worship, the right to privacy, and the right to due process of law.
In signing that the participants were making two claims, first, that the Helsinki Accord was being violated, and second, in terms of the principles allegedly maintained in the constitution of their own country, their rights were not being adhered to but were being denied. Signing that petition were liberals, socialists, communists, religious, and artistic people of no particular political persuasion. It represented a cross-section of the Czech community who wanted nothing more than basic human liberty. The statement itself was neither anti-state nor anti-socialist. It was produced by a group of people who were primarily fighting for the liberty of their fellow citizens.
Interestingly enough, the document was not written as an appeal for the freedom of that particular category usually described as intellectuals-novelists, musicians, university professors, lawyers and so on. It was concerned that the freedom that is being denied in Czechoslovakia, that is being denied today, is having its most regressive effects on the ordinary working people of that country.
One of the signers of that charter was a distinguished historian by the name of Karel Bartosek. In signing this document he drew attention to the fact that what was of particular concern to him and his friends was that ordinary disasters such as a mining disaster that had taken place in Czechoslovakia were not reported in the news because of censorship.
That is the point I want to make in my remarks today, Mr. Speaker, about the effects of the denial of freedom of expression in a country like Czechoslovakia, Romania, the Soviet Union, or any other country that denies freedom of expression. What they are doing is not simply curtailing the right of a handful of intellectuals to express their views, much more important in numerical terms is the fact that they are denying the right to have the problems of ordinary people, whether they be industrial workers or farmers, discussed and debated. That, basically, is what the charter of 1977 was all about.
Perhaps the most distinguished signatory of that charter was Professor Jan Patocka of Czechoslovakia, who is considered by many to be among the two or three outstanding philosophers in the history of that country. He was 69 when he signed it a year and four months ago, so it was a matter of considerable courage on his part. We can make speeches about other countries, but it takes no particular courage to do that. It took a lot of courage for this man to sign this document at the age of 69.
I want to quote what he said about the importance of liberty in a country like Czechoslovakia. He said:
Without a moral basis, without a conviction which does not stem from opportunity, circumstances or expected advantages, no society can function, regardless of how advanced it is technically ... (but) it is not man who defines a moral order according to arbitrary needs, wishes, tendencies and desires. On the contrary, it is morality which defines the man ... the notion of an international pact regarding human rights-
He was talking about the Helsinki Accord.
-means only this: societies place themselves under the sovereignty of a moral belief... It is to this conviction that Charter 77 is responding.
Just shortly after he signed that petition, within a matter of weeks, in part because of harassment that he received in the Czechoslovakian state, he died.
I notice that my time is just about up, but the point I want to make in this all too brief allusion to Czechoslovakia is that there are certain things we can do in a nation state that is apart from another nation state in which liberties are being denied. One is that from time to time we should describe that reality. I say in all seriousness that the Prime Minister has not been among world leaders in that respect, in my view. I do not recall the Prime Minister making a speech, either in the House of Commons or outside, on basic liberties, giving concrete examples where they are being denied in other states, where he has made an appeal to the international community to bring its moral force to bear in showing those people in other states that we care about their freedom. I would fault the Prime Minister on that score, because he should do more about it.


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


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure if the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) were to seek unanimous consent of the House for an extension of time, there would be a willingness in the House to grant him that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: If there is unanimous consent in the House, the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party may continue.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Mr. Speaker, it would not be the purpose of this side of the House to inhibit anyone speaking. But I would like members to remember that there was an actual agreement, with two speakers allotted 30 minutes, one of them being the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the other a speaker from the government side. Other speakers are allotted 20 minutes each. If we continue too much longer there will be some hon. members who will be knocked off the bottom of the list. I caution hon. members in that regard. That is why we heard a "no" from this side of the House in regard to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), whom we normally respect and give unlimited time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I would like to suggest that we have four more speakers and there is

May 31, 1978

one hour and five minutes at our disposal. Hon. members may divide this time up among themselves. The Chair is in your hands.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will continue. 1 want to thank my colleagues in the House for giving me extra time. I will not abuse that privilege and 1 will conclude my remarks very quickly.
I said that there was one area in which the nation state and politicians in that nation state can have an influence from time to time. It cannot be abused, but from time to time we have an obligation to speak out about the denial of liberty in other countries.
A second point I wanted to emphasize is that our best way of influencing liberty in other countries, without exaggerating our role and capacity to act on what happens in another state, is to practise those principles at home in order to give a visible demonstration that we intend to implement, within our own country, the principles of liberty about which we talk.
My final point concerns an issue touched upon by both the minister who spoke and the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). It was not fully developed, and it seems to me that it would be worth while pursuing it at another stage of this debate. In a world of nation states, what kinds of limited action can we take from the point of view of state power vis-a-vis another state? One suggestion which has been made in terms of other states that clearly violate human rights in an unequivocal way, pertains to aid programs. We should have nothing to do with aid programs for states in that kind of position. I agree with that. Beyond that minimal point, what can we do?
Can we close our doors to trade completely? Can we close our doors to other forms of human communication? I think not. We have to maintain some connection and communication. At least at the state to state level we can maintain some modicum of civilized existence, with the ultimate hope that the free societies, by demonstration of their freedom at home, will thus influence the development of freedom in other states.


Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, it is rather refreshing to hear and follow the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) in this debate. He has evidently proven that it is possible to speak on this topic refraining from narrow partisan consideration and from exercising the kind of synthetic rage that was displayed earlier, at the beginning of the debate, by the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark), followed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). Both hon. members did not even take the trouble to attend the Belgrade conference and one really does not know whether they are in agreement or not.
If one looks for a moment at the wording of the motion before us today, which regrets "the inadequate response" of the Canadian government and criticizes it particularly in relation to violation by the Soviet Union and the communist bloc of the Helsinki Accord, one inevitably concludes that the Progressive Conservative party supports and agrees with the concept of the Helsinki Accord. Otherwise they would not
Human Rights
mention that Accord in their motion. Having done so, in the speech given by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, he comes pretty close to a rejection of the content and spirit and the objective of the Helsinki Accord. So we have the Leader of the Opposition using the Helsinki Agreement as a document against which we should measure our performance, and criticizing us for not having lived up to it, followed by one of his frontbenchers, perhaps not openly criticizing, but coming pretty close to expressing the thought that he has no time and no support for that very same agreement. If that is a display of unity in that party on a fundamental issue like this-


An hon. Member:: You are sucking lemons, Charlie.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Caccia:: -on the sales tax we will be distracted on another occasion to demonstrate division on the other side as well. I would like to stick to the subject in the limited time available.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert displayed one of his old chestnuts which has been raised since the signing of the Helsinki Agreement, namely, saying this document in a way finalizes frontiers in Europe as inevitable, a conclusion about which nothing can be done. Nothing is further from the truth.
From the Helsinki Agreement Final Act at page 4, the second paragraph under the section headed "I. Sovereign equality, respect for the rights inherent in sovereignty" reads:
Within the framework of international law, all the participating States have equal rights and duties. They will respect each other's right to define and conduct as it wishes its relations with other States in accordance with international law and in the spirit of the present Declaration. They consider that their frontiers can be changed,-
And I repeat "can be changed".
It continues:
-in accordance with international law, by peaceful means and by agreement.
This is the point that does not seem to have been recognized, accepted, and perhaps even understood by the critics of the Helsinki Agreement.
Another criticism which was raised in the course of the debate earlier in the afternoon was one that related to the question that somehow, as a result of the Helsinki Agreement, free worship-I believe it was the Leader of the Official Opposition who made the criticism-has not been the subject of concern and has not been the subject of improvements in the ensuing years since 1975. I have news for the official opposition leader. If he had researched the subject matter before making his speech this afternoon, he would have learned that the representative of the Holy See made a speech in Belgrade on October 7, 1977. Monsignor Silvestrini made an intervention on behalf of the Holy See. I have a report of what he said about religious freedoms. It is only from one page that I will quote:
As regards religious freedoms it is an undeniable fact that the Final Act said "go" to this positive process although it is still at the start. This is, in particular,

May 31, 1978
Human Rights
sufficiently clear as regards circulation and meetings of persons and communications from country to country.
Indeed there have been confirmed encouraging developments in this field as far as we are concerned, by the various churches and various denominational groups. But in particular, as regards the Catholic church, of which I am particularly competent to speak, it is satisfying to note that a certain number of positive facts without doubt have been proved. Above all, there has been recorded a broader flow, a fairly steady one, of travel facilities for religious motives. Travel for bishops to come to Rome for their visit "ad limina" (as we know this is a visit which should be made every five years to the Pope by the bishops, and this year indeed it includes the turn of the European countries), or also for travel for bishops and other ecclesiastics to attend important meetings of the Holy See, or participation by monks and nuns in the general chapter of their order, or other conventions in Rome, or other places in Europe and America; or again, participation of bishops, priests, groups of the laiety in major international manifestations of a religious nature; like the Holy Year which took place at Rome in 1975, and the International Eucharistic Congress of Philadelphia in 1976-or for pilgrimages to European sanctuaries, both east and west. Furthermore we can note more frequent meetings and exchanges of visits among representatives of the Episcopy of various countries, more numerous concessions for priests who have emigrated to visit their own families at home, and a certain number of young ecclesiastics who have been sent to take study courses in cultural, theological university institutes in Rome and elsewhere.
In the same way in the field of means of communication and information, we can record the concessions given to religious communities to print locally a certain number of prayer books and catechisms, the authorization given to send some thousand religious publications (gospels, bibles, catechisms) or liturgical publications (missals, ritual for the administration of the sacraments, brevaries for priests and religious works of piety), to Catholic communities who previously could neither print nor import; furthermore, the now unhindered reception without interference for some radio religious programs, like the Radio Vatican broadcasts.
These measures, which we stress with satisfaction, correspond to commitments in the Final Act and have begun to modify-even though it is but partially so far, and not to the same extent everywhere, a previous situation which in the field of communications and relations from one country to another, was previously one of rigid and discouraging frustration.
These words are from one of the top diplomats at the Holy See who commented in October, 1977, at Belgrade about the progress being made there in terms of religious freedom. They are by an individual who certainly has a much greater understanding than the one displayed by the spokesmen for the official opposition this afternoon on the complexity of this issue and the slowness with which this progress has to take place.
One would imagine that the Leader of the Opposition or the right hon. member for Prince Albert expected the day after the signing of the Helsinki Agreement an immediate change, from night to day, in the conditions prevailing in the countries in eastern Europe. That is naive. I will comment later on our present approach of exercising quiet diplomacy. However, they expect there ought to be an immediate, radical, and profound change to bring about a society in those eastern countries which would adopt the same kind of values, communications and general freedoms as we know them in Canada. That is simply absurd and unreal.
I do not think the Leader of the Opposition or the right hon. member for Prince Albert achieved anything useful or substantial except increasing their electoral support in Canada by making the kind of statements they made this afternoon. That

is cheap politics, catering to the vote at home. It certainly will not earn them one bit of respect, recognition or influence in the international fora in the world outside this building and away from this Hill where we have to operate, and deal with those groups of nations of competing ideologies and competing systems.
The right hon. member for Prince Albert tried to treat us to a great performance of his own, allowing his ego to be expanded all over the place. He really did not do much service to the cause of human rights in which we definitely share. The Progressive Conservative party has no monopoly by expounding the view it has.
In concluding the first part of my remarks, the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby is to be commended for approaching the matter in a cool, substantial and broad sense, not dealing with human rights in a narrow, partisan political consideration.
The Leader of the Opposition in his very excellent French made reference to le manque de volonte des dirigeants Sovie-tiques in the sense there is a lack of will on the part of the Soviet leadership in implementing the Helsinki Agreement. In that reference he also said trop de reticence de la part du gouvernement Canadien, too much reluctance on the part of the Canadian government to deal with them.
I cannot comment about the attitudes of the Soviet leaders. However, I can certainly tell hon. members, some of whom will participate in this debate, who were in Belgrade, that there was certainly no reticence on the part of the Canadian delegation and Canadian government in giving direction and inspiration from Ottawa, to our officials in Belgrade. Daily they expressed forcefully and openly our deep concern about the question of human rights and the slowness of implementation contained in the Helsinki Agreement on the part of some of the Eastern European countries.
I spent five weeks in Belgrade on the Third Basket committee which dealt with the question of human context, human exchanges, religious freedoms and all of that subject. There was not one day when the representatives of the Canadian government, through officials of External Affairs, did not hammer away at representatives of the Soviet Union, sometimes to a degree almost unusual by standards of Canadian performance in the past, persisting, protesting, and making the point about the high degree of discontent expressed by the western communities and the Canadian people about their slowness of performance, a slowness on the part of the Soviet Union and other eastern countries in coming closer to achieving the objectives contained in the Final Act.
It is easy for us to point the finger and expect more from countries which are not under our control, countries which have their own sovereignty and jurisdiction. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby stated earlier it is easy to make great speeches until one has to face the reality of an international forum.
One of the basic achievements of the Helsinki Agreement is that it is possible to bring to discussion around the bargaining table those countries with which we evidentally have ideologi-
May 31, 1978

cal disagreements, to express our criticism of their shortcomings in implementing some parts of the Act which ought to be implemented. It offers them the same opportunity. We are ourselves not entirely free of blame when it comes to the issue of human rights. We were criticized while we were there for our treatment of our native people-our shortcomings in this area were exploited to the full-and our critics were able to refer to other social shortcomings in western society. So there is an exchange of views and, at the same time, I believe, there is a slow but progressive move toward liberalization and the implementation of some of the basic freedoms in which the world of public opinion so largely believes.
One thing became evident in those days in Belgrade. It is that the eastern European countries are not wholly insensitive to world opinion, as may sometimes seem to be the case from here. They are concerned about it and they try, either by cover-up tactics, to answer criticism or, at least, to give the impression that they are above criticism. Whether we can bring them to our standards and to the implementation of the basic principles in which we believe, in a matter of years or decades, is a big question. 1 believe it is a matter of decades, because it is hard to expect that monolithic systems which for centuries have been based on a different theory of government can quickly accept an entirely different approach to the role of the citizen, of the judiciary, and of the state.
We have been accused of lack of will to play a leading role in securing human rights. This view was expressed by the Leader of the Opposition. If the hon. gentleman wants proof of the kind of role we played in Belgrade I would urge him to read extracts from the speeches and interventions made by Canadian representatives between October, 1977, and March, 1978. They are in print. They have been published by the Department of External Affairs, and they give a wide-ranging sample of major interventions on the part of Canada. These extracts should be enough to show that we did, in fact, play a leading role, making our views known at every opportunity. The booklet to which I have just referred contains only excerpts from speeches and contributions made during plenary sessions; it contains no record of Canadian interventions during meetings of the committees which were held every day-it would take an encyclopedia to incorporate all of those. Nevertheless, it was in committee we were most vocal and determined to play precisely the kind of role the opposition accuses us of failing to play.
Critics of Canada's diplomacy should ask themselves which is likely to be the more productive, the quiet diplomacy or the strident kind, the kind of diplomacy which attempts to get the best possible deal from other countries or that which is designed to go down well at home. Anyone who has had experience of the United Nations, or the Belgrade meetings, or any other international forum must conclude-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.
Human Rights


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to join in this debate on the motion introduced by the hon. member for Rocky Mountain (Mr. Clark). The motion of the hon. member deals with a very touchy subject in which I have been interested for quite some time. The violations of human rights in the world are a major obstacle to the harmonious development of the nations and co-operation between them. A long time before the conclusion of the Helsinki Final Act came the UN Universal Charter of Human Rights.
When looking briefly at the tense situation which is developing today just about everywhere in the world and where on a daily basis individuals are denied their fundamental liberties, we realize that these beautiful resolutions still have to be implemented. People had hoped that after the signing of the Final Act of Helsinki detente between the two blocs would become a reality for all their citizens. The final act is rather clear on that issue. All participating states are bound to respect human rights and fundamental liberties such as freedom of thought, of conscience, of religion and of political persuasion. The signatory states are also supposed to favour and encourage the effective practice of civil and political rights, as well as economic, social and cultural rights as well as others which pertain to human dignity. What have the Soviet bloc nations done to implement this act to which they have subscribed? Newspapers keep reporting violations of the Helsinki accords by the Soviet Union and Czechoslovakia. And there are still many cases that will never be known to the press.
The Belgrade conference which followed the Helsinki conference and which was to consider the progress made since the Final agreement was signed was a monumental farce. It became quite obvious that that conference was going nowhere. Every intervention in favour of the upholding of human rights in the Soviet Union was seen by Moscow representatives as interference in their internal affairs. Mr. Speaker, must we remain insensitive to citizens being denied their basic rights simply because they do not live here? Should we close our eyes to the massacres in Uganda, the military regimes in Africa and Latin America, the racist regime in South Africa? No, Mr. Speaker. Human rights are the responsibility of all conscious citizens in the whole world. There is in Czechoslovakia a movement called Charter 77 which was formed by individuals concerned with the indifference of their government vis-a-vis the Helsinki Accords.
Those individuals monitor the implementation of the principles in the final act in their country. It is through that association that the foreign press can get information on the situation with respect to human rights in eastern countries. In a recent document, the spokesmen for Charter 77 show that in that country which is signatory to the Helsinki agreement, nearly 30,000 persons are placed in preventive custody every year. And I did say, Mr. Speaker, in preventive custody. They are locked up before they criticize the regime out loud. A

May 31, 1978
Human Rights
recent piece of news informed us that many known signatories to that charter are arrested without any other form of trial and bullied during questionings.
Another recent event took place in the Soviet Union. Physicist Youri Orlov was sentenced to seven years in labour camp and five years in exile. The only thing they could find against Mr. Orlov was being the leader of the Helsinki group which was trying to monitor the implementation of the Helsinki agreements in the U.S.S.R. Mr. Orlov is only the last of several Soviet dissidents who cherish human rights and have all been sentenced to maximum penalties. Earlier this month, in Rostov, 2,000 Baptists were detained following a religious demonstration. And what about the inhuman situations that Soviet Jews must endure before emigrating to Israel? Those people must wait years, lose all their rights and belongings before being able to leave that country in very small numbers.
In light of that situation and the obvious repression that exists in the U.S.S.R. and Czechoslovakia there is no protest from this government. Can we accfept, Mr. Speaker, that our government should remain quiet in face of those flagrant violations of human rights and the brutality to which dissidents are submitted?
It is true that lately, given such bills as the legislation on mail interception, the performance of the government concerning human rights is rather inadequate. In the introduction of a booklet entitled "Canada at Belgrade," the Secretary of State for External Affairs said about the preliminary steps to the conclusion of the Helsinki Final Act and I quote:
Canada was particularly active in promoting the practical down-to-earth expressions of human rights, such as the freer movement of people and the freer flow of ideas.
In the present situation, Mr. Speaker, the minister should have said instead that Canada was particularly passive in promoting the practical down-to-earth expressions of human rights. Apparently the government is not overly concerned about those rights. It is true that with the sales tax issue we forgot some very important problems. We must recognize that if some freedoms are endangered in the world, they are our owns.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, let me repeat the advice I gave to the people of the Dominion of Canada English Speaking Association who sent me a document in which they asked for the abolition of French language rights in Canada. In a letter published by the newspaper Le Droit, two weeks ago I said:
As long as there are language barriers and as long as any one of us suffers from discrimination because his language is not that of the majority or because he is different from those who consider themselves as the sole depositaries of truth and right, none of us can really be sure about his already limited freedoms.
The government should implement the principle that man is there to be loved. Dignity is to be the object of unconditional love.


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) would like to contribute to this debate, and I will cut my remarks short so that he will have at least half the time which might be available to both of us before the end of this debate.
I want to say at the outset that in a debate as important as this it is only natural for those of us who live in political life to become involved in a political way, but the reason of a person such as myself for trying to insist on the timing of speeches in this debate was to ensure that it might be possible that the two final speakers, in this case the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe and myself, might be able to speak.
I remember as a young Canadian considering the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) to be an outstanding Prime Minister in the area of human rights. I also remember that in his day the late Right Hon. Lester Pearson was also considered to be a man who made great contributions at the United Nations regarding human rights. I think it is rather unfortunate and unexpected that in a matter as important as this, regardless of political feelings-and we may disagree on methods-that some do not recognize that in his speeches in the last few days on disarmament and NATO, which are not unrelated to this matter, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) put Canada in the forefront, and Canadian policy in the forefront, regarding human rights. I think that should be accepted and understood clearly.
In his speech on disarmament at the United Nations the Prime Minister said, and I quote:
I believe world security would be seriously diminished by the further spread of nuclear weapons and that it is the responsible course for governments to pursue policies based on the presumption that proliferation can be stopped.
There have been innuendoes today that the Prime Minister has not said anything against the neutron bomb. He has indicated clearly his desire that this kind of build-up should not occur. This is closely associated with human rights, because if a neutron bomb were dropped here today, the desks would be here, the lights would be here, the cameras would be here, and the building would be here, but we would not. Not even a fly would be here. The neutron bomb is an attack on life itself. It is not a simple war weapon, and therefore when we deal with disarmament we are dealing with something which vitally involves human rights. When we deal with NATO, we are involved with the same thing.
The Prime Minister has also pointed out that when we talk about security and security of individuals and nations, we have to realize that those nations in the so-called atomic pact feel the necessity to create balances for their security. Others who are involved with conventional arms feel the necessity of having 30,000 tanks for security. Others feel they need 20,000 aircraft for security. Those of us who want disarmament are apprehensive about the security of all those who live on this planet, and therefore we want a reduction in arms.

May 31, 1978

We cannot achieve security by telling others that they should not have concern about their security. Sometimes our stand in NATO should be that we must together be certain that we are adequately armed for security purposes, but our stance in the United Nations must sometimes also be that we should achieve some methods whereby we can stop further development of weapons and then begin to disarm. It was a dream after the first world war. It was a dream at Geneva. This is the first time someone has tried to revive that dream in the presence of all nations. It is an important dream. If we remember that it is a political dream, then we can move into the arena of civil rights. We must understand that the armed forces and those matters of defence and security are arms of political policy which do not in themselves make political policy.
Perhaps the Prime Minister does not speak in the same manner as members of the opposition parties or other members of parliament. But he is speaking as most Canadians and most members of parliament want him to speak. We speak for disarmament. We speak for security for ourselves. We speak and have concern for the human rights of others. The first time the Prime Minister spoke at the United Nations, he brought forth a concrete suggestion as to how we might proceed with concern. He brought forth the so-called strategy of suffocation.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Angus (Gus) MacFarlane: I should like to remind the hon. member that this is not something to laugh at. At least it is a starting point. Referring to the neutron bomb and its attack on life, we say that there should be a completely agreed upon test ban. Why? Because we cannot stop minds from thinking, scientists from working, or laboratory work. If we have a test ban, the work of scientists is confined to laboratories. They cannot go out and do repeated tests in an attempt to discover a weapon greater than the neutron bomb. The test ban is very important. At least it will keep the control of new developments in the laboratories.
A second area involved in the strategy of suffocation, or putting the lid on the jar, is to place a ban on the flight testing of vehicles which deliver weapons. Both of these points are terribly important to the world. That fact can be verified. We must be honest about it. It is a fact that we trust each other and we love each other. All God's children love each other, but all God's children usually check on each other. We must attempt to do these things together. We can check flight testing of vehicles and flight delivery systems. Those two things are possible in this world.
Also we should check the distribution of material for war use. We can check the actual production and development of new weapons. If we check those three areas, the further production of war instruments which would be an attack on life itself can be suffocated.
Human Rights
The fourth proposition is an interesting one. We must look at the actual expenses each country puts into the production of nuclear devices for war. If an institution were set up in order to study matters in a world-like manner, we would be aware of what each country puts into that segment known as its so-called security. Then we would be placed in a position where we could say: is this reasonable for the Soviet Union, for the United States, or for Canada?
Canada is a country of many capabilities. It has had a series of governments. 1 have respect for hon. members opposite. All Canadians are the same. Canada has not developed atomic warfare weapons on its soil. We made that choice. I doubt whether any political party would come forward and indicate that we should. Through the expense strategy, we could suffocate further the greater development of atomic weapons. That is the first step. It must be followed by a more major step which is closer to the area of civil rights.
Civil rights seem to be impinged on by more conventional ideas. They are dealt with by people with conventional weapons. They come in the midst of the night and knock on doors. They take people to prisons and torture them. They do not allow people to speak out concerning their opinions. If we can arrive at some agreement in the first area, then we could reach the conventional area.
Since 1945 there have been 135 or 138 conflicts. Approximately 80 countries have been involved in these conflicts. As a result of them, 25 million people have died. Not one atomic bomb has been dropped. Thus, those people have been killed by conventional weapons, or perhaps they have been secreted away somewhere.
At this time we are involved in a debate which I hope will continue. I hope the young are attracted to this issue. I hope it is discussed in our schools. It is at the very root of Canada's destiny. They should listen to the attitude we portray to the world, as well as what is said of import.
During the great days of the Japanese they developed printed circuits, small radios, and technical equipment which became so important to us. At the same time, the Americans and Russians sent people to the moon. Because of our attitudes and the kind of people we are, perhaps we will solve our own differences of opinion. Perhaps we will bring forth new fathers of confederation and a new constitution. Perhaps we will bring forth new ideas on disarmament, civil rights and attitudes. Perhaps attitude is the great export Canada has to offer to the world. This is an important chance for us.
We must remember the time when Portia White was turned away from places in Canada. She was a beautiful contralto, a beautiful singer from Halifax. She was a beautiful negro woman who was turned away. We must remember Marian Anderson who was not allowed to stay at the Royal York Hotel when she was speaking at a Canadian Club luncheon. We must remember North Hatley in Quebec with its signs which read: "Dogs and Jews not admitted, Christians only". Those of us who lived in Canada and were required to face those things understand what human rights are all about. We have a right to change such attitudes. We are far ahead in our

May 31, 1978
Human Rights
own freedoms, but we must not forget that Belgrade is far more important to the mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters and relatives in Canada who have families elsewhere in the world who are much more maligned than us.
The motion before us is an important one. Although it tends to be critical of the government, its aim is to get at the fact that something must be done about human rights in the world. Are we going to do something? We must have good discussions on this. We should remember that we have a good Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Jamieson). He is capable of speaking well, logically, solidly, and honestly on this subject. He would have participated in this debate if it had not been necessary for him to go to Washington. He is in Washington facing another phase of civil rights in the NATO meetings. We should remember that we have a Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Cafik). By taking on that portfolio, he stands for all the ethno-cultural groups in Canada. Automatically he must associate himself with the hopes, aspirations, and loves of those people for their loved ones in other countries.
All of us should remember that we can make our lives sublime, as great men in history have done. The footprints of Canada in the sands of time must be strong. We must be prepared to put our lives forward for the lives of brothers and sisters in Europe, Asia, Russia or Africa. Canada must play its role in the world. We must come forward to be counted.
The Prime Minister, the cabinet, government members, opposition members and senators, as a federation must guarantee the human rights and the dignity of individuals. Human rights are important. We must support disarmament, because the newest development is an attack on life itself. We should do something to improve this planet for our existence, and then move on to social and political problems which will be even more difficult.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) for being courteous by allowing me some of his allotted time in order to participate in this very important subject this afternoon.
I think, Mr. Speaker, as others have already said, that the subject of human rights and the concern that all of us in this House 1 am sure have regarding this important issue, are far too important to be the subject of political partisanship, but instead should be an all embracing concern for all of us in parliament if we are ever to be successful is not only guaranteeing and upholding the human rights of every individual in Canada but, equally important, in our universal fight to uphold the sacred human rights of all human beings in every corner of the world as well.
Having said that, I have to say 1 was greatly disappointed and dismayed by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia) who, instead of trying to make a contribution to this very important discussion here this afternoon, chose to use most of

his time in berating and highly criticizing the contributions of others members of the House who participated in this debate in good faith and with an earnest desire to seek progress in our constant fight to improve the progress of human rights throughout the globe. 1 am sure this type of diplomacy, as exhibited here this afternoon, would have a very low priority in discussions of human rights, or in any other discussions, for that matter.
Canadians as a race, 1 think, are inclined to be complacent about human rights. We are even more inclined to forget that we have some responsibility for what is happening in other parts of the world and that what is happening in other parts of the world can and does affect the kind of life we can live here in Canada.
At times we take for granted our basic human rights; freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom to worship, and even a right to a certain standard of living. These are accepted without question. It is not always easy for Canadians to comprehend the harsh realities of life in Eastern Europe where about 300 million people languish under an oppressive police rule, their families are held hostage, their freedom of movement is curtailed, and no aspect of their lives is without surveillance of some sort.
Several years ago the Helsinki conferences were convened in an attempt to promote detente in Europe and to reach some sort of international consensus on the recognition of human liberties and rights. The rights of individuals, families and cultures were explicitly recognized by the 35 signatories to the Helsinki Agreement.
The recent review of the implementation of the Helsinki pact has made clear that the Soviet Union and its satellites are not living up to their promise to observe in practice those principles set out at Helsinki.
Anxious to secure the legitimization of its post-war boundaries, the Soviet Union was perfectly willing to give voice to its support for human rights. In action, however, it deliberately and systematically falls short. Numerous violations of the Helsinki accords are now coming to light, the most recent involving the sentencing of Yuri Orlov, who was tried and convicted for the so-called crime of monitoring the Soviet Union's human rights performance against the pledge made in Helsinki.
The Nobel prize winner Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, Amnesty International, the Samizdat Sources, the ever increasing number of dissidents in the Soviet Union, and various publications in the west, have well documented the suppression of liberty and the gross violation of human rights within the U.S.S.R. and its controlled satellite countries. All along, the Soviets have insisted upon their right to do as they please on their own home territory. However, the gross and systematic violation of human rights must be regarded as an international concern and no longer as the exclusive preserve of the domestic jurisdiction of the country concerned.
The approach of the government with respect to this issue has been, on the whole, one of quiet diplomacy. Apparently the
May 31, 1978

government hopes that by means of behind the scenes negotiations it will be able to influence the policies of the Eastern bloc countries on such issues as family reunification, freedom of movement, and the unjust imprisonment of Soviet dissidents. The over-all results have been less than satisfactory.
Yuri Orlov is only one of several dissidents who have been harassed or imprisoned this past year for attempting to monitor the Soviet government's performance under the Helsinki Accord. Though it has become somewhat easier for a westerner to travel in the Soviet Union, the movement of Soviet citizens is still severely restricted, and the whole question of family reunification is far from resolved.
The Canadian Ukrainian Immigrant Aid Society, in cooperation with the Department of External Affairs, recently undertook a project of conducting a Canada-wide compilation and analysis of the reunification problem. The results indicated that in the majority of cases there has not been settlement for periods of over 30 years and, in many instances, for over 50 years. Most tragic of all is the length of time involved. Many have been attempting to reunify immediate families for over a quarter of a century, and some for half a century.
It is time our government took a more vocal and outspoken position. It is apparent that the situation will not be solved through the use of regular bureaucratic channels, or by so-called quiet diplomacy.
To effect change, the violations of the Helsinki Accord must be brought to public awareness, for in the present state of international law on human rights the most effective sanction is the force of international public opinion, which is something to which even the most authoritarian governments are sensitive.
"Public opinion is the most powerful medium of all. Like religion it penetrates into the darkest corners." That is from a letter written over 150 years ago by Metternich, the authoritarian Austrian foreign minister.
I have another quotation also from a source not usually associated with concern for human rights. It is from the Wall Street Journal and states:
There is little question that the dissidents have been able to survive as they have because people abroad were listening to them.
That was in reference to Soviet dissidents.
The point is that an outspoken and vocal condemnation of the violation of human rights will have more effect than a policy of quiet diplomacy in arousing public opinion and putting pressure on Soviet authorities.
Undoubtedly, Canadians have a lot to be thankful for. Canada is a far cry from being a police state. However, can we really settle back in our chairs secure in the knowledge that Canada is a true democracy where social, economic, political, and cultural rights are fully respected? 1 would suggest that we cannot afford to get too complacent. One has only to read the daily press to realize that Canada has its own problems in the area of human rights.
Human Rights
Of course infringements on civil and human liberties in Canada are not nearly as severe as in the Soviet bloc countries. However, our own failings will have to be faced and dealt with if we are going to accept the task of acting as watchdogs over human rights in the rest of the world.
Canadians have achieved equality before the law, but in reality we fall far short of reaching the ideal of democratic freedoms. Incidents of racism and discrimination are growing at an alarming rate. It was for this reason the House felt compelled to pass a human rights act setting out the prohibited grounds of discrimination. The House also passed legislation to establish a commission to monitor the implementation of the Human Rights Act.
Unfortunately, no government can legislate away racism or discrimination. Human rights and human dignity in Canada, as elsewhere in the world, have not been and are not likely to be realized by lofty rhetoric even when enshrined in a constitution. The only way they can be achieved is by those relentless forces of social change, and by our timely response to them. It is a question of giving substance to words, by taking positive and constructive action in order to attempt to create a climate in which racism and discrimination will not flourish.
In Canada a concept of cultural pluralism and human rights is being encouraged and actively pursued in the belief that our society will become stronger and more enriched. There is no doubt about the realism of the concept. However, to attain that goal we have to translate that concept into practice. Action, not empty words or empty promises, is the course we have to take if we are really sincere in the building of our nation. It is for this reason that I support a multiculturalism policy for Canada.
I have no hesitation in stating that multiculturalism is the most suitable way of assuring not only cultural freedom but all our basic human liberties in every corner of our country. A recognition of multiculturalism in Canada assures that ethnic groups in Canada will be guaranteed their right and desire to practise and keep their traditions, language, and culture.
The universal acceptance of multiculturalism in Canada by all its citizens will mean, as well, greater respect and understanding of each other. It will also mean the disappearance of personal and institutional prejudices and the creation of a more friendly and open climate. Without the eradication of the disease of prejudice and racism, no basic human rights will ever be a reality in Canada and we will never earn the title of a truly great nation.
Because I feel so strongly about the value of a multiculturalism policy as a means to enhance human rights and human dignity, I cannot help but be very concerned about the manner in which it is being implemented by this government. It is apparent that the government is far from committed to a multicultural Canadian society, despite any outcry to the contrary. The government's hesitation to commit itself has been illustrated on a number of occasions. For instance, since the announcement of the policy in October, 1971, there have
5940

May 31, 1978
Human Rights
been only two full time ministers for multiculturalism, and both of these appointments were made when an election appeared imminent. That alone should indicate the lack of priority that this government gives to multiculturalism in Canada.
The recent announcement of an increase in the multiculturalism budget is undoubtedly another attempt on the part of the government to endear itself to the ethnocultural communities just prior to an election. The government has announced that the multiculturalism budget will amount to $50 million over the next five years. This sum sounds like a lot of money until it is broken down by year. The government is telling us that the multiculturalism budget will now be $10 million per year, an actual increase of slightly less than $2 million per year over the present budget.
It was something like four years ago that this government first promised to increase the multiculturalism budget to $10 million annually. It has taken the government four years, and the possibility of another election, to reiterate this promise, and from the experiences of four years ago we know there is no guarantee the government will keep this promise.
In view of the present spending practices of the multiculturalism directorate, we can expect at least 40 per cent, or $4 million, to be used on advertising and administrative expenses. A further $3 million will be spent by the cultural agencies such as the National Film Board and the Museum of Man. That leaves roughly $3 million to be used directly by the ethno-cultural communities for language and culture retention, not a very large sum when you consider that the government plans to spend $4.5 million alone in one week of Canada Day celebrations. When you consider that our ethno-cultural communities-and I am referring to those who have neither French nor English as their background-represent more than one third of the population of Canada, a budget of $10 million annually is an effrontery of the first magnitude.
Last summer the government had an opportunity to make a positive contribution to the development of the multicultural ideal in Canada, an opportunity which it failed to take advantage of. At that time a motion was introduced to amend the Immigration Act so that it could take into consideration not only the bilingual character of Canadian society but also its multicultural nature. We on this side of the House supported the motion which gave recognition to the fact that Canada is composed of many different ethnocultural groups which want to cherish their different cultures without penalty, and which want to feel they are co-equals in the building and development of Canadian society. The motion, however, was defeated by government members in the House, raising serious doubts about the sincerity of the government's intentions with respect to multiculturalism.
In view of the government's noncommital attitude, it is not surprising that many Canadians are still unfamiliar with the goals of multiculturalism policy. A recently published majority
attitudes study revealed that most Canadians were really unaware of a multiculturalism policy in Canada, and those who were aware of such a policy perceived it only in the context of allowing immigrants to maintain their customs and folk traditions. It is apparent that a great deal more effort must be made before a policy of multiculturalism moves beyond indifferent acceptance to understanding and use by all Canadians regardless of their ethnic origin.
It is the belief of our party that the key to a more dynamic multiculturalism policy lies in placing more decision making responsibility with the ethnocultural communities in Canada. A first step in this direction could be achieved by changing the method of selection of the representatives to the Canadian Consultative Council on Multiculturalism. At present the members of the council are political appointments of the government. In our opinion, this is wrong. These people should be elected from the ethno-cultural communities they represent.
It is also our belief that more of an effort has to be made to try to follow through on the recommendations of the Consultative Council on Multiculturalism. Up until now the recommendations of the council have frequently been ignored, probably gathering dust in some obscure corner of the directorate. For instance, the council has repeatedly stressed the pivotal relationship of language to culture retention, recommending on several occasions that the government initiate federal-provincial agreements to introduce third language instruction in the public schools system. Needless to say, these recommendations have been largely ignored by the government.
From its inception, the council has also recommended that the mandate of the CBC be revised so as to allow for the introduction of multilingual broadcasting, but so far the results have not been very encouraging. The council further recommended that all federal cultural agencies include qualified persons of various ethno-cultural backgrounds on their governing boards.
A multiculturalism policy, to be successful, must take into consideration a broad spectrum of society, including education, the broadcasting media, newspapers and literature, the performing arts, museum programs, community cultural centres, government services, youth programs, and relations with other countries. Above all, if we are concerned with changing attitudes in Canada, then multiculturalism must be a predominant theme in the education system. From the beginning of Confederation, Mr. Speaker, cultural and linguistic questions have always been central to Canada's existence as a unified and civilized nation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. It being six o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), proceedings on the motion have expired. I do now leave the chair and this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, June 1, 1978