1979-11-14

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a question of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. Given the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare refuses to take a clear stand on the question of family allowances, and in the light of repeated kite-flying by Tory strategists on this subject, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin):
That this House request the Minister of National Health and Welfare to state clearly that the deficit problems of the Minister of Finance will not be solved on the backs of those who look to family allowances as a right and not as a charity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: This motion, under the terms of the Standing Order, can be put to the House only by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. W. Kenneth Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that 65 American citizens are being forcefully detained in the American embassy in Tehran, and in view of the fact that their detention is unwarranted and against international law and understanding, and in violation of the sanctity of embassies throughout the world, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis):
That the government and people of the United States of America be commended for their courage and approach in dealing with this tragedy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will realize that the Chair has consistently set aside motions of this sort put forward under the Standing Order.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Andy Hogan (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the terms of Standing Order 43. Since it is well known that Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation owns several hotels, and since many low income areas are receiving insufficient funds to make possible the decent rehabilitation of old housing stock, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That CMHC get out of hotel business and become more deeply involved in the rehabilitation of senior citizens, disabled pensioners and lower income Canadians.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House give the hon. member unanimous consent to present the motion under Standing Order 43?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS
Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to seek the unanimous consent of the House to put forward a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
I believe it is imperative that new regulations to protect the public from accidents caused by the transporting of dangerous, toxic and explosive materials in an unsafe manner be presented immediately. Dozens of accidents on our railways could cause disruption and create extreme danger for members of the public anywhere in Canada, as was the case for 250,000 people in Mississauga last weekend. An inquiry by the Canadian Transport Commission will not be able to ensure more than a public hearing. I would, therefore, move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):

November 14, 1979
That to avoid delay, the Minister of Transport refer to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications the matter of hot box detectors, the separation of dangerous commodities and the proper identification of all containers as to contents and risk to persons, with instructions to recommend amendments to ensure safe transportation of such dangerous products and prepare legislation for speedy passage at the earliest possible date.


Mr. Speaker:: Presentation of such a motion, under Standing Order 43, may be made only with unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Rene Cousineau (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House, under Standing Order 43, to move a motion concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that the President of the Treasury Board has stated that the Outaouais region should not be considered a designated area; that the Minister of Supply and Services has stated for his part that this region could be recognized as a designated area in early 1980; and that the municipalities of this area are entitled to be told clearly the position of the federal government, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier):
That the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion settle this question as soon as possible so that the Outaouais region will know what to expect.


Mr. Speaker:: Under Standing Order 43, such a motion can be moved only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I seek unanimous consent to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.

Since the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey) promises to create jobs for seasonal workers but does nothing to deal with a tight situation in northwest New Brunswick where the unemployment rate is soaring, and since the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Clark) made a public and formal commitment in May last to extend to 6,000 feet the landing strip at Saint-Leonard regional airport, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. LeBlanc):
That this House urge the Prime Minister of Canada to fulfil immediately his election promise by instructing the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to complete construction of the regional airport in northwest New Brunswick, in order to give work to the unemployed who wish to work.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House, noting that the Leader of the Official Opposition has used New York disco-dancing as a method of curing a bad cold, instructs the Minister of Finance to inquire into the feasibility of making expenses for all such medically-related dancing acts deductible for purposes of taxation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Paproski:: Shame, Eddie.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on an urgent and pressing matter regarding a request to the Canadian Transport Commission by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Epp) to inquire into and report upon the state of rail service and other surface transportation services into and out of the Yukon.
Since the letter from the minister to the CTC expressed a sense of urgency in this matter, since Federal Industries Limited has requested extensive financial aid from the Government of Canada to keep the White Pass and Yukon rail operating, and since there is widespread interest and concern
November 14, 1979

Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
in the Yukon about this rail line, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Timmins-Chapleau (Mr. Chenier):
That this House instruct the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to direct the CTC to broaden its inquiry into a full-scale public hearing to be conducted in the Yukon.
Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for debate only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



HOUSING


Mr. Michel Veillette (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion concerning a significant and urgent matter.
The prefabricated homes industry represents 25 per cent of the single-family home construction industry in Canada, and in Quebec, in 1978 alone 36 plants produced a shipping value of $83 million and employed almost 1,500 workers. Following the excessive interest rate increase ordered by the present government, 50 per cent to 60 per cent of orders have been cancelled or delayed, which will mean the closing of 50 per cent of those plants and the lay-off of two-thirds of the workers. So, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard):
That this House instruct the government to act immediately to help industries which must go out of business and reduce the effects on the Canadian economy of the economic policies it has implemented until now and that result in an increasing number of lay-offs and higher unemployment rates in the country.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Privy Council, in the absence of the Minister of Transport. It concerns the train disaster which took place in Mississauga on the weekend.
In view of the statement by the CPR that they are setting up a claims office and want people to sign a waiver to sue the CPR in order to receive basic compensation for food and lodging, will the minister publicly advise people that under no circumstances should they sign a waiver which takes away their right to sue the Canadian Pacific Railway?


Hon. Walter Baker (President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I take it the question was put to me as President of the Privy Council and not as a member of the Bar of Ontario. As a member of the Bar of Ontario, as a member of the House and as a member of the government, I would publicly caution anyone not to sign any waiver without being appropriately advised of the effect thereof. 1 think it is axiomatic that no one should do that and I thank the hon. member for giving me the opportunity to give that advice.


Peter A. Stollery: Would the minister inform the House-and I thank him for his response-what forms of compensation the government is considering for the 250,000 people who have been displaced by an accident that has taken place because of rail damage on track administered by the Government of Canada?


Walter David Baker: As I think I said in answer to a question from another member of the hon. member's party the other day, there is a federal-provincial agreement in existence with respect to aid and assistance in that matter. With respect to anything further than that by the Government of Canada, I would, naturally, take the question as notice and bring it to the attention of the Minister of Transport.


Peter A. Stollery: Mr. Speaker, we are aware that in normal circumstances this kind of compensation is initiated by the province, but I think that what the House would like to know and what the people of Mississauga would like to know, in the shortest time possible, is whether the Government of Canada, in this case which is unique in Canadian history, will initiate the form of compensation to be made to these people and not wait for the province of Ontario to ask the Government of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 14, 1979
Oral Questions


Walter David Baker: There are rules that I spoke about and of which the hon. member says he has knowledge, and about which I reported to the House a few days ago- rules that were in existence long before this government took office-that were brought in by the hon. gentleman's party. As I said in answer to the second question, I would take notice with respect to all those matters, I will speak to the appropriate members of the government and I will be delighted to report to the hon. member.



SAFETY MEASURES FOR CARRIAGE OF HAZARDOUS PRODUCTS

Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. Given the fact that trains carrying dangerous goods cross through metropolitan Toronto on a regular basis, and the fact that the very train that derailed on the weekend was following a course which would have taken it right through each of Toronto's six municipalities, I would ask the minister if, in light of the questions raised about safety standards pertaining to the rail transport of dangerous goods as a result of this crash, the minister has any plans to impose interim regulations on these trains which pass through populated areas. We cannot wait for the investigation. Tomorrow the same train might have an accident at Yonge and St. Clair, wiping out hundreds, even thousands of lives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Transport, in answer to a question from the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas, I think, gave a very full and detailed response, which he is allowed to do and 1 am grateful to Mr. Speaker that he could do that.
1 want to assure the hon. member that urgent consideration is being given within the Department of Transport to that very kind of thing. I think it should be recognized by the hon. member, and indeed by all hon. members, that this is regarded as a very serious matter by the Government of Canada, not just generally with respect to this matter but with respect to what it could portend for the future if nothing were done. I want to assure the hon. member that the Minister of Transport has the matter under active and urgent consideration within his department.


Jesse Philip Flis: If this issue were not serious, I would not have raised it in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!



REDUCTION IN STAFF OF CTC

Jesse Philip Flis: My supplementary question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. Would the minister explain to millions of Torontonians and Mississaugans, whose lives and safety are imperilled by trains carrying poisonous material, why the government body respon-

sible for the conduct of these trains, the Canadian Transport Commission, is being forced to reduce its already inadequate staffing by 100 people at a time when it requires more people to do its job, not fewer?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (President of Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is totally wrong for the hon. member to be making such statements, and I would very much like him to back up those statements with a little stronger, more concrete evidence than he has given the House to date.



SOCIAL SECURITY


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Thousands of Canadian families are deeply concerned about reports that the government is about to abolish the universal system of family allowances by cutting off great numbers of women from the baby bonus.
Since the reported proposal favoured by the government would destroy this sole, direct source of income for literally thousands of Canadian women, I should like to ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if he can give the House today an unequivocal assurance that there will be no termination of our present system of universal family allowances.


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to advise the hon. member, as I think I did a week or so ago in the House, that family allowances form part of the review the government has been making respecting the whole social security system. Also, in response to a question from a member of the member's own party. 1 indicated that there would be no change in the family allowance in 1979 and in 1980.
1 further indicated-and I would reassure the member and the House-that throughout 1980 we will be carrying on those investigations 1 indicated earlier, such as the pension review, the review with respect to handicapped and disabled persons, the review with respect to the voluntary sector and its ability to assist with respect to the handicapped and disabled. Also, I would point out that it is essential, in any change in a social security system, to take into account the needs and requirements of the provinces. That is why I met yesterday in Toronto with ministers of welfare, ministers of social services and ministers of social policy. They support the undertaking of a review of the social security system. Also, I might point out-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps the minister could continue in answer to a supplementary question.
November 14, 1979


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I think the only inference we can draw from that answer is that beginning in 1980 the government, if it survives that long, indeed plans to terminate the system of universal family allowances.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Huntington:: Misleading.


John Edward Broadbent: He did not give the assurance. If the minister will deny it, I would like to hear the denial. In that context, I should like to ask if he will confirm that a cabinet meeting which took place within the past month made two decisions: that, indeed, it would terminate the universal system of family allowances; and that there would be no additional family allowance payments to low income families.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me make sure the member understands, because I have now said it twice. There will be no change in the family allowance in 1980.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Edward Crombie: I want to make sure that the hon. member does not repeat the same mistake. There will be no change in the family allowance in 1980.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: Second, in my discussions with members of the government including the Prime Minister-as, indeed, I indicated the other day in the House-I indicated my desire to engage in social policy changes for the 1980s. In order to do that it is essential that I carry out the reviews I have already mentioned with all provincial ministers, because the changes 1 might make will affect them. That is why the matter will be discussed at a meeting at St. John's in January with all provincial ministers.


John Edward Broadbent: I accept the correction of the minister but 1 should like to tell him that for us, injustice coming in 1981 is no better than injustice in 1980.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: It is no better. I should like to ask him a third question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Be honest.


John Edward Broadbent: Who says "honest"? Listen to your own minister.
[ Translation]
Did the minister receive a letter from his colleague from Quebec regarding possible changes to the family allowances program, changes which would cost $1,000 to a Quebec family with five children? If this is a fact, will the minister tell the
Oral Questions
House why his government is looking for a new confrontation in this area where there is none now?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I received a telegram from the minister of social services for the province of Quebec yesterday which he sent on Friday. It dealt with press reports that the family allowance was to be dropped. Like the hon. member, the minister of social services for Quebec was mistaken. There is no intention to drop the family allowance in 1980.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that the purpose of the meeting yesterday-to which Mr. Lazure, the minister for Quebec, was invited-was, indeed, to discuss those items which are of concern to people in the province of Quebec. If the hon. member is interested in justice today and, indeed, to get justice tomorrow, I suggest he might well read a book called "Women in Poverty"; then he might find out why it is important to carry out a social security review-because this government is determined to make sure that the review takes place. It is something that should have been done by hon. members who were in this House ten years ago.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES-APPROACH OF MINISTER OF FINANCE

Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, one is tempted to ask if perhaps a decision about family allowances was taken in the inner cabinet, where the minister is not represented. For that reason, I would direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Has the inner cabinet made a decision along the lines that the kite-flying which we now read about indicates and is, in fact, the Minister of Finance looking to the social programs of the Minister of National Health and Welfare-because he does not sit in the inner cabinet-as a source of income to reduce his deficit?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, if I were the hon. member, I would not want to claim ownership of the deficit, either. The short answer to the question is no.



LEVEL OF GUARANTEED INCOME SUPPLEMENT

Roméo LeBlanc: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since this government seems to be obsessed with the idea of raising the price of oil, heating oil especially, and interest rates-


An hon. Member:: And of fish.


Roméo LeBlanc: -may 1 ask the Minister of National Health and Welfare if he intends to do as we did a year ago, that is, to give those on guaranteed income supplements an immediate raise so they will not have to wait for some futuristic self-sufficiency deal which they are talking about on that side?

November 14, 1979
Oral Questions


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from the hon. member because-as the hon. member may know-he will be sitting on the committee. The pension review committee has before it sufficient terms of reference in terms of both public and private pensions. Therefore, the members on that committee will have the opportunity to make recommendations to the committee, which I will entertain. 1 would be pleased if the hon. member would raise the matter there.



TREASURY BOARD


Mr. Ed Lumley (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Over a week ago 1 asked the minister a question regarding the study of the Crowsnest Pass rate that was undertaken by his department. Since I respect the fact that ministers do not always know everything that is undertaken by a department, and since 1 know that the study was initiated prior to his appointment, I would like to ask the minister if this report has been completed, or are his colleagues and him still studying the report; and when will the report be made public?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member, the question he actually put to me, sir-as you will recall-was, are we presently conducting a study in respect of the Crow rate situation and my answer was no. My answer today is again no.
I take it the hon. member is referring to the interdepartmental study that was concluded in January of this year. Since the hon. member raised this question I have had an opportunity to review that study. The hon. member has indicated that he would like the study to be tabled. As far as we in Treasury Board are concerned, while we chaired the ongoing study at that time we were not the only participants in it. Consequently, we are currently asking the other participants whether they have any objection to the study being tabled in the House.


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also for the President of the Treasury Board. Since the Minister of Transport has recently indicated that there will be changes to the Crowsnest Pass rate-


An hon. Member:: No, no!


Edward C. Lumley: -can the President of the Treasury Board advise the House what preparations are under way to ensure that the interests of farmers are protected; and would the minister also indicate whether or not he believes that the Crowsnest Pass rate is a detriment to the efficient movement of grain in western Canada?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, it is rather unfortunate that the hon. member would want to convey an impression that is

totally erroneous. The fact is that there has been absolutely no decision made with respect to the Crowsnest Pass rates. Obviously, if no decision has been made, then the hon. member's question has no relevance at the present time.



TRANSPORT


Mr. Robert Bockstael (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, 1 direct my question to the Minister of State (Transport). The Minister of Transport has been quoted as saying that the value of the Crow rate would be maintained, and the previous speaker said that no study is being undertaken. Is it the function of the newly appointed transport co-ordinator to come up with recommendations that the Crow rate should be abandoned or, on the other hand, reinforced and extended to the transportation of beef and livestock?


Hon. J. Robert Howie (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the answer to the last part of the hon. member's question is no. The answer to the first part of his question is in the affirmative, in that it is the intention of the Department of Transport to preserve for farmers the value of the Crowsnest rates.



RIGHT TO PRIVACY


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Treasury Board), of which I have given him notice. It concerns the minister's responsibility for privacy legislation. In view of increasing consumer concern over the fact that common purchases or business transactions can result in one's name becoming part of a mailing list which is then sold to direct mail soliciting firms, can the minister assure the House that no government department or agency under federal jurisdiction now participates in this practice?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me notice of her very worth-while question. To the best of my knowledge, no mailing lists containing personal names are presently being sold by the federal government. It was the practice some years ago that the Post Office created mailing lists for personal directories by constituency where such commercial lists were not available. That practice has been discontinued. I, personally, would discourage the sale by the federal government of mailing lists containing personal information.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his answer. Is the minister considering including some prohibition with regard to the sale of such mailing lists in the privacy legislation which will be forthcoming?
November 14, 1979


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, as a result of the hon. member's representation I will be undertaking a more formal check to determine whether or not the practice is taking place at the present time. If it is taking place, I will certainly give every consideration to the hon. member's representation.

[ Translation]



SHIPBUILDING


Mr. Jean-Louis Leduc (Richelieu):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister.
Over the weekend in Sorel, where ships are built for the Polish government, I met some officials of that government who told me they were prepared to have 20 ships built in Canada. Such a contract means three years of work for all Canadian shipyards. The previous government had sent a delegation to Poland to make an agreement with the Polish government.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member put his question?


Jean-Louis Leduc: Will this government go on with the negotiations opened by the previous government?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the answer is yes.



INQUIRY AS TO DISTRIBUTION OF $150 MILLION IN CONNECTION WITH CERTAIN CONTRACTS

Mr. Raynald Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Supply and Services, the left arm of the right hon. Prime Minister. I would like to know what came of last week's meeting with CNTU representatives, a so-called ministerial meeting, because as the member for Richelieu has just said-he is not talking about long term, but right now-there are still massive lay-offs in shipyards, especially in Quebec. This is really disturbing and 1 would like to know if his department has made any decision and how the $150 million in contract money announced by the previous government was allocated throughout Canada and Quebec shipyards.


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague indicated a while ago, we keep on negotiating all propositions made to us. The government, our government, also undertook to consider projects which might help the shipyards.
Oral Questions
Also, the member is asking if I have met the shipyard union. I say to him that the meeting is scheduled for this week and that I am quite prepared to listen and consider the recommendations which might be made concerning Lauzon and other shipyards in Quebec.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It concerns the long-standing grievance of the Indian people of Saskatchewan. In 1975, the Government of Canada wrote to the Premier of Saskatchewan requesting him to honour outstanding Indian land entitlements as provided under section 10 of the resources transfer agreement.
In view of the fact that the government of Saskatchewan showed its readiness and co-operation in finding a satisfactory agreement in dispersing provincial pasture lands in its submission to the former minister last April, and in view of the fact that the present minister wrote to his Saskatchewan counterpart on October 19 saying that the federal government is reviewing the availability of federal lands and the federal government's obligations, would the minister inform this House and the Indians of Saskatchewan when he will have finished reviewing and be ready to start negotiating with the Saskatchewan government and the Indian people on this matter?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the government is determined to complete negotiations on the Saskatchewan land entitlements. The hon. member has asked when. I would indicate to him that we have agreed to a meeting in Saskatchewan next week among the Indians of Saskatchewan and my own department. I am also meeting later this week with the 15 chiefs who have land entitlement claims, in an attempt to get the negotiations going.


Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, I have met with the same chiefs to whom the minister referred, and as far as I know from their submissions to me this morning they did not know about a meeting next week on land claims. The actions of this government in the matter, in reneging on the COPE agreement and in allowing mining and other developments to take place-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member have a supplementary question?


Rodney Edward Murphy: Under the circumstances, what guarantees are there for the native people that they will not be denied valuable land and will not be left with wastelands as they have in the past, if these negotiations do not take place now?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, when the present government came into office it was obvious that the question of land claims had

November 14, 1979
Oral Questions
to be reviewed. The government has committed itself, and we did so as a party as well, to an early and equitable settlement of land claims. That is our purpose and we are continuing that. With reference to the COPE situation that the hon. member has raised, we are meeting with the lawyers, representatives of COPE later this afternoon.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: had a supplementary question for the President of the Treasury Board, Mr. Speaker, but he has just left the House. Perhaps I could ask it when he returns.



SUPPLY AND SERVICES


Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister but in his absence 1 would like to put it to the Minister of Supply and Services. The Prime Minister, in the House, as well as several ministers of the new government, promised that the new approach of this government would be to give greater consideration to regional problems. I would like to know, in that context, whether the Prime Minister is ready to reconsider some decentralization projects announced by the former government and which were left in abeyance during the summer.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member for Sherbrooke that when we came into power there was a huge deficit compelling us to defer some projects, and even if we recognize their importance they will have to wait some time. As for the project which the member may want to describe to me, it is one of those that will have to wait.



INQUIRY WHEN CERTAIN QUESTIONS WILL BE ANSWERED

Irénée Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.
Ever since the beginning of the new session the government answers our questions by saying that it is studying the matter. I understand that this is a government of students, but just the same 1 should like to know whether, once the study session is over, we shall obtain in the House replies to our questions, because we have been unable to obtain any over the past month.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed true that we need a lot of time to study

the awfully bad administration of the former government. But as far as the question is concerned, I can clearly reply that we have decided to postpone this project because we must curtail our expenses, something on which all Canadians certainly agree with us.



CONVENING OF COMMITTEE ON DISABLED AND HANDICAPPED CITIZENS

Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of Privy Council in his capacity as government House leader. The hon. gentleman indicated last week that he has an agreement with the House leader of the NDP to approve the motions on the order paper setting up the four select committees following one day's debate.
In view of the urgency of getting the work of the committee on disabled and handicapped citizens under way so that it can report prior to the Rehabilitation International Congress to be held in Winnipeg next June, has the government House leader been able to negotiate the same agreement with the House leader of the official opposition, or is that party continuing its long-standing policy of opposing the establishment of this vitally important committee?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for that question. I am grateful for the position taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. I remain hopeful that the four select committees, in one of which the hon. gentleman has an interest, will be debated in short order in the House prior to what I anticipate would be the normal adjournment at Christmas time. 1 want to assure the hon. gentleman that I will be pursuing with my friends this discussion on that important subject.



IMMIGRATION


Mr. Claude Tessier (Megantic-Compton-Stanstead):: Mr. Speaker, I would normally put my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, but in his absence I will direct it to the government House leader.
Since Canada seems to be a temporary refuge for Haitians who are fleeing their country for reasons that are assumed but which nobody seems able to state categorically, can the minister say what steps he intends to take to put a stop to this shameful traffic of Haitians that is going on here; whether he is prepared to treat these Haitian refugees in the same way as the "boat people" from Asia, and to what extent he is prepared to grant regular status to Haitians already here, to save them
November 14, 1979

Oral Questions TRANSPORT



REDUCTION IN STAFF OF CTC

[Stage Direction]
from the kinds of reprisals they would face if they were sent back to their country?
Hon. Lincoln M. Alexander (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for a very important question. I am sure that he knows the record of this government when it comes to refugees. He knows that we have shown compassion and understanding; that we have a heart when it comes to those who are less fortunate than we are.
1 have no hesitation in saying to him that the question he poses is extremely important and 1 will see that it is passed on to the Minister of Employment and Immigration, who will get back to him with, 1 think, the answer that he deserves.


An hon. Member:: A study.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: There will be no study; there will be an answer given.



NECESSITY OF IMPROVING PATROLS AT BORDER POINTS

Claude Tessier: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of National Revenue.
Will the minister be prepared to discuss with his colleagues, the Minister of Employment and Immigration, as well as the Solicitor General, the need to improve patrols at border points and to increase the number of employees? Far from blaming the present staff, which is doing an excellent job, we must recognize their number is altogether insufficient because of budgetary restrictions and purely administrative limitations of which the rank and file are victims but which clearly entail insufficient control and an unacceptable level of surveillance at border points.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether that is a supplementary question to the first question. In any event, let me assure the hon. member that the Department of National Revenue, which supports generally the policy of restraint through the method of computerization and the appropriate allocation of man-years, is coping at the moment with the question the hon. gentleman raises, and I think it is coping quite adequately. If the hon. gentleman is aware of anything specific that he might bring to my attention as minister, I undertake to have it investigated.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board and is supplementary to that asked by my colleague, the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park. Will the minister tell the House directly whether the Canadian Transport Commission has suffered a reduction in man-years as a result of government cutbacks?


An hon. Member:: Order paper.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood.



TREASURY BOARD


Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. It concerns de Havilland and their plans for developing a new plane, the Dash X which is the new short take-off and landing plane.
I wonder if the President of the Treasury Board can confirm or deny that he and his department have been sitting for two months on approval by a committee in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce that the de Havilland corporation be given a grant of some $2 million, for the next six or seven months development of this critical plane in the plans for the future of the Canadian Aircraft industry.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as we indicated at the time we announced the possible privatization of de Havilland, we did not intend to cut off any ongoing funding of that organization which might otherwise be available to it. That is still the government's position.
The specific matter to which the hon. member refers has not been drawn to my attention. 1 will look into it to see whether there has been any type of procrastination with regard to a funding that is otherwise in order.


Bob Rae: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I think there is a very real danger that the future of this plan and this company will be sacrificed on the altar of the flat-earth economics currently practised by the government with respect to privatization.
My supplementary question for the President of the Treasury Board is this. In view of statements that have been made to the committee and outside this House by his colleague, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry, that it was not the plan of the government to sell off de Havilland for at least a year, and possibly even longer, and in view of the conflict that this has with the statement made to the House on Thursday by the President of the Treasury Board, I wonder if he could tell us what this insecurity, this doubt and this

November 14, 1979
Oral Questions
confusion about future funding and the security of the workers and of the technology in that industry, is doing for the future of the Canadian aircraft industry?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I think it is increasingly obvious that the main confusion is in the mind of the hon. member. The statement of my colleague to which the hon. member refers perhaps shows the difference between an optimist and a pessimist. I am optimistic enough to believe that we will have the co-operation of this House to get de Havilland returned to the private sector quite soon. My colleague is perhaps being a little more realistic and thinks it will take longer than I think it will. Frankly, I think it is in everybody's interest to get the de Havilland situation returned to private ownership, which was the stated position of the government of the day when they initially purchased de Havilland.



TRANSPORT


William Kenneth Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Minister of State for Economic Development, but since he is in the other place I would probably, appropriately, ask the Prime Minister for his comments. But he is not here either, so I will ask the minister who is looking after the matter, probably the Acting Prime Minister.
Last week I was assured by the Minister of State (Transport) that the application for assistance for Ontario's Urban Transportation Development Corporation's new rapid transit system was under very intensive study. He sent me a letter indicating that in July, 1979, the Ontario government submitted a proposal to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce requesting financial assistance and that the project is still under very active evaluation. In view of the fact that the Ontario transportation minister, James Snow, stated-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member intend to put a question?


William Kenneth Robinson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell me how much longer the government needs to study this issue, and when can Ontario's transit industry expect some financial assistance?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, this is a very high priority issue. The studies and papers have gone to the ministers, who have met on this issue and are continuing to meet on it. One of the problems that remains is the resolution of the Buy America program. My colleague, the Minister of State for International Trade, is busy at work on that issue. This government places a high priority on the potential of that new industry. We want to make sure there is not only a domestic market but international markets for it.



COAST GUARD


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister of state for marine transport. It arises from a Standing Order 43 motion that I moved a couple of weeks ago, wherein I stated that plans for the second phase of the coastguard college in Nova Scotia had been approved but financing had not been granted for it. Could the minister tell me if any developments have occurred on this facility since that time?


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, the government places a very high priority on the coastguard and the training of Canadians who wish to serve in that branch of the service. When plans for the coastguard college were submitted to Treasury Board over a year ago, the facility for recreation and health care:-essentially the gymnasium-was deleted. I plan at an appropriate time to resubmit that deleted portion to Treasury Board in the hope that now we have a new chairman who is both generous and intelligent, we might be able to have this matter reconsidered.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we are talking about the same President of the Treasury Board. I would ask the President of the Treasury Board if he will consider the application for approval of financing for the second phase of the coastguard college when it is submitted to him.


Mr. Speaker:: Obviously, the question is hypothetical in its own terms.



METRICATION


Mr. Ray Chenier (Timmins-Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that an aide to the minister said in a recent newspaper article that a freeze is planned on the requirements for the retail sector to convert to metric, I would like to ask the minister how he intends to ensure that metric conversion is completed, or does he intend to act on his own to dismantle the program?


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Certainly not, Mr. Speaker. The government is still wedded to the concept of metrication. There have been some administrative and regulatory difficulties, mainly arising out of actions of the previous administration, that have caused a great deal of concern not only in the retail area but in the consumer area; and certainly, as far as the administration of some of these matters is concerned, in the government.
With an overview committee now taking a look at certain aspects of the metrication program, obviously it would be ridiculous to start prosecuting some people in some of the pilot

November 14, 1979

areas for alleged defects as far as conformity to the regulations is concerned. That is a matter that has been put in a "hold" situation until the government has the benefit of the views not only of cabinet but of the overview committee.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the minister, by way of a supplementary, if he plans to enforce conversion as his officials have done in Peterborough-one of the metric test cities. In Peterborough, an official of his department closed down a meat shop the day after the proposed deadline for acquisition of metric scales, costing the owner $500 in lost sales. Does the minister plan to replace an orderly conversion with dictatorial tactics, or is he trying to put a bad name on the program in order to raise public fear?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member was either not listening to me or he misunderstood what 1 said. I said that, especially in the three pilot projects-and I would hope he would understand that Peterborough is one of those areas-some very real problems have been encountered as a result of the regulations passed by the previous administration. That resulted in these enforcement actions. As a result of problems that have come to the top of the picture since then, a "hold" has been put on some of those enforcement provisions until at least the overview committee has had the opportunity of reporting to cabinet.



SMALL LOANS ACT


Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance: it has to do with the Small Loans Act and today's high interest rates. Because of the difficult, if not impossible, conditions under which the co-operative credit associations must lend small loans under $1,500, and recognizing that although designed to protect the interests of the borrowers against high interest rates, this may in fact be causing persons to borrow more than $1,500 in order to get around the fact that there is no 12 per cent money around today, can the minister indicate whether he might be prepared to amend the Small Loans Act-which has been described as an act having no redeeming features-to grant relief to co-ops and caisses populaires which now may have their very existence threatened?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter which has been under review by the Department of Insurance, for which 1 am the minister responsible, and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whose department in recent years has been in charge of policy in this area. We are both aware of this problem. We want changes made to the legislation, and legislation will be coming forward in the New Year unless special dispensation can be arranged with the House, because we already have much legislation before us.
Oral Questions
Obviously, this limit is no longer satisfactory in today's conditions. The act was passed originally in 1956 when that rate was set. There does need to be relief. The act needs to be revised and we will continue to see which institutions should come under it and which should not. This is definitely an area which requires action as soon as possible.


Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Minister of Finance if he would elaborate a little further. What does he intend to do to offset in the interim between now and the time this legislation is introduced into the House- which could be late in the spring-the negative impact that his high interest rate policy is having on credit unions and caisses populaires in this country?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the interest rate condition in which we have been left by hon. gentlemen opposite is certainly causing some problems. In our upcoming budget we will deal with that, as the hon. gentleman knows. We certainly do not have to wait until the spring to introduce legislation on this matter. If we had the co-operation of members opposite, it would be introduced in a matter of weeks.



RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State for Science and Technology. He made a number of statements in Parliament and in committee about the review he is making with regard to increased funding for scientific research and development.
I would like to ask the minister whether he has had requests from scientific organizations to meet with him to discuss future policy before he finalizes the program. If the minister has received such requests, has he agreed to meet with them; and if not, why not?


An hon. Member:: Happy birthday, David!


Hon. Heward Grafftey (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: I should like to say to the hon. member that we have studied the universities' five-year plan, and for the last number of weeks 1 have been meeting with numerous people from the scientific community who have been giving me invaluable advice in terms of formulating policy. I have met with numerous people both from the private and the public sector at all levels of government.
1302

November 14, 1979
Oral Questions METRICATION



TERMS OF REFERENCE OF OVERVIEW COMMITTEE

Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is still responsible for the conversion to the metric system. Therefore, I want to give him an opportunity to correct an impression that he gave yesterday when he is quoted as having said there is a possibility that there will be a postponement of the conversion to the metric system, planned for January 1, for grocery stores, farmers and food packing and processing plants.
My understanding is that conversion in these areas, processing and packaging, is very much advanced-80 per cent completed-and that it is expected to be finished early next year. 1 should like to give the hon. gentleman the chance to correct the impression he has created.


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, the question is a good one and it arises out of the failure of the previous government, in the implementation of the metric process, to read and put into the process one of the key recommendations of the white paper on metrication.
The fact is, the whole process has been handled very well by the Metric Commission, who are engineers, who have been dealing with sectors of industry and associations, who have had time to sit down and study the various implications and problems involved. What has happened is this: in the process, the people outside have been forgotten and the human element has been completely ignored.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: This is a very important issue. I should like to read from the white paper-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister will have to recognize the limitations of the question period.


Jean-Luc Pepin: What we have just heard is a lecture. What 1 wanted was an indication of what the decision would be. Could the minister tell us what the decision is with respect to the application to the packaging industry and the processing industry? Is there a change?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Mr. Speaker, it would take the hon. member to know a lecture when he hears one. The essential corrective mechanism which has been recommended to me by the overview committee-it has not gone before cabinet yet- is to postpone the immediacy of the implementation of part two of the gazetting order. The period of extension has not been decided, and we are awaiting the second report of the overview board.



PRIVILEGE


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker,
I rise on a question of privilege and thank you for giving me the opportunity, one which I do not take lightly and which I assure you I shall not abuse either through length or content of intervention.
I intend to centre my presentation on two main points, both of which concern the derailment of the CP freight train which occurred at midnight on Saturday, November 10.
At 7.02 a.m. on Sunday, November 11, CKO All News Radio in Toronto reported that chlorine was leaking from one of the tank cars. A similar report was made by Newsradio of Ottawa at 7.15 a.m., and was confirmed by CKOY Ottawa at eight o'clock on Sunday morning. Reports of the chlorine leak were also carried by CBC, CTV and Global on Sunday, over their respective television stations. Monday newspapers, including the Montreal Gazette, The Toronto Sun, The Ottawa Journal and The Citizen-to mention only a few-all reported a chlorine leak. The early edition of The Globe and Mail of November 12 specified, on page 10, that "between 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. chlorine gas was discovered leaking from a derailed tank car".
At 2.30 on Monday afternoon, sir, I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Crombie) what specific steps were being taken to protect the people of Mississauga and of neighbouring communities from possible chlorine vapours arising from the leakage. The minister's reply, as reported at page 1182 of Hansard, was:
Mr. Speaker, certainly I would not want to give any comfort to the suggestion of a rumour that there is a leak.
Some rumour! I should point out that in an effort to be fair to the minister, lest I had heard him incorrectly, I went upstairs to check the Hansard blues but was advised I could not cite the rough copy in the House. The minister had a further opportunity to correct his statement at the end of the question period but chose not to raise a point of order, so as to do so. It was then, sir, that I rose on a point of order and asked leave to be recognized on a question of privilege, later postponed until the minister's return to the House.
My first point, then, is that by his cavalier dismissal of confirmed reports 1 have documented from reputable news agencies, as mere rumour, the minister not only damaged their credibility but seriously impugned my integrity and that, by denying the premise of my question, he effectively obstructed me from representing the deep and legitimate concerns of my constituents.
Concern for my constituents and, indeed, for all the people of Canada, brings me to the second phase of my question of privilege, because when referring to the leak, the minister went on to say "I have no such knowledge of that." I would remind the House that confirmed reports show that the leak occurred between 2 a.m. and 3 a.m. on November 11, yet some 36 hours after the accident occurred, and despite several well-publicized

November 14, 1979

reports, the minister glibly informed the House that he had no knowledge of what, but for the grace of God, could have been the most serious threat to health and even life that Canadians have faced since the First World War.
Mr. Speaker, my honour and credibility as a member of Parliament have been seriously questioned by the minister, but I suggest that the broader threat posed by this incident is to the confidence the people of Canada can place in this minister and his advisers. 1 therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery):
That this entire matter be brought before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I have had an opportunity to look at the blues. I was not in the House yesterday. My understanding, initially, of the hon. member's question was, indeed, that she was referring to another leak. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and, indeed, anyone else, that I was aware there was an initial leak because I was in Toronto on Monday, on the way back from Regina to get in touch with my mother and sister who are both evacuated. So I can assure the hon. member and anyone else who is interested in the matter that I was well aware of the leak.
1 heard the hon. member's question. She used the words "I gather there already is". I thought she was referring to a second leak. My concern was not to give any credibility to the suggestion there was another leak, because anyone who has been involved at any time in an evacuation operation knows that one of the greatest enemies of evacuation is panic.
My assumption was that the hon. member was talking about another leak. Clearly, anybody who was in the country knew that there was a first leak. I was in Mississauga and, as I say, there were members of my own family being evacuated, so I was clearly aware of a leak. It appears when I read the blues that the hon. member was clearly not talking about a second leak, but that was the way I took the question. Certainly as I read the blues I can understand her concern, and I hope she will accept my apology in the matter.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister's declaration that he had made an honest error in interpretation of the question and his extension of an apology, of course close the matter fully.
I also have notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis).



MR. FLIS-STATEMENT MADE BY PRESIDENT OF TREASURY BOARD

Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises from the statement made by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) when he said that I should not have made certain statements in this House without checking out my facts. The facts he was referring to were the facts I mentioned in my second question, that the
Privilege-Mr. Murphy
Canadian Transport Commission is being forced to reduce its already inadequate staffing by 100 people. Yesterday in the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications the commissioner of the CTC gave us those facts.
My question of privilege makes three requests of the President of the Treasury Board. First, would the minister withdraw his remarks about the accuracy of my statement? Second, knowing that the facts are accurate, will he give this House a responsible answer? We are dealing with people's lives here. Third, will the minister apologize to the constituents of Parkdale-High Park, because they elected a member who has his facts correct and accurate?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I will make two comments. I would be very interested in your ruling as to whether that in fact is a question of privilege, but if the hon. member reads my reply to his earlier question I think he will find that I simply said that 1 would like him to give whatever concrete evidence he has to support his question. That is where it sits. If this is the concrete evidence he is offering, fine, I will take it from there and look into the statement he has made.


Mr. Speaker:: We have dealt with the matter rather briefly, and that is all to the good. The fact of the matter is that the disagreement was exactly that, a disagreement, and it is confirmed as such because in fact it relates to a policy or a future event again. As 1 recall it now-it has been raised and contributed to by both parties-it deals with a possible reduction in staff. I believe there was some possibility of intended cutbacks in personnel. In any case, once again it is a matter not of privilege but a matter of legitimate disagreement between the two members involved.
I have a notice of privilege from the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy).



MR. MURPHY-ANSWER GIVEN BY MINISTER OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT

Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege refers to the answer I received today from the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Epp). As you are aware, I had asked when negotiations would be taking place between the Saskatchewan government, the federal government and the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians. In his reply the minister left the impression that these negotiations would be taking place next week.
During the question period I had my office check with the minister responsible in the Saskatchewan government, with the National Indian Brotherhood and with the Federation of Saskatchewan Indians. Each group and individual denied any knowledge of a meeting taking place next week. The impression which was left was that negotiations would be taking place next week on this matter, and I believe it is a very important matter.
I do not wish to take the time of the House to review my position which I put forward earlier, but native people quite

November 14, 1979
Privilege-Mr. M. A. Dionne
often feel that they are being left out and not being considered by the government. We have delay after delay by the government, and if there is another delay in this regard, I would like to know about that.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, i question again whether these are questions of privilege, but I will try to answer to clarify for the hon. member and for the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are in precisely the same situation. The minister has now given again an indication not of a past event, which might be a matter of record, but of a future event. Granted, however, it has been a practice from time to time when members who have put questions and received an answer from a minister and state that the answer may have a misleading effect, to give the minister an opportunity to change that, if indeed it needs changing. To that extent I am prepared to hear the minister briefly, but if it is simply an argument as to whether the minister is correctly predicting a matter under his own authority that cannot constitute privilege.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, I accept your interpretation, and I want to indicate to the hon. member again, so that there will be no question among the native community-or anyone else for that matter-that I am meeting tomorrow between ten o'clock and twelve o'clock with the president of the FSI at which time it is our understanding that the question of land entitlement will be discussed. With regard to the meeting 1 referred to last week, we are putting into place meetings specifically on the Prince Albert situation. The hon. member possibly knows that that is also part of the land entitlement situation, and it has been the agreement that what we should do is meet with all the parties concerned in order that we can amicably come to a conclusion on that one as well. I indicate to the hon. member that I am willing to meet at any time. 1 have done that and obviously have had meetings with Indian groups and made myself available for that purpose.



MR. DIONNE (NORTHUMBERLAND-MIRAMICHI)-PROCEDURE DURING QUESTION PERIOD

Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, early in the question period today the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) asked a question of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) referring to the Canadian Transport Commission. He said in part, "Is the commission being forced to reduce its already inadequate staffing by 100 people at a time when it requires more people to do its job, not fewer?" Immediately following his question I rose to ask a supplementary. When you did see me, Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board had left the House, so I suggested that perhaps you might see me again when he returned, which you generously did, and I put what I thought was a very straightforward, direct, and important question, asking directly whether in fact the Canadian Transport Commission had suffered a reduction in man-years as a

result of government cutbacks. For some reason I was cut off by Your Honour.
Mr. Speaker, I want to assure you that I was in no way trying to flaunt the procedures of the House, and I ask for your guidance in respect to what manner my question offended the procedures of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will realize, of course, that he had asked a question supplementary to the one just discussed. He clearly rose just after or during the question by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy) of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Epp). He used the word "supplementary" when he got to his feet which, whether I was wrong or not, left clear the impression that he was trying to ask a supplementary on that question to that minister and on that subject. When I recognized him, he moved to a different subject.
If I am to follow the practice, as I did in this case, 1 had him on the list of questioners and would have recognized the hon. member for his own question on his own. I accelerated his position because he indicated to me that he had a supplementary question. When a member rises in his place and uses the word "supplementary" to the Chair, that to me means that it is supplementary to the question just dealt with, and if I tried to treat it any other way, it could be chaotic.
The hon. member was attempting to put a question which was supplementary to the very first question asked in the question period, and if I were to allow all members to use that way of getting recognized during question period, I could not keep any kind of order at all. I have to take "supplementary" in that way to mean supplementary to the question which is on the floor at the present time, and I therefore break up the expected rotation to go to a member to follow the same subject. If it is not on the same subject that is on the floor, the results can be chaotic and, I think, unfair to members. For that reason I did not let the hon. member put his question.



POINTS OF ORDER


Mr. Thomas H. Lefebvre (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I realize in bringing this point of order to your attention and to the attention of the House that it might be put down as just a member complaining. However, on behalf of the official opposition it has been brought to my attention by many members-and there may be others on the other side of the House as well-that the lighting system in this House installed for the televising of debates is becoming more and more uncomfortable and very hard to put up with.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Lefebvre: I would like to bring this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, as the final authority in this House, to see if you
November 14, 1979

can ask for an inquiry by experts into this situation-perhaps consultants-so that something could be done so that the televising could continue but that we would not have to wear coloured glasses, eye shades, and everything else that we may end up having to wear.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member raises a good point. I can tell him that in fact engineers were put to work on a re-evaluation of the lighting levels in the Elouse a few days ago. As soon as I have their preliminary review, I will pass it along to the House.



MR. KNOWLES-NECESSITY TO REPRINT BILL C-24

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. It may seem to be just a technicality, but I regard it as an important one. If, by any chance, you have noticed it, 1 am sure you would agree with me. It is very clear that the only persons who can have bills before the House of Commons are members of the House of Commons. But yesterday there came to my desk a printed copy of a bill that had been introduced in the name of the Minister of State for Federal-Provincial Relations (Mr. Jarvis). On the front it reads "The Minister of Justice". Sir, the Minister of Justice is a good friend of mine, and it was a pleasure to travel with him in September to China, but he is not a member of this House. I urge very strongly that this bill be reprinted. It is all right for the Senate to pass bills and send them over to us, but when it is a House of Commons bill, it should be in the name of a member of the House of Commons, not in the name of a senator.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has a point well taken. Again I may say that the administration has anticipated the point and the bill is already being reprinted.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, there have been some very amicable discussions among members of the House, the House Leader of the Official Opposition, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), and also the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert), with regard to how we might deal with Bill C-23. As a result of the discussions I have a motion to propose to the House and 1 would like the unanimous consent of the House to allow me to propose it. If there is that unanimous consent, I would like to
Order Paper Questions
move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That on Friday, November 16, 1979, the hour for private members' business be suspended; and that at 4.45 p.m. Mr. Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings then before the House and put every question necessary to dispose of all remaining stages of Bill C-23, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1980.
In moving that motion 1 would like to thank my colleagues for their help and co-operation.


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, obviously it is with the spirit of co-operation which is our characteristic that we have agreed to that motion. I want to say that this afternoon the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) had the courtesy to assure us that in Committee of the Whole we could question the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss MacDonald) and that next Friday we could also question the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Atkey), and that the opposition will be quite free to use all the time put at its disposal. In those circumstances, we are pleased to co-operate again with the government, to ease passage of the legislation and to adopt the motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, Mr. Speaker, it is correct that there have been consultations with respect to this motion and it has our consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House give its consent to the presentation of this motion at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 47, 56, 93, 188, 203, 211, 226, 272, 283, 304, 356, 362, 386, 396, 399, and 421.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

November 14, 1979
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who (a) is the president (b) are the vice-presidents of the National Gallery of Canada?
2.	What is the annual salary in each case?


Mrs. Diane Stratas (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: I am informed by the National Museums of Canada as follows:
1.	(a) Director, Dr. Hsio-Yen Shih
(b) Assistant Director, Collections and Research-Mr. Brydon Smith
Assistant Director, Public Programs-Mr. Michael Bell
Assistant Director, Finance and Administration- Mr. Michael Carroll.
2.	The annual salaries of each officer are as follows: Director (SX-3 level)
Salary Range: $43,000-$59,000
Assistant Director, Collections and Research (HR-5
level)
Salary Range: $32,000-$38,000
Assistant Director, Public Programs (PM-7 level)
Salary Range: $32,000-$38,000
Assistant Director, Finance and Administration
(AS-7 level)
Salary Range: $30,000-$37,000


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who (a) is the president (b) are the vice-presidents of the Canadian Film Development Corporation?
2.	What is the annual salary in each case?


Diane Rose Stratas: I am informed by the Canadian Film Development Corporation as follows:
1.	(a) Mr. Michel Vennat (b) Vacant
2.	(a) $225 per day up to a maximum of $29,500 per
annum.
(b) No remuneration is given other than the normal fees for members of the Corporation's Board of Directors, namely $125 per day when the board meets.


Mr. Allard: Since 1978, did the Department of Employment and Immigration finance projects in the constituency of Rimouski as part of the Canada Works program

and, if so (a) what were the projects (b) what was the (i) total amount (ii) amount in each case (c) what were the areas?


Hon. Ronald Atkey (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1338GH9	150* Anniversaire St-Germain	28,530	Rimouski2848GH6	Bouffe D'Air	31,512	St-Donat2922GH9	Qualite de Vie St-Moise	31,512	St-Molse2923GH7	Nutri Vie	38,040	Mont-Joli2927GH8	Action Communautaire St-Gabriel	39,112	St-Gabriel2928GH6	Recherche Folklore Reg	23,560	Rimouski2930GH2	Ensemble Dans VAction	22,824	St-Octave de Metis2932GH8	Situation Environnement Sanitaire	28,530	La R6demption3033GH4	Conseil Regional pour Initiative pour Progrfcs feconomiquc Developpement Et Promotion du Tourisme a Rimouski	21,204	Rimouski3035GH9	28,530	Rimouski3039GH1	Centre Communautaire	26,260	Ste-Blandine3043GH3	Promotion Pour la Qualite de la Vie	30,424	Mont-Joli3046GH6	Eco Plein Air	27,840	Ste-Blandine3051GH6	Ceramique et Poterie un Loisir pour Tous	28,530	Mont-Joli Price3133GH2	Operation Embellissement	23,723	Stc-Flavie3135GH7	Allons de L'avant	28,530	La Trinit6 Des Monts3137GH3	Papyrus	21,204	Rimouski3138GH1	Vivre Grandir et Vieillir & St-Marcellin	28,530	Saint-Marcellin3139GH9	Amelioration Ste-Luce	21,204	Ste-Luce3142GH3	Structuration de la Grande Ourse	21,760	Rimouski3143GH1	fetude Et Amenagement De la Zeo Bas St-Laurent	22,229	Ste-Ir&ne3670GH3	Prevention Domaine Budget Familial	18,848	Mont-Joli3777GH6	Embellissons Notre Milieu	31,512	St-Franyois Xavier Hauteurs3811GH3	Structuration du Plein Air dans Duchenier	31,512	Esprit Saint3837GH8	Nouvel Essor	41,415	St-Donat3839GH4	Patrimoine qui Veut Revivre	50,250	St-Val6rien3843GH6	Theatre des Marionnettes ne Polluent pas L'air	39,390	Rimouski and Area3850GH1	Allons de L'Avant	31,512	Ste-Jeanne D'arc3851GH9	Reflets Nouveaux	39,390	St-Narcisse3852GH7	Mont-Joli Centenaire	28,530	Mont-Joli3853GH5	Val Rives	37,120	Val Brillant3854GH3	Dynamo II	26,260	Saint-Noil3855GHO	Loisirs Culturels et Sportifs 78/79	19,020	Sainte-Angele4202GH4	Ressuscitons L'Environnement	23,775	Sayabec3144GH9	Faune Chez Nous, La	15,400	St-Cleophas3145GH6	Aminagement du Centre Communautaire	16,492	Rimouski3147GH2	Intensification des Activites de Plein Air	26,260	Ste-Irine


Mr. Herbert: How many (a) permanent (b) term employees were on the Department of the Secretary of State's payroll on March 31, 1979?


Diane Rose Stratas: (a) 3,090; (b) 181.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Herbert: How many (a) permanent (b) term employees were on the Treasury Board's payroll on March 31, 1979?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: (a)
885; (b) 19.


Mr. Caouette: How many persons are employed by Atomic Energy of Canada Limited in each province and what is the percentage of Francophones?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited reports as follows:
	Number	Percentage
	of	of
Province	Employees	FrancophonesOntario	4,945	5.2Manitoba	864	5.2Nova Scotia	770	1.4Quebec	304	44.7


Mr. Herbert: How many persons participated in the Open House Canada Program in (a) 1977 (b) 1978 (c) 1979 to date, and what is the estimated total for 1979 and 1980?


Diane Rose Stratas: (a)	1977-4,132 participants
(b)	1978-28,014 participants
(c)	January to October 17, 1979-27,420 participants Estimated total for:
1979-	37,992 participants
1980-	cannot be projected until program budget is determined for fiscal year 1980-81.


Mr. Herbert: How many (a) permanent (b) term employees were on the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources' payroll on March 31, 1979?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The Department of Energy, Mines and Resources reports as follows: (a) 3,426; (b) 366.


Mr. Herbert: Is CBC using the old Ford Building on Dorchester Blvd., Montreal, and, if so (a) for what purpose (b) what is the size of the floor space in use (c) what is the intended future use of the building?


Diane Rose Stratas: I am informed by the CBC as follows: No. The property in question was sold by the Department of Public Works, as agents for the CBC, as authorized by order in council P.C. 1979-1523 dated May 17, 1979.

November 14, 1979
Order Paper Questions MAURICIE NATIONAL PARK-CONTRACTS


Mr. Roy (Beauce): Did the government grant contracts, without calls for tender, for the (a) study (b) design (c) development (d) various projects for the completion of the Mauricie National Park and, if so, in what amount in each case?


Hon. John A. Fraser (Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment):: (a) Study: Yes, $134,480 (3 contracts); (b) Design: no; (c) Development: no; (d) various projects: yes, $25,600. (1 contract).


Mr. Herbert: 1.	Does the government discourage public servants from taking vacations while on official trips?
2.	Were directives issued concerning the practice that would enable public servants to have part of the cost of their holiday travel paid by the taxpayer?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: 1.
No. It is recognized that on occasion a public servant may wish to combine personal matters with legitimate business travel. While this is not prohibited, the additional costs related to the private portion of the trip, including travel, accommodation and meals, must be borne by the employee. In addition, vacation leave credits must be used for the time spent away from the office which is not specifically related to the authorized business travel.
2. No.


Mr. Herbert: Which department is responsible for granting end user certificates on Canadian arms exports?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of State for International Trade):: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned: The Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce has requested end user certificates as a condition for the issuance of export permits for certain Canadian arms exports. The recipient importing country issues these end user certificates.


Mr. Mitges: 1.	For the fiscal year 1979-80, did the National Action Committee on the Status of Women apply to the Department of the Secretary of State for a grant and, if so, for what amount?
2.	Was the application approved and, if so, in what amount?


Diane Rose Stratas: 1.	The National Action Committee on the Status of Women applied for a grant during the fiscal year 1979-80 in the amount of $110,000.
2.	A grant was approved for the amount of $50,000.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the approximate number of persons who made use of the St. Lawrence Islands National Park during the 1979 season and, how many were (a) estimated to be residents of Canada (b) visitors from the United States?
2.	Is there any division of figures available as to how many who visited the National Park during the 1979 season made use of the (a) mainland part at Mallorytown Landing (b) various island parks in the system?
3.	What was the total (a) revenue collected (b) expenditure made in connection with Parks operations in 1979?


John Allen Fraser: 1.	The approximate number of persons making use of St. Lawrence Islands National Park during the 1979 season was 239,955.
(a)	Residents of Canada-192,655
(b)	Residents of United States-47,300
2.	(a) Visitors to mainland (Mallorytown Landing)-
28,771
(b) Visitors to islands-211,184
(a) Revenue 1979	-Camping -Day Use Area -Overnight Docking	$ 7,221 $ 6,015 $ 29,317
	Total	S 42,553
(b) Expenditures	(Operations)	
1979 Budget:	Salaries and Wages Operating Expenditures Purchase of Operating Services Summer Youth Employment Program Youth Job Corps	$489,000 146,000 21,000 11,900 14,000
	Total	$681,900


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the National Historic Sites and Monuments Board designate any places in the constituency of Leeds-Grenville and, if so, what is a list of such places, their locations and details?
2.	Are any further locations presently under consideration and, if so, what are their locations and details?
3.	Was consideration ever given to MacDonald House in Gananoque, Ontario and Block House Island in Brockville, Ontario?


John Allen Fraser: 1. Yes-See list below.
2.	No.
3.	No, but the board would be pleased to do so if requested.

November 14, 1979

National Historic Sites: Leeds-Grenville
(i)	Battle of the Windmill, declared to be of national historic significance in 1920. Plaque erected near Prescott in 1923.
(ii)	Fort Wellington (National Historic Park) declared to be of national historic significance in 1925. Plaque erected in 1926.
(iii)	Gananoque, declared to be of national historic significance in 1936. Plaque erected in Gananoque in 1948.
(iv)	Merrickville Blockhouse, declared to be of national historic significance in 1939. Plaque erected in Merrickville in 1940.
(v)	Grand Trunk Station, Prescott, declared to be of national historic and architectural significance in 1976. Plaque to be erected.
(vi)	Sir William Buell Richards, declared to be of national historic significance in 1938. Plaque erected in Brockville in 1949.
(vii)	Sir Richard William Scott, declared to be of national historic significance in 1938. Plaque erected in Brockville in 1949.
(viii)	Bridge (Chimney) Island, declared to be of national historic significance in 1936. Plaque erected at Mal-lorytown Landing in 1937.
(ix)	Fort de Levis, declared to be of national historic significance in 1925. Plaque erected in Johnstown in 1926.
(x)	Lansdowne Iron Works, declared to be of national historic significance in 1932. Plaque erected in Lyndhurst in 1935.
(xi)	Pointe au Baril declared to be of national historic significance in 1927. Plaque erected in Maitland in 1931.
(xii)	Leeds-Grenville County Courthouse, declared to be of national historic significance in 1966. Plaque erected in Brockville in 1979.
(xiii)	Old Stone Mill, declared to be of national historic and architectural significance in 1970. Plaqued in Delta in 1973.


Mr. Herbert: What is the estimated cost of the administration of the Mortgage Interest and Municipal Tax Deductibility Program for each of the first five years of the Program?


Walter David Baker: The estimated cost of the administration of the Mortgage Interest and Municipal Tax Deductibility Program is as follows:
Motions for Papers
First year: 1979-80-71 person-years and $1,810,000. This first year is a partial year.
Second year: 1980-81-266 person-years and $3,437,000. Subsequent years: costs will be dependent on the volume of returns and increases in price.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
V V *


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 3, 4 and 12? Notice of motion for the production of papers No. 15 is acceptable to the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 15-Mr. Herbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the last report prior to March 31, 1979 and a copy of any reports made since that date by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation on the deductibility of mortgage insurance and/or interest and also property taxes for income tax purposes.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. 15 in the name of the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 3-Mr. Herbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, notes, minutes of meetings and other communications relating to the decentralization of the Department of Veterans Affairs to the province of Prince Edward Island.
David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. McKinnon) may I ask the member to withdraw his motion because part of the material requested involves ongoing negotiations which may culminate in agreements between the federal, provincial, and municipal governments involved, and therefore cannot be released. However, I invite the hon. member to visit the Department of Veterans Affairs, and the minister will make available to him that material which need not be excluded because of negotiations.
1310

November 14, 1979
Motions for Papers Mr. Herbert: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 4-Mr. Herbert:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, notes, minutes of meetings, agreements and other communications between the government and the province of Quebec concerning the transfer of the Queen Mary Veterans Hospital in Montreal.
David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Minister of National Defence and Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. McKinnon) I would ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion on the grounds that the papers requested are of a voluminous character and would require an inordinate cost and length of time to prepare. However, I invite the hon. member to visit the Department of Veterans Affairs at which time our files containing the required documents, except for any correspondence requiring provincial agreement before it is shown, will be made available to him for perusal.


Mr. Herbert:: Withdrawn.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is withdrawn.
REGISTERED RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLANS Motion No. 12-Mr. Herbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of a list of the registrations of companies, incorporated or otherwise, that are permitted to deal with Registered Retirement Savings Plans.


Mr. Ron Ritchie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have to report that the information requested by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) does not exist.
Subsection 146(1) of the Income Tax Act sets out the requirements for registered retirement savings plans and the definition of "retirement savings plan" in paragraph (j) thereof provides the qualifications necessary for a person to issue registered retirement savings plans. Neither the Department of Finance nor any other federal department maintains a listing of the individual companies or other organizations which qualify under these provisions to issue RRSPs.
Therefore, I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, November 13, consideration in committee of Bill C-23, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending March 31, 1980-Mr. Stevens-Mr. Scott (Vic-toria-Haliburton) in the chair.
The Assistant Deputy Chairman:: When the committee rose on Tuesday, November 13, 1979, schedule D of the bill was under consideration.
On schedule D-


Mr. Jarvis (Willowdale):: Mr. Chairman, when the debate was under way in committee yesterday, there were a series of questions posed for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources by certain members. The minister had to leave to attend a conference, and I sat in for the latter part of those questions.
First 1 should like to advise the committee that the questions of the members posed when the minister was in attendance will be answered in writing to the particular members and, in particular, the question posed by the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle will be answered directly by the minister. The questions I should like to answer were those posed by the hon. member for Regina East, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre, and the hon. member for Edmonton East.
I should like to start first with the questions posed by the hon. member for Regina East. At the opening of his statement the hon. member asked if the reason the federal government was able to keep oil prices down was because the government had made some kind of a deal to compensate the province of Alberta through gas exports. The answer to the question is, categorically, no. Oil pricing is a matter of national concern. Hon. members are aware that a first ministers' conference took place earlier this week and that a meeting is now taking place between the Prime Minister, my minister, and representatives of the producing provinces. That meeting is taking place this week. The procedure will be for the price of oil to be set through that process.
With respect to the price and the quantity of gas exports, that is a matter for the National Energy Board. The National Energy Board will make its decision on findings as to the amounts of natural gas which are reasonably surplus to Canadian needs and based on finds and capped reserves within the gasfields.
Then the hon. member for Regina East raised a series of other questions concerning the use of insulation within homes in Canada as part of the conservation program. He questioned the safety standards that were being used for insulation or some types of insulation materials for houses. In particular I
November 14, 1979

advise the committee that cellulose insulation products are now regulated under the Hazardous Products Act. Standards have been set by the Canadian government specification board. There is regulation of the manufacture of these products which is now administered by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. His concern with respect to safety standards, while I appreciate it being raised, is one that has been met by the government.
Then the hon. member went on to suggest that four policies should be adopted with respect to the insulation program. He suggested that the first policy should be adequate research. I should like to advise the member that research in this area is a responsibility of the National Research Council, in its division of building research, which has an ongoing program specifically related to energy conservation. It has a current operating budget of about $2.5 million for research in this area. In addition, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources has an ongoing supportive research program under CANMET, the Canadian Centre for Mineral and Energy Technology. Under a division of CANMET, the division of Canadian combustion research laboratories, a further research program on the effectiveness of insulation is being carried out.
The second question or head the hon. member posed had to do with proper regulation. The federal government is a leader with respect to regulation. It adopted a national building code which it urges all provinces to adopt. The jurisdiction for the adoption of the building code lies with the provinces. However, the federal government has taken the lead. Also I should advise the hon. member that the national building code subcommittee's "Measures for Energy Conservation in Buildings," a recently published additional document, sets out even more stringent standards which are now being urged upon provincial governments.
Also the hon. member suggested that the program should cover more than just insulation of roofs and walls. I should like to advise the member that the program now covers in addition to insulation, caulking, weatherstripping and vapour barriers. For consideration in the future will be improvements to doors and windows.
His suggestion was that the program should not be turned over to the provinces, with funding by the federal government. However, his fourth point was that the entire program should be personalized and should use community facilities. It is for that reason the program is being turned over to the provincial governments. The provincial governments, and local municipalities under provincial government auspices, have inspection programs, training programs, all the training programs for installers and builders. All licensing programs are under the jurisdiction of the provinces. It is within the provincial jurisdiction that the most effective control can take place.
There is a failing in the program which we recognize, and that is that rental accommodation is not being upgraded. Neither the landlord nor the tenant, because of the term of the tenancy or the tenure in the dwelling, is taking advantage of the program. We have made representations to the provincial jurisdictions for amendments to their landlord and tenants act
Supply
which will bring about encouragement in this particular area. I trust that my comments have answered the questions posed by the hon. member for Regina East.
I should like to turn very briefly to the questions posed by the hon. member for Edmonton East.


Thomas Lefebvre: Mr. Chairman, may I interrupt for one moment?


Fred Alward McCain: The hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle.


Thomas Lefebvre: I wish to thank the parliamentary secretary for his courtesy in advising me that the minister would reply to my question by letter within the next few days. Will the minister be present in the House between now and Friday? We have all day today, but tomorrow is an opposition day and it would not be opportune for the minister to answer my question at that time. We will be dealing in committee with this bill until Friday at 4.45 p.m. Will the minister be in the House between now and then? My question is on the record of this House, as reported in Hansard, and I think it would be more appropriate if the minister's answer were as well. Can the parliamentary secretary reply to that comment? If not, I will see.


Robert Jarvis: Mr. Chairman, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is attending a conference at this time which has to do with the question of pricing, a federal government and producing province jurisdiction. I am not certain whether the minister will be back, but I will make inquiries this afternoon and advise the hon. member if it will be possible for the minister to be in the House either tomorrow or Friday, when this matter is being considered in committee.


Thomas Lefebvre: Thank you.


Robert Jarvis: Very quickly I should like to respond to the questions posed by the hon. member for Edmonton East and the hon. member for Ottawa Centre. The hon. member for Edmonton East asked if there was a domestic oil supply scenario for 1990. Now, that could be the subject of many hours of debate. However, 1 should like to advise the hon. member that in very short terms the fall in the production of light crude oil is noted and is taking place.
This fall in the production of light crude must be replaced by other sources of energy, and there are only certain other sources of energy. It would be this government's policy to pursue actively the search for all of these sources, and they would include the following: development of heavy oils both in the tar sands and in situ, such as proposed at Cold Lake; enhanced recovery, or research and development into enhanced recovery procedures for the recovery of additional oil from old fields and now producing fields; oil and petroleum products that will come about through new finds, and these finds must take place in the existing Alberta basin and in the frontier regions, which would include both the north and the east coast

November 14, 1979
Supply
areas; production, or if you will, energy consumption also controlled through conservation, and this government will pursue an active program of conservation in all areas of energy use; and lastly, there will be a program of substitution, substitution from petroleum-based products, or oil-based products to gas, biomass and other renewables, the utilization of our coal resources, thermal resources and so on. It will be through a program pursuing all of these areas that we will achieve energy self-sufficiency by the year 1990.
The hon. member also asked if we knew the cost. No, we do not know the cost. We do know, or we can hazard a guess, that in the petroleum area it could cost as much as $100 billion between now and 1990 to become petroleum self-sufficient.
The member then asked where the money would come from. Frankly, Mr. Chairman, I have to advise the member that there is no good fairy. Canada is not going to win a world lottery and come up with all of the money. This money is going to have to be earned by Canadians working here; it is through the efforts of Canadians, through their savings, through their industry, through their exports, and through their activities in the world that the money will be raised. It is Canadians who are going to have to raise the money to pay for this. No one else is going to come to our rescue. We must look after ourselves.
The last question was, when do we start collecting the money necessary to pay for this program? Mr. Chairman, 1 would advise that we will start collecting the moment the oil prices are set and the budget comes down. That is the reason we have had the first ministers' conference this week and why there is a conference taking place in western Canada, and why we have budgets. The collection of this money will come about as soon as the Prime Minister returns and announces to this House the policies with respect to the taxation and collection of revenues from the increased prices for oil products.
Lastly I would like to turn to the questions posed by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre. He posed four questions, the first of which was: what price is required to bring on new supplies? It is much the same question as was posed by the hon. member for Regina East, and i hope he will take the same answer. It was put if we had no exact number on the price then we should not embark on this program until we knew the price. I must advise the hon. member that we do not know the price, but the kind of question he posed was one such as, what price to find a cure for cancer; what price to find a cure for poliomyelitis, or what price did we pay for the eradication of smallpox?
We in Canada face a situation which requires action. We as a nation must bear the price, whatever it is, because as a nation we require energy self-sufficiency. With our given resources, with the given knowledge with respect to what we have in the ground in this country, we know that the price is the most reasonable price that can be paid by any industrialized nation in the world.

He also asked what will be the rate of return to the investor for new supplies and, Mr. Chairman, I would advise the member that the rate of return will be the reasonable rate of return for any investor, along with what is required for the activity to take place in this country. The rate of return is something that is now being discussed by the Prime Minister and my minister in their meetings out west, and it is something that has been discussed with the other first ministers, and it will be announced to the House when the program has been set and established. I would have to ask the hon. member to wait until the program is announced by the Prime Minister.
The hon. member also suggested that we could effect conservation by raising prices above world prices. I think the statement he made was that we could dampen consumption by going above world prices; we could dampen consumption to a nil basis simply by raising prices up. That is correct, but it is not reasonable or feasible.
The last question that he asked had to do with the distribution of additional revenues. 1 would again advise the hon. member that the distribution of additional revenues which will accrue to the federal government is for energy self-sufficiency and increased productivity; to finance the goal of being selfsufficient by 1990. The collection of those revenues and the percentages that will be assigned to the various jurisdictions are what are now being negotiated. I would point out to the hon. member that the old program, the program that we have been following since 1975, of a dollar and a dollar every six months, resulted in a surplus in production in 1975 of over 300,000 barrels per day, but a shortfall in November, 1979, of over 314,000 barrels a day, so clearly the old regime was not working and was not bringing us toward self-sufficiency.


John Leslie Evans: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I just want to clear up one point. I have just finished reading Hansard of yesterday and the statement that I made, and nowhere in that statement did I ever refer to charging a price to consumers to dampen demand which would be higher than the world price. I said at that time the price to achieve conservation was unknown, and we did not know what it was. It may be higher or lower than the replacement cost. Certainly I never said that consumers in Canada should be charged more than the world price in order to dampen demand.


Robert Jarvis: Mr. Chairman, I accept the statement of the hon. member. My notes that I made at the time and my recollection are incorrect. I certainly welcome his statement and suggestion that we should never charge more than world prices.


Mr. de Jong:: Mr. Chairman, if I could rise on a similar matter, I would like to clarify that I am not against turning the home insulation program over to the provinces. I did raise some things, however, that I felt a national home conservation program should have, and 1 was concerned that some of those matters would be missing if you just turn it over to the provinces. I think I was making suggestions that allow the provinces to be in, but keep the federal government in as well.
November 14, 1979


Robert Jarvis: I also thank the hon. member for his statement and clarification.


Bob Rae: Mr. Chairman, I want to take the opportunity of having the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the House to raise certain questions with her concerning her department and concerning Canadian foreign policy.
I want to begin by publicly repeating the congratulations which I have given the Secretary of State for External Affairs on her appointment, and to promise her that there are many in this party who follow her speeches, statements, and the policies of her department with great interest. Needless to say, I am one of those members who, for personal reasons, has long taken an interest in her department and will continue to do so.
There are basically four areas to which I would like to address myself, and I beg the indulgence of the minister, if 1 may, for a few minutes, to put forward a point of view and then to ask her some questions.
Three really concern peacekeeping and Canada's role, first of all in Cyprus, second of all in the Middle East, and third of all in Rhodesia; and finally 1 have some questions concerning her speeches and the statements by the Minister of Finance concerning Canada's future intentions with respect to foreign aid.
With regard to the Cyprus question, Canada has had a long history of very close involvement in the difficulties of that island since 1963. I would like to put to the minister a slightly different history and conception of the problems on that island from the concept I suspect she is receiving from her department and which, indeed, is American foreign policy and the foreign policy of many of the NATO countries with respect to Cyprus.
There was extraordinary tension between the Greek Cypriot population and the Turkish Cypriot population from before the Zurich agreement in 1960 and the declaration of the republic soon afterwards, all of which is well known to the minister, and it is not necessary for me to go into that. We are dealing with an island that has a population of approximately 600,000 people, of whom over 80 per cent are of Greek origin and about 20 per cent are of Turkish origin. There were a number of internecine and intercommunal problems and problems with respect to the civil rights of the minority, which Canadians have faced in our own history and to which we have found our own constitutional solutions.
There was the dramatic withdrawal by the Turkish Cypriots from the national government in the early 1960s, and a continuing and difficult problem of internal violence which was met by the arrival of the United Nations peacekeeping force in 1964, of which Canada was a member. There was a failure on the part of the population of Cyprus to come to an agreement which would provide for a truly national government. On the one hand there were complaints by the Turkish population that they were a beleaguered minority economically, and were in a more difficult circumstance than the Greek
Supply
majority because they were unable to express their civil rights in a political way and in many cases, they said, to express their religious rights.
On the other hand the majority 80 per cent of the population viewed the island as a whole integral island on which their homes stretched from Kyrenia in the north to Limassol in the south and Paphos in the west, and to which no part of Cyprus was alien to them. There were Greek villages and Turkish villages side by side. Admittedly there was intercommunal violence at times, but there was also a certain amount of intercommunal co-operation and certainly of people living together.
At that time it was the position of the Canadian government that it would do everything it could through advice given by private individuals, our work at the United Nations and our membership in the peacekeeping operation, to attempt to encourage the Cypriots to come to a constitutional solution that would provide for the guarantee of minority rights within the context of a republican government which would apply throughout the island.
Prior to 1974 the difficulties in Cyprus could be described as intercommunal, conflicts between a majority and a minority, which could arise in any country. It was in the summer of 1974 that a dramatic transformation of the difficulties on Cyprus took on an international flavour of far more serious proportions. I am referring to the invasion of the island of Cyprus by the army of Turkey, and the occupation by that army. Indeed, if it were not for the presence of Canadian troops in Nicosia, it, too, would have been occupied by Turkish troops. Were it not for the role which the United Nations played in that incident, there would have been even more and greater violence and conflict then there was.
The net result of the Turkish invasion of 1974 was the occupation of one third or perhaps more of the island of Cyprus, and this resulted in the creation of some 200,000 refugees in a land with a population of 600,000. One-third of the population was rendered homeless, and every single Greek community, with the exception of a small village, was eliminated from the entire northern part of Cyprus and shipped to the south. All Turkish Cypriots living in the southern part of the island were encouraged by the Turkish leadership to leave, and they themselves went to the northern part of the island.
The important part of this history is that whereas before the conflict was of an intercommunal nature within the island of Cyprus between Cypriots, it was now a very different situation. Since 1974 the conflict has been not only between Turkish and Greek Cypriots, but between Turkish troops, Cypriot troops, the government of Turkey and the government of Cyprus which, as the minister knows, is recognized by the Canadian government as a legitimate government for the whole of Cyprus.
Since 1974 there have been a series of proposals and counterproposals from the Turkish side and from the Cypriot side with respect to the political government of the island, the withdrawal of Turkish troops, and the return to a unified country on the island of Cyprus. Since that time Canadian

November 14, 1979
Supply
troops have remained on the island and, indeed, play a critical role in the United Nations peacekeeping force, stationed as they are in Nicosia, which is the hottest point of potential conflict between the two communities. During my visit to Cyprus, and while talking with the commander of Canadian troops there, he made it very clear that the Canadian troops were the linchpin of the military and political operation which the United Nations peacekeeping force is playing on the island of Cyprus.
Cyprus has become not only an international question, but one which involves the policy of the Canadian government. Soon after the election in May, the minister of defence raised publicly for the first time in recent memory the question of the future position of Canadian membership on the peacekeeping force in Cyprus. What the minister had to say concerned me very much because it reflected a popular view of the conflict on the island of Cyprus which, in my view, does not coincide with the facts. The view is that there are two sides and two kinds of Cypriots who cannot get along and, as a result, an intercommunal conflict, and that Canada has been there for so long that really there is no point in our staying any longer because we have become part of the problem, which I think is the phrase used by the minister of defence.
The minister of defence suggested that it might also be better if Canada were to withdraw and let the parties come to whatever solution they would. With all due respect, I think that the minister of defence is confusing the pre-1974 situation with the post-1974 situation. Prior to 1974 one might have understood a certain frustration on the part of the Canadian government with respect to the situation on Cyprus. One might have also understood the feelings behind saying, "This is just an intercommunal conflict. Why should we stay there any longer, and why should we be the good guys in a world made up of bad guys?"
I can understand the natural frustration that a Canadian minister of defence responsible for Canadian troops might feel. After 1974 the minister's description of the situation in Cyprus is a caricature of what is now the real situation. The situation there now is that Turkey, a foreign country, occupies one-third of the island and is supplied with arms by NATO countries, including the United States. Two hundred thousand people have been rendered homeless as a direct result of the Turkish invasion, the government of the island of Cyprus is unable to exercise its authority over one-third of the island, and refugees on the island are completely barred from any communication with any part of their families remaining in the northern part of the island.
The situation on the island of Cyprus may be described as a conflict, not of an intercommunal nature, but as one between the island of Cyprus, the government of Cyprus, and the government of Turkey. It is in that context that I think the situation must be seen.
I know there are those who say we cannot put pressure on the Turks because of NATO, that we cannot put pressure on
[Mr. Rae.)
the Turks because of the importance of maintaining their position in the NATO alliance. This has been the position of the United States government. I would say to the minister, however, that we are facing in the Aegean Sea real conflicts between the Turks and the Greeks which go back a long time.
The answer to the problem in Cyprus must be found. The minister must recognize that the insecurity in Greece itself over the Cyprus issue can easily become just as important as the insecurity in Turkey at the present time. I suggest to her that it is in the interests of the NATO alliance to force Turkey to bargain with the Cypriot government as much as it is in the interests of the alliance to keep this problem alive.
The point of view that I am putting forward-to be quite blunt about it-is that there is no incentive at the present time for the Turkish government to bargain with the Cypriots with respect to the future of Cyprus. Everything is on their side, unless there is incentive. Time is on their side; occupation is on their side; military power is on their side. There is an army of 30,000 Turkish nationals in the north of Cyprus, there is a Greek-Cypriot national guard of 8,000, and a Turkish-Cypriot guard of the same size.
Unless military and economic pressure is put on the Turks to bargain, they have no incentive. They have what they want. They have reached their maximum position. The only thing holding them there is the fact that the NATO alliance, Canada included, has not been able to put pressure on them to reach an agreement with the government of Cyprus that would recognize the principle on the island of Cyprus of a unified island within a constitution that recognizes the legitimate aspirations of all members of the population and that deals directly with the question of the rights of the majority and the rights of the minority.
This may seem like a recondite analysis of a question that is of little concern to many Canadians, but I suggest to the minister that it is an exceptionally important issue. It is a human rights issue, involving a number of refugees; it is an issue involving the continued determination of the Canadian government to recognize its responsibilities and to recognize that there is no easy answer.
The solution of withdrawing the peacekeeping force is, in my view, the easiest solution and also the worst solution to the problem. If Canadian troops are withdrawn, the very future of the peacekeeping force will be placed in doubt. Any remaining pressure on the Turks to negotiate will be diminished. In fact the Turks will be encouraged, because we will be giving credence to their military occupation by withdrawing from our role with the United Nations force. This is a question of critical importance for those many Canadians who are concerned about the future of Cyprus and who recognize that there is, in Cyprus, a problem, not of an intercommunal nature, not an internal problem, but a fight between the government and the army of Turkey and the government of Cyprus.
My specific questions to the minister are as follows, Mr. Chairman. What are the intentions of the government with respect to peacekeeping in December, 1979, and at the six-
November 14, 1979

month renewal date in June next? What discussions and negotiations have taken place between the Government of Canada and the government of Turkey with respect to Turkey's position in presenting proposals? Finally, I would welcome any statement the minister might like to make concerning the situation on Cyprus.
If I may, Mr. Chairman, I will ask the other three questions and then let the minister give her complete answer. That is the question with respect to Cyprus, so I will move on to the other three questions. They are much quicker.
With respect to the Middle East, I do not think the minister needs to be told the extent to which we, in this party, have disagreed with the changing positions of the government regarding the relocation of our embassy in Israel. I should like to ask the minister, however, what effect, in her view, the changes that have taken place-quite apart from the economic consequences of the government's decision and then its change of mind-have had on our relations with many Arab countries? What effect have these changes had on Canada's role as a peacekeeping nation in the Middle East? Is there any evidence of our having lost credibility as an important stabilizing force in the efforts of the United Nations, in the Middle East?
My third question also deals with peacekeeping, and concerns Rhodesia. Is the minister in a position to make any kind of statement to the House as a result of the discussions in London, on the potential role that might be played by Canadian troops in Rhodesia, and whether there is any intention to take this step?
Finally, Mr. Chairman, I should like to have an elaboration for the benefit of the House on the meaning of the minister's statements, and those of the Minister of Finance, that we will be concentrating our aid efforts on international winners rather than on international losers and whether we will be tying our international aid efforts-I see the minister shaking her head, so I may have read something between the lines that was not there-and also with respect to her statements that we should begin tying our aid to the political stances taken by Third World countries in the United Nations and elsewhere. Would the minister care to comment on that position? Even if she is shaking her head and indicating that I am misguided, I suspect that is the message that has come from her department to the Canadian people since the election. I think she could clear it up if such is not the case.


Miss MacDonald:: Mr. Chairman, I should like to thank the hon. member who has just posed those questions to me. 1 recognize very clearly his ongoing personal interest in the external affairs of our country and the work of the Department of External Affairs, and the reason for it. I certainly hope it continues, as I am sure it will. I also recognize that the hon. member has recently had an opportunity to visit Cyprus and make himself personally aware of the situation in that troubled island. I have listened with great interest to his eloquent description of the developments that have taken place over the last few years. I will come quickly to the specific questions he
Supply
has posed with regard to Cyprus, to peacekeeping elsewhere, as well as with regard to foreign aid.
As the hon. member said, the Canadian peacekeeping force is situated in Cyprus on a six-month mandate which is renewed every six months, and has been renewed every six months since 1964. We have been there just over 14 years now. The present mandate for our force of 515 military personnel will expire on December 15 of this year. I can assure the hon. member that the mandate will be renewed in another six months.
As the Minister of National Defence has stated, however, and as I have had an opportunity to state on various occasions, the question of when a peacekeeping force ceases to have an active role as peacekeepers, and becomes instead a part of the economy of the area in which it is located, is one that has to be considered. We have been in Cyprus as part of the peacekeeping force for over 14 years. As the hon. member knows, negotiations between the governments most concerned have ceased to be operative in any meaningful way.
It would seem to us that our continuation in a peacekeeping force should be at least partly conditional on the fact that we see some kind of negotiation, some kind of commitment to resolving a problem on the part of those involved, in order to ensure that our ongoing involvement can be contemplated. We have said that in our review of foreign policy and aid policy we will, as well, be taking a look at the whole role of peacekeeping because it is not the intent of this government that our peacekeeping forces stay in a country, or on an island such as Cyprus, without some indication that the problem that has caused them to be there will be tackled by those most concerned.
I have conveyed this, and this was the second question the hon. member posed, directly to the foreign minister of Turkey.
I have made him aware of our concerns because we want to see the negotiations resumed. I have also been in touch with the foreign minister of Greece and conveyed the same concerns to him because I know the influence that Greece would have on the activities of the Cypriot government. For that reason, I hope there can be a resumption of the negotiations which collapsed some time ago.
The hon. member made reference to the fact, and I noted these words, that we should force Turkey to take some action. He used the word "force". I am not sure in what context he used that word. I trust he did not mean in some kind of military context because I would not want to intimate in any way or put forward the proposal that Canada would be engaged in any kind of military intervention that would force Turkey, or indeed the Cypriot government, to return to the negotiating table.
We have used the only forum available to us besides our own bilateral discussions, that is, the United Nations. We have used the United Nations to support resolutions and urge resolutions that this situation be tackled and that some resolve be brought to the problem. We will continue to use the United

November 14, 1979
Supply
Nations as a forum to meet the concerns the hon. member expressed.
The other question the hon. member asked was with regard to peacekeeping in the Middle East. He asked whether Canada's role as a peacekeeper in the Middle East has in any way been diminished in recent months. I can tell him quite straightforwardly that no, it has not. As he knows, our major peacekeeping role in the Middle East is in the Golan Heights area. In fact our troops there have been added to in recent months, not in any way reduced. We are playing a very active role there in communications and logistics. I am sure he is aware of that situation. I want to put his mind at ease in that respect.


Bob Rae: 1 was there too.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: The hon. member says he toured the Golan Heights as well, so I know he is aware of the very strong commitment that Canada has to it and the very important role we play in that area.
The hon. member asked as well about the situation in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia. As the hon. member and others are aware, discussions are going on at the present time in London arising out of the earlier Commonwealth Conference last summer held in Lusaka. At that Commonwealth Conference the Prime Minister, on behalf of Canada, made it known that Canada would be willing to contribute to any kind of Commonwealth observer group which would be put in place to supervise the elections that would be held in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia.
There has been no approach made to us by the British government to take part in any such activity or, in fact, in any other way in a peacekeeping role. We would have to examine any proposal made to us apart from the one that we already indicated, to help out during the holding of elections. We would have to examine that as to the proposal itself and what it contained, but we have had no request to date in that regard.
I think the hon. member's final question had to do with the government's broad aid policy and what we will be doing. I already indicated in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, and I am sure the hon. member is aware of this, that we are undertaking a full review of aid policy and will be presenting papers on both foreign policy and aid policy to the standing committee, asking them to become the vehicle by which public input is provided to the development of Canada's foreign aid policy for the eighties. I hope he will be a very active member of that committee.
The hon. member made some mention of the fact that he would back winners and not losers. I would like to read for the hon. member's information the countries to which we are extending our aid, the ten countries to which we extend aid in the largest amounts. These countries are Bangladesh, Pakistan, Tanzania, India, Sri Lanka, Tunisia, Zambia, Ghana, Cameroon and Malawi. I leave it to the hon. member to draw his own conclusions as to which countries are being backed with aid policy. In reviewing our aid policy, I trust that we will

face up to some of the questions that in an earlier time may not have been tackled. I am talking now about aid policy with regard to countries which have shown violent abuses of human rights.
The hon. member will be aware that aid to Vietnam has been cut off by Canada. The previous government took that step. We took it further because we believe that the activities in Vietnam, the present expulsion of thousands of Indochinese, the invasion of a neighbouring country, Cambodia-Kampu-chea, with all of the disaster and tragedy that has brought forward, does not in any way elicit our support for a continuing aid program to Vietnam. These are matters which have to be brought up in the light of our aid review.
The same can be said with regard to the question that 1 raised about countries which will not renounce their intention to explode nuclear devices, countries which will not join the non-proliferation treaty but are using their own finances to develop and perhaps explode a nuclear device. These are questions which have to be looked at and should not be avoided when we are tackling our foreign policy review.


Mr. MacLaren:: Mr. Chairman, this afternoon I should like to make some comments and raise some questions about Canada's external relations. During the six months since the election, Canada has been without any discernible foreign policy. This would be all very well if one could infer from that that the government had decided to pursue, in broad outline, the directions taken by its predecessor. However, that inference is left in doubt by the questions which the Secretary of State for External Affairs keeps asking. We have no statements of policy. We have only her questions. A question is not a policy. Nor do a series of questions make a policy. I assume of course, that the minister has not consciously adopted her questioning stance as a handy excuse for inaction on the international scene.
The minister has made a virtue of her seemingly endless questions by contending that, in asking them, she has been contributing to a proposed national review of foreign policy. This she offers as a notable innovation in Canadian government practice.
There are two things to be said about the minister's public approach to her heavy responsibilities. One is that Canadians are quite capable of asking their own questions. Canadians are not so inarticulate that they need their minister of external affairs to ask questions about external affairs. What the Canadian public and indeed Canada's allies do need are clear indications of how the government intends to conduct our relations with other countries, whether in international organizations or bilaterally. What Canadians rightly expect of their government is policy, policy on development assistance, on NATO and the UN, on the rich diversity of our relations with other countries. Dressing up a series of questions as a policy will not satisfy the rightful demands of the Canadian people to know what the government intends in an area where our self-interests as a nation, as well as the broad interest of humanity, are so closely engaged.
November 14, 1979

The second thing to be said about the minister's approach is that a foreign policy review is no remarkable innovation. There have been such reviews before, and there will be again. And there is, of course, a continuing discussion in the media, in universities, in churches, in labour unions and in business of Canada's foreign relations, a fact which if the minister did not know it before, she should have learned from her government's foolishness about moving our embassy in Israel. Many Canadians who take part in the lively debate about foreign policy will have been surprised to hear the minister describe it as an "esoteric academic exercise reserved for ivory towers". It is anything but that.
The world in any case moves on, while the minister stands still asking her questions. That is one problem with the government's non-policy in our relations with other nations. Policy must be made, is being made. The minister should by now be able to set forth the broad lines of the policies she must necessarily be pursuing or contemplating.
Another problem with the minister's Socratic stance, as one might call it, is that she raises questions on the one hand of bold new directions while on the other hand she must surely know that there are certain fundamental limitations on Canada's freedom of action in an increasingly interdependent world. Canada is no exception to this inescapable rule of foreign relations. There are certain continua that no Canadian foreign minister can ignore, any more than the foreign ministers of other nations can ignore the particular factors that limit their freedom of action.
Let me offer a few examples with regard to Canada. Bilingualism is basic to Canada. It finds expression in our external as well as our internal affairs. Dividing a continent across the middle has many implications, and history and geography have resulted in an extraordinary complex of relations with the United States. A small population in a large, rich territory must seek prosperity in a high level of export trade, with all that implies, A people so utterly dependent as Canadians on the peaceful international exchange of goods and services dare not lose sight of our vital interest in a structured international community. A nation with long coasts on three oceans must also take a deep interest in international law. Our dolorous progress through two world wars has led Canadians to seek security in collective action, in both the United Nations and NATO. The confluence of our Greco-Judeo-Christian traditions and our Commonwealth and Francophone heritage have produced a nation deeply committed to alleviating the plight of the peoples of less prosperous areas of the world.
These are not deadhand legends, but reality. These, and others, are all fundamental factors in any Canadian foreign policy. The minister observed recently that during the past decade "things have sure changed . . ." In some ways they have, most notably with regard to the many ramifications of oil price increases. But much else has not changed. Many of those immutable elements require discussion now, against the background of the changes that have occurred in other areas. That is another reason why the minister's questions are not policy.
Supply
Let us look for a moment at this need for what we might call a Realpolitik, at a few of the continua I have mentioned, in the hope that at the least the minister may offer a few policy comments on them. Specifically, I want to question the minister about three of these continua: Canada's role in peacekeeping, NATO, and the United Nations generally.
The minister has indicated in a recent statement that Canada will continue to support peacekeeping efforts and will envisage further Canadian participation in such efforts. I was pleased to note this, for Canada's record of support for the United Nations and its peacekeeping activities is a notable one. Canada, in spite of our relatively small size, has participated substantially over the years in peacekeeping efforts, a significant contribution to world security and the peaceful resolution of disputes.
The interests of Canada, an inescapably international country, are best protected by the development of world order and the extension of international rules. These benefits certainly outweigh the costs to Canada of our peacekeeping forces. There are direct costs, of course, over $60 million since 1957; nevertheless we have maintained our commitment to our allies, to the concept of world security and to a world organization devoted to the cause of peace.
I invite the minister to affirm Canada's support for the UN's peacekeeping efforts, including Canada's participation in the Namibia talks and in the disarmament negotiations ongoing at the United Nations.
In the future, it may be that international agreements involving third party verification will offer new opportunities to the UN to monitor disputes in situations short of conflict. A treaty on the law of the sea, for example, could well lead to new means of dispute settlement. Outer space is another subject which will call for new thinking about management and control. Keeping the peace is a flexible concept. Soldiers in uniform are not necessarily an essential part of it. But the skills of the soldier/diplomat are bound to continue to be in demand. Canada will have the personnel to help satisfy some reasonable share of that demand, and will be inclined to do so if the UN provides the conditions for effective operating procedures and adequate political support.
While on the subject of the United Nations' peacekeeping efforts, 1 would also make a more general plea to the minister for support of the United Nations as a whole. She has been very critical of the organization since taking office, unjustly critical. The United Nations certainly has its faults, as any large bureaucratic organization must. To outside observers, the General Assembly may appear to be a forum for futile and emotional debates, dominated by a militantly anti-western, Third World majority. Nevertheless, there is no alternative to the United Nations as a centre of international discussion, information exchange and decision. Canada has long supported not only the active peacekeeping aspects of the United Nations' role but also those aspects of co-operation, consultation, and compromise that can be found throughout the United Nations and in its specialized agencies. The work of these agencies in particular has been invaluable in the tackling of

November 14, 1979
Supply
global problems such as food production, civil aviation, environmental pollution, contagious diseases and population growth. These are critical issues of survival, so successfully managed within the UN system that we take them for granted. They are not to be dismissed as its secondary purpose.
The minister, in her maiden speech to the General Assembly, chose to focus on the weaknesses of the system at the expense of its real strength. In doing so, she cast Canada in the light of a negative, moralizing, and self-righteous critic. The minister is not doing Canada's image abroad any service by adopting such a tone. As a secure and wealthy country Canada can afford more generosity of spirit. We would also be acting more effectively in our long-term interest by encouraging and supporting the world organization. We are not blind to its flaws; their existence does not absolve us of the responsibility to be creative participants in the evolution of the system. Without ignoring problems and shortcomings, we must build on what has been accomplished.
During the post-war years Canada became a major participant in the creation of the world organization, and within that new organization Canada recognized from the beginning its limitations. Nevertheless, Canada soon found the United Nations a congenial, creative place, eliciting any talent for conciliation and harmonization that we may have, a place for maximizing opportunities for the enhancement of both our interests and our status. Whether in collective security arrangements providing Canada with a means of exerting influence on powerful allies or giving substance to diplomatic goals outside the North Atlantic region, or in the corridors lobbying to avoid dangerous confrontations and working with the secretariat, Canadians have done well.
The United Nations is a voluntary system requiring patience and determination and providing a setting for enforced association. We must not weaken the world organization by cynicism, but strengthen the whole network. That means viewing the organization realistically and ridding ourselves of the fantasy that if only self-seeking leaders would get out of the way, mankind could live in sweetness and light.
Along these same lines I would also urge continued support for Canada's long-standing membership in the North Atlantic Alliance. This commitment dates from the period after the second world war when Canada was so active in the international effort to establish a more secure world order and to seek security in collective action. Our participation in the North Atlantic Alliance is important both to ourselves and to our European partners, as a concrete illustration of our determination to contribute to collective security and our participation in the western defence effort.
There are those who have called for Canada's withdrawal from NATO in the mistaken belief that our absence from the alliance would somehow contribute to east-west detente. That detente is more likely to be found in the SALT agreements, disarmament initiatives and, indeed, in the broader field of economic co-operation. In any event, such a withdrawal would,

among other things, ignore the value to Canada of Europe as a counterweight to omnipresent United States influence. In a sense, our membership in NATO represents a calling in of the old world to redress the imbalance of the new.
I should be pleased to have comments from the minister about our continuing commitment to the Atlantic alliance and her thoughts about what form that commitment will take in the future.
I have already said that a curious feature of the government's approach to foreign affairs is what sometimes seems to me to be endless questioning. Perhaps the Canadian people and our allies would not have become weary of the minister's questions if they were in themselves good questions. But they are not.
Let us take a few examples. The minister has asked whether Canadian development assistance should be directed only toward those countries which have achieved some yet undefined level of human rights. Does the minister believe that using our aid as a means of pressure on another nation to adopt these yet undefined standards is a practicable policy? If so, can she inform the House what are the criteria she would have Canada adopt in its development assistance program? How does she intend to apply those standards once they are defined? Does she foresee the sudden termination of Canadian aid if there is a change of government in a recipient country which brings a reversal in its earlier human rights practices? Does she believe, in any event, that threatening the withdrawal of Canadian assistance is going to intimidate wrongdoers? More important, does she really believe that such threats are in fact the most effective way of helping those who have been deprived of what Canadians may regard as human rights?
We could continue to query a policy which attempts to relate eligibility to Canadian aid to the vagaries of human rights practices across the Third World but perhaps, after all, the effort is unnecessary. In a sense the minister has answered her own questions, but in answering her question regarding aid and human rights she unfortunately did so with a statement which contradicts what she said earlier and merely serves to confuse further. I refer to the minister's statement at the United Nations that "development assistance does not imply the foisting of one country's social. . . philosophy on another". How does one square that statement with a policy to restrict Canadian aid only to those countries which adopt our social philosophy?
In mentioning human rights, I should not want the opportunity to pass without hearing from the minister about her apparently ill-fated proposal at the United Nations General Assembly to create the new office of under-secretary general for human rights. My understanding is that this Canadian proposal has now been withdrawn, only a few weeks after it was introduced. What happened? Had the government not done its homework in determining beforehand whether there was an adequate number of co-sponsors? Was it that the idea was so inchoate, so hastily conceived, that in this sensitive area where the internal affairs of sovereign nations are so jealously guarded, few other countries were ready to adopt this
November 14, 1979

approach to the complex and controversial question of human rights?
Allow me to return to the subject of Canada's development assistance by noting another series of questions which has inevitably led to yet more confusion and contradictions in Canadian external relations. In Toronto, the minister asked whether Canada should reverse its policy of the past years and now concentrate its aid on those developing countries which are nearing the stage of economic "take-off' or self-sustaining growth.
If in fact this represents a new government policy, the first thing to say about it is that, as in so many areas of international relations, we would presumably have other countries do as we do. Who, then, would be left to help the poorest countries where life, in the words of the president of the World Bank, is "a condition so degraded by disease, illiteracy, malnutrition and squalor as to deny its victims basic human necessities"? If Canada shifts the emphasis of assistance away from such countries, are we to console ourselves with the hope that someone else will help?
The second thing to say about a policy of helping only those countries on the threshold of self-sufficiency is that many of them are among the OPEC countries. Is it now the government's intention to direct our development assistance to OPEC countries to help push them over that threshold? Perhaps not, since those same OPEC countries would have been alienated by the government's hapless excursion into the Jerusalem problem. If it is not the government's intention to concentrate aid on the OPEC countries, perhaps it has in mind certain contries of Latin America, but the minister has expressed reservations about human rights in some of them, so perhaps they too are excluded. In any event, a policy of concentration upon "take-off' countries would mean abandoning many of our Commonwealth and Francophone friends. The minister gave additional substance to this impression by stating in Toronto that Africa is no longer an area of commitment for Canada.
Southern Africa remains one of the most inflammable areas of the world today. Canadians do not live in a fireproof house, if they ever did. Neither Canada nor her allies can simply turn their backs on southern Africa asking, as the minister did, "Who in Canada cares".
Even more fundamentally, Canadians are not more immune from their history than any other nation. We are one nation drawing upon the common heritage of the English and Frenchspeaking countries. That heritage finds expression in part in our external aid programs. Our links with the former British and French colonies are an expression of Canada's dual character. Are we to turn our back on that essential heritage? These links are not to be dismissed lightly. They are especially valuable in binding the world together with ties which transcend regional preoccupations or narrow self-interest.
One more word about Canada's development assistance. The size and nature of our commitment have recently been placed in real doubt by conflicting statements of the Minister of Finance, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and
Supply
the Minister of State for CIDA. The remarks made by the Minister of Finance in Belgrade in October were contradictory in themselves. While asserting that we want to narrow the gap between the industrialized nations and the developing world as quickly as possible and that our commitment to that goal is evidenced not only by our words but by our deeds, he added that further increases in the transfer of resources are difficult to justify to Canadians until our own economic situation improves. Our deeds, apparently, are going to be put off to a later date.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs herself has been vague on the question of how much support the government is prepared to give to development assistance. CIDA's budget as a percentage of our gross national product has continued to drop. It is now below the .5 per cent level, well below our stated goal of .7 per cent of gross national product devoted to official development assistance.
In spite of her promises to fight world poverty and to continue Canadian efforts in development, the minister will not give us deeds to bear out her words. The .7 per cent target remains in limbo. The Minister of State for CIDA recently refused to commit himself to this goal, or even to annual increments which would ensure that we would reach it.


Fred Alward McCain: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


Roy MacLaren: May I finish the sentence, Mr. Chairman? I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the gaps between words and deeds-


Fred Alward McCain: Order, please. There was not unanimous consent. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I presume that some of the statements that the hon. member put forward were posed in the way of questions, or was he just giving an esoteric, academic exercise in verbosity to which he wanted the House to listen, in which case I will be prepared to answer some of the statements he put forward?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman-


Fred Alward McCain: Order, please.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Chairman, I would suggest to my hon. friend that, if she wants to wait, I have a number of points of a rather similar nature to make, that is by way of exhortation. Perhaps she could answer both of us at the same time.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, but I think I should have the right to deal at present with some of the points that have been made because, quite frankly, the situation of the hon. member who has just spoken is very different from that of the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton who has taken part in debates in the House and who, I presume, is somewhat

November 14, 1979
Supply
better acquainted with the policies of his party than is the hon. member who has just spoken.
I listened to that Alice in Wonderland treatise, wondering if he knew anything about foreign policy in Canada in the last ten years, if he had paid any attention to it at all when it had been developed, and if he realized what little attention had been paid to it in the House by the previous government over a successive number of years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Never was it brought to the House for debate, except on a motion by the former opposition party of which I was a member, nor was this subject raised here in the House in the last number of years. That is how much attention it received from the previous cabinet.


Mr. Lachance:: You are quite wrong.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I would like to advise the hon. member on certain matters he mentioned. He spoke about foreign policy. The last time that foreign policy was reviewed in this country was in 1970-71. That is the last time, and it was not reviewed as we are suggesting it be reviewed, with public input, with people being allowed to help formulate the foreign policy of their country by using a parliamentary committee so that people can come before it and make their views known, because I believe Canadians want to express points of view on foreign policy and that should be a vehicle for them through which to do it. That is why we are asking that this matter be dealt with by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence of this Parliament. I would hope that the hon. member would make it a point to try to contribute to that, but he should be aware of the fact that this was not done in that way in the previous Liberal era because there was no means by which public input could be provided. Policy was developed from the top down only, and we do not believe in that sort of approach. 1 will give the hon. member an example so that he will know exactly why I say this.
The hon. member has made reference to the lack of policy statements or activities. Since this government assumed office in May we made some very important statements with regard to policy and they related particularly to our approach to the refugee situation. With regard to our strategy in Southeast Asia, we put forward a proposal to provide places of resettlement in this country for refugees from Southeast Asia and we did it by proposing a method by which Canadians could share with their government by participation. Canadians have shown since then that they wanted to contribute and to help in the resettlement of some 50,000 refugees from Southeast Asia. And what did the Leader of the Opposition call it? He called it a cop-out, because he does not know anything about Canadian people sharing with their government in reaching policy decisions. That is why we put forward the proposal of using the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence as the proper means for allowing individual Canadians, groups and organizations, to help formulate the policy for the 1980s. We consider it an ongoing way in which this

government has shown by example that it wants Canadians involved. It wants them involved in raising the visibility of foreign policy in this country.
I would like to reply now, Mr. Chairman, to a couple of other comments that the hon. member has made. I suppose I should not say he made a gratuitous statement, but nevertheless he made the rather unique statement that the minister stands still. I want to tell him that he is the only person I know in this country who thinks that I have been standing still since the election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe you should have, once in a while.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: 1 have had the opportunity to speak on Canada's behalf in the international forums, and I have put forward proposals, one of them having to do with human rights, because we are very concerned about the whole issue of human rights, wherever it might be.


Claude-André Lachance: Hear, hear!


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I applaud the hon. member who has just responded. I am sorry I do not know his constituency so I cannot give him credit. He has done a lot in this field in the time that he has been here. I am referring to the hon. member for Rosemont.
I would just like to refer to the concern we have expressed in many forums about human rights and about the attention we should be paying them, and what we should be doing next year as we come to the conference on security and co-operation in Europe which will be taking place in Madrid next year in November, when we would want the Parliament of Canada to be involved again in helping formulate the Canadian position at that conference.
I put forward a proposal at the United Nations that there should be a deputy secretary general responsible for human rights. The hon. member has dismissed it out of hand. I want to tell him that that proposal received a fair amount of support, and I was extremely gratified by the comments on this proposal that Canada received from a number of countries. It was evident that it would not receive majority support in the third committee. There were amendments that might have defeated its purpose. But what was gratifying and satisfying to me was the fact that so many countries said, "Yes, this is probably something we should be working toward." It was withdrawn, but I can assure the hon. member it will be resubmitted next year. The Canadian delegation supported the proposal of Costa Rica which was introduced in 1965 and has been reintroduced every year since. It has taken this long to get majority approval.
What I would like to say to the hon. member is that if the party of which he is a member had undertaken, when it was the government, to introduce any measures or proposals with regard to human rights at an earlier period, they might have obtained far more support. Instead, they did nothing. That is why we are putting forward proposals which we think will
November 14, 1979

strengthen the recognition of human rights throughout the world. We will continue to do so, regardless of how the hon. member runs them down.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fred Alward McCain: The hon. member for Rosemont.


Claude-André Lachance: Mr. Chairman, I did not expect to be recognized this early. 1 think the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton had the floor.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I appreciate the hon. member's gesture and I thank him very much.

Mr. Chairman, I am so impressed by the almost angry oratory of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that I wonder if I should not sit down and remain seated because I am afraid of suffering the same fate as the previous speaker, but I will be very careful and try, if possible, not to make her angry.
Mr. Chairman, I am not a member of the Liberal caucus committee on external affairs and 1 admit very simply this afternoon that I am standing in for some distinguished members of that committee who are busy elsewhere. However, since I have this opportunity I cannot resist the temptation because for several days I wanted to ask some questions of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I am somewhat like a baseball pitcher who throws easy balls to the batters to soften their muscles before the game.
Mr. Chairman, it is a well known fact that in my party I am chairman of the caucus committee on external trade with my friend from Hamilton East who deals with industrial matters. Tomorrow 1 shall have a chance to question the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce about those problems. I tend, therefore, to try to be practical in those matters of international relations. 1 must say that my concerns are economic in nature; I care very much about the economic and industrial situation in this country. On the other hand, Mr. Chairman, I have some moral misgivings. 1 consider myself as pure as anyone else, as well-intentioned as anyone else, and wonder simply, perhaps banally, on behalf of the people of Canada, whether it might not be possible to reconcile both interests better than we now do, whether it might not be possible to conduct highly sophisticated, moral and respected politics abroad without damaging our trade interests too much.
That, I believe, is an honest concern. If the minister tells me that there are situations in which Canada should sacrifice its economic interests to superior moral interests, I shall be the first to approve. But what displeases me, in fact distresses me, is when I see the government harming the economy of my country for reasons which may seem moral but which, in fact, are not, and which may even not be in the greatest interest of
Supply
the country they are supposed to help, or which are not even achievable. 1 am interested in that balance between objectives, and that is precisely what I should like to get the minister to reflect upon. 1 know she has done so previously, but I trust she will do so even more and in greater depth now.
The example to give here is, naturally, that of Jerusalem, more specifically the plan to transfer our embassy from Tel-Aviv to Jerusalem. That is a typical example of the use of a seemingly moral concern for reasons which were not very moral. And I am not being uncharitable when I say that. No Prime Minister has ever done so much, in so little time, to harm the trade position of his country, in one specific area of the world, for so mean a purpose, namely that of getting two of his candidates elected in the Toronto area.
Besides, it is not up to me to rap the fingers of the minister in that regard. Mr. Stanfield has already done that in a rather remarkable way, and if I wanted to be mean 1 would read into Hansard the admonitions Mr. Stanfield gave the government. Before embarking on a crusade, the minister should ask herself if it is a worth-while crusade, and we should ask ourselves if we are truly helping the country we are supposed to be helping. Perhaps she should show some moderation in her good feelings, which are well known.
I am done with the Jerusalem issue. Despite my admiration for the major issues involved in that project, I have no admiration whatsoever for the way the government proceeded. I deeply regret the embarrassment, the problems, the damages that this adventure caused Canadian businessmen who had been working in that area for many years, who had invested thousands of dollars and who got the wind taken out of their sails by a government that is supposed to help them.
This tendency to moralize is deeply ingrained in my hon. friend, the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In an interview, which may have been misquoted and which she granted to John Walker of Southam Press, she apparently said, and I quote:

As to where she draws the line between moral judgments and trade, say in Candu reactors, in the light of her desire for "the most stringent conditions possible" in nuclear safeguards, MacDonald said:
"I'm not prepared to do that at present. I'm raising this because I don't want to give anybody the answer, or what I think is my answer, before the discussion gets well under way."
The minister likes this kind of question. She goes to the United Nations talking about nuclear reactors and says the following:
We demand that stringent safeguards be applied by countries buying Canadian nuclear power facilities or materials.... We want to ensure that the continued recourse to nuclear power is undertaken in the most stringent conditions possible-
I cannot disagree with philosophy, theology, morality, ethics and so on. I am just saying that my hon. friend should be most cautious. I am not lecturing the minister, but if she is not yet sufficiently aware, she should be made aware that every one of these statements creates uneasiness. People say, "What does

November 14, 1979
Supply
she mean? Does she mean that from now on agreements signed by Canada on nuclear safeguards might be subjected to a rule of unilaterally imposed retroactivity? Does she mean that?"


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: That is what you say.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No. I am just wondering what it means. A lot of people around the world wonder what it means. The world is a strange place; international trade is difficult. I had the good fortune of working at it for three years. It is terribly difficult. When the minister feels inclined to make a moral statement to impress Canada and the world, I want her to please think about those guys who are trying to sell something around the world and might be embarrassed by her statement. If the good reputation of Canada is involved, the statement should be made, but the minister should not make it simply to raise an issue. The minister should not raise issues just for the purpose of starting interesting debates. Trading internationally is very difficult, I repeat. Those who have done so know how difficult it is. I used to say that the great difficulty with international trade is that it is done outside of Canada!
This afternoon the minister raised the following question, and I think I have it right: Why should we give aid to countries where violent abuse of human rights takes place? On the face of it, the answer appears simple; certainly not. But let us think about it a bit more. Who violates these rights? It is the governments of those countries. What is the relationship, in many instances, between the governments of those countries and the people of those countries?


An hon. Member:: None.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Very often the people made no contribution at all in the selection of those leaders. So for a very good purpose, punishing or preventing governments that violate human rights, my hon. friend would, strangely enough, punish people for the sins of their leaders, when they had hardly anything, if anything at all, to say about their selection. Those are my preoccupations and I just wanted to share them with my hon. friend.
Similarly, on the subject of aid, she has raised a problem that is intellectually fascinating. Who is it that Canada should help? Should we go for the poor, the poorest of the poor, the richest of the poor? Universities rightly delight in provoking debates of this kind. I wonder, and this is a question, not a lecture, to what extent it is practical for a government to do it. My knowledge is that countries receiving aid are of many types, of many categories. Some need certain types of aid that are completely different from the types of aid needed by other countries.
As the minister knows, I used to be a great defender of the idea that Canada had to support, by way of aid, countries that had the means for their economic development. I was very strong on the subject and I carried a list of these countries at the time. Why? Simply because we are partly in this game to

expand Canadian trade abroad. There is no shame in that. If we are ashamed of that we are in trouble indeed.
A number of countries have the means of their industrial development. They are on the verge of it, they are on their way to it, and it is quite desirable for Canada to help them in certain types of ways. What will be needed there will be sophisticated equipment, engineering services, and financing. Other countries, the poorest of the poor, will need an entirely different kind of aid, teachers, nurses, technicians. What I would like to see the minister address herself to is exactly that; not a philosophical debate on whom we should help, or who needs the most; but by what means can we help a particular type of country, by what means can we help another type of country, and this to me is much more satisfactory and realistic than a major discussion on whom we should help.
Dealing with nuclear reactors, I consider that to be a good and decent Canadian export. The Financial Post said the other day that if you want to have a nuclear policy, first of all you are going to have to decide if you want to sell and, secondly, to whom and, thirdly, under what conditions. I suggest that this is not a thought to be ignored. On this subject I am afraid, particularly in view of the minister's statement which she is going to explain in a moment, and particularly in view of the committee that is going to be created to look into the whole Canadian nuclear policy including exports, I am afraid, to speak like my friend, the Minister of State for International Trade, that we are again going to have a "hiatus" in marketing that product while we study the subject.
It seems to me that the only way to counter this is by the minister here this afternoon getting up and saying to us that she is very much in favour of the sale of nuclear reactors under certain types of conditions. I hope that while she makes these conditions very demanding she will not go to the extent of making them impossible, because we might then end up in a situation as we apparently are in with Argentina, where the country that got the contract is offering the safeguards that we were willing to accept in the first place.
The general subject of my remarks was really the relationship between diplomacy and trade and, much as I would like to state that I recognize the importance of ethical standards and moral objectives, I would like on behalf of Canadian workers and Canadian businessmen to ask that more attention should be given to rather down to earth considerations like the economic wealth and the economic state of the country.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member finished on a note of throwing into question the values of ethical standards and moral behaviour. I would trust that in throwing them into question he does not intend to abandon them.


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, and I said so specifically.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I would hope that we would still, as a country, be able to exhibit both ethical standards and moral behaviour in all our activities, whether in trade, in aid, in external negotiations or whatever we might do. I want to thank the hon. member for the suggestions he has made. I would
November 14, 1979

hope that he would see his way possible to become a member of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence because, from his experience, he will be able to contribute greatly to the review process that will shortly be under way.
There are only two matters that I would like to address that he has brought up at the present time. One has to do with the comments I have made at the United Nations with regard to the most stringent standards that we would want to see placed on the sales, or on the question of nuclear proliferation.
I had said that Canada abides by having the most stringent safeguards possible and that we look forward as well to the results of the International Nuclear Fuel Cycle Evaluation, 1NFCE, which will probably be available to us in February of next year; a study which was undertaken by some 45 countries, which was joined in by the previous government, and whose objective it was to make the whole question of the nuclear fuel cycle more proliferation proof. Therefore, I have reiterated certainly what had been our party's stand in opposition and what is the government's stand at the present time, and what I thought was the position of the former government, that it too adhered to trying to accomplish for the safety of the world the most stringent safeguards possible. I would hope that the hon. gentleman's party is not moving away from that position, because that would be a disastrous thing if Canada, one of the leading countries in this discussion over the years, and one of the countries which has tried to state to the world its belief in full scope safeguards, should in any way feel that that standard should be diminished.
The hon. member had raised that matter in connection with comments that I had made, and he, as well, raised it with regard to Argentina and what was happening with regard to sales to Argentina. I am sure he will be well aware that, under pressure from the opposition, under pressure from many groups, under pressure from world opinion, the former government re-evaluated its stand, its nuclear safeguards, and upgraded them during the time that that government was in discussion with Argentina about nuclear sales. 1 am sure he realizes that that was done. It was a step that we, as members of the opposition, applauded.
I want to draw to the attention of the hon. member what my predecessor said at the time those standards were upgraded by the previous government when he spoke on this very subject in the House on December 22, 1976. The former minister was making a statement about nuclear safeguards and about nuclear sales abroad. As it is reported in Hansard at page 2256 on that date, the former minister said:
It is for this reason that the Government of Canada has unilaterally decided to strengthen further Canada's safeguard requirements. As in the past we are prepared to accept the commercial consequences of being clearly ahead of other suppliers. This is the price we are prepared to pay to curb the threat to mankind of nuclear proliferation.
1 trust that that statement was made on behalf of the government and is a statement in which those now in opposition will continue to believe.
Supply
The hon. member has raised the question of human rights again and made reference to something I said earlier this afternoon when I talked about countries that violently abuse human rights, and our aid relations with them. I mentioned a specific country, Vietnam. That is the country to which I had referred, but I want the hon. member to know that the cessation of aid to Vietnam-which I applauded-was taken by the former government, by the party in which the hon. member now sits. I agreed with that decision, and I will continue to agree with actions of that kind. I would hope that in opposition the members who once sat on this side and who have had a long-time association with that party are not suddenly reversing their positions, which I felt they had taken because of their beliefs in ethical and moral behaviour, and that they will not be backing away from these beliefs at this time.


Claude-André Lachance: 1 would like to begin my intervention with a little comment made without any malice. A while ago, the minister took a rather shabby attitude towards my colleague from Etobicoke North, which she does not usually do but it should be noted that we have now been discussing for an hour the points that he has raised. I therefore suppose that the minister recognizes the relevance of his questions and I hope that in the future she will be above partisanship and will do her best to meet the concerns, which 1 know to be sincere, of my colleague from Etobicoke North who, it should be noted, served for 12 years in the Department of External Affairs, the department of the hon. member opposite to whom I address my comments, and I think that after 12 years in this field we can assume that he has at least as much experience as the minister and myself.
Having said this, Mr. Chairman, I would like to associate myself with the comments made by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton and urge the minister to avoid falling into the Kantian philosophy of categories in the international forums which she addresses and where she has spoken several times in the last six months. Reality is not always black and white. There are sometimes grey areas and I believe that this is what the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton meant earlier when he deplored the fact that the minister had raised debatable issues without necessarily providing solutions.
I know, Mr. Chairman, that we shall have the opportunity to hold such debates in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence when the minister decides to refer these matters to the committee, and it will be very healthy for us to hold such a debate in Canada on all the issues that she has raised concerning morality, aid, and our philosophy in external relations whether in relation to foreign aid or to bilateral or multilateral discussions.
But at the international level surely the minister knows that the touchiness of the nations which gather for those conferences, their excessive, extreme, sometimes justified, sometimes

November 14, 1979
Supply
unjustified touchiness goes against their good intentions and this I do not contest. She will certainly remember the letter I sent her at the beginning of her mandate to congratulate her for her position in Geneva where she censured Vietnam as a nation that did not really try to help its people. 1 maintain my support of the minister.
Elowever, it is always dangerous in international forums or before an assembly of the nations to raise issues which do not call for easy answers, for the countries to which those questions are put always find it embarrassing to answer. And often it just creates more problems for Canada-the good intentions of Premier Lougheed notwithstanding-rather than solving them. So, I join my colleague from Ottawa-Carleton in urging the minister to curb her enthusiasm and maybe redirect it to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence when we shall have the opportunity to discuss these issues in depth.
Now, 1 wish to ask the minister more specific questions which are still perfectly pertinent unfortunately as they refer to the hostage-taking incident in the United States embassy in Tehran. The minister had the opportunity to answer some questions put by my colleagues on this side of the House about the safety of Canadian citizens in Iran and I wish to ask the following questions: three questions to which she might answer and then I might deal with another subject.
The Iranian foreign minister-we do not know whether or not there still is a civil government but we suppose there still is a foreign affairs minister-has recently met with all members of the diplomatic corps to transmit a request from the government of Iran to put pressure on the government of the United States, more particularly on President Carter to force him to give in to the demands of the extremist students who are now holding the United States embassy in Tehran, and presumably send the Shah back to Iran-we do not know whether he would be extradited to Iran or to some other country.
First, did the the ambassador of Canada in Iran attend this meeting early this week, I think, and second did he transmit to the Iranian authorities the wish unanimously expressed in this House that the hostages be liberated forthwith without any conditions? Moreover, did he tell the Iranian authorities about the wave of indignation that this unacceptable act of terrorism created in Canada?
Third, earlier this week the Government of Canada offered its good offices to the American government to help it solve the crisis. What do these good offices amount to? Do they amount only to consular services to the American nationals in Iran or do they go beyond these simple services eventually to encompass direct political intervention?
Fourth, the government of Iran recently announced-I think it was yesterday-its intention to appeal to the Security Council to discuss the matter. Does the Government of Canada- which 1 know is not a member of the Security Council-intend

to exert unofficial pressure on the Security Council so that the inalienable principles which are, on the one hand, the right of political asylum, and on the other hand, diplomatic immunity in a foreign country, are duly taken into consideration by the Security Council?
Mr. Chairman, perhaps the minister might answer now and then I could go on to the second part of my questions.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the participation of the hon. member.

I will take the questions that he has posed, directly, if I may.
First he asked whether our ambassador was present at the meeting in Iran to which most of the representatives of foreign nations had been summoned by the foreign minister of Iran. Yes, Mr. Chairman, he was present at that meeting.
Second, the hon. member asked whether we had communicated to the Iranian government-if we can call it that- the protest made here in this House of Commons and our protest as a government. We did that directly through the charges d'affaires in the Iranian embassy. That was communicated, I presume, to the revolutionary council or whatever is operating in Iran in the way of a government.
The third question he asked was whether our willingness to be of assistance to the United States had been made known and what kind of assistance it would be. Certainly, that means consular assistance to those Americans who would be without an embassy at the present time.
I should like the hon. member to know that the offer of assistance was conveyed not only through our ambassador in Iran but that I spoke directly to Secretary of State Vance and informed him of Canada's willingness to be of assistance in any way that the United States thought we could help in this very intense situation. He expressed his appreciation for that.
Coming to the last question about the Security Council, I might say that when I spoke to Secretary of State Vance for the second time today, when he was in New York to attend sessions of the Security Council, I again offered our assistance, in any way that we could, to try to resolve what is a very desperate situation.


Claude-André Lachance: I thank the minister for her explanations. Once again, at the risk of being paternalistic, I would urge the minister to be excessively careful about that very legitimate offer she made to the U.S. government, because some countries could eventually interpret that move as an interference, an intrusion in internal affairs, but 1 am sure the minister wants her officials to act with due consideration.
Now, I would like to touch on another subject I discussed with the minister in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, Canadian assistance to Cambodian refugees. I must say that Canada has done more than
November 14, 1979

its share to help Vietnamese refugees by allowing a great many of them to come to Canada. I believe it is the best effort in international co-operation we have seen in Canada during the last decade, even though Cambodia is now the scene of a tragedy which results in quite complex material problems. The international community held a meeting, I believe, early last week-I wanted to be there but because of the division which took place here I could not go to New York with the minister. Sometimes the procedure in this Elouse is a diriment impediment against one's best wishes and best intentions. Those technical problems are very important because there are in fact two Cambodian governments, at least as far as the international community is concerned, two Cambodian governments, one de jure and one de facto government, if I may put it like that. The Kampuchean government put in place by the Vietnamese government refused until recently to collaborate actively in the delivery of the enormous assistance that the international community intends to give to the Cambodian refugees in Cambodia. There again we should differentiate- as the minister pointed out-between two problems, first, the refugees living in Cambodia and second the refugees who are now in the vicinity of the border between Cambodia and Thailand and in Thailand itself. The minister announced that the Canadian government has tripled its food assistance, especially to Cambodians, but she could not answer me when I asked her whether or not the Cambodian government was willing to collaborate to transport those food supplies to the regions where the situation is most critical.
I think that members of the American Congress are about to leave or have already left for Phnom Penh to discuss with the Cambodian government the question of channelling assistance to Cambodians. In view of that, can the minister assure the House that the assistance Canada generously committed itself to give during the international conference last week, will actually reach the Cambodian refugees who badly need it, that it will reach those living close to the battlefields? Does the Kampuchean government now intend to co-operate with the international community to deliver that assistance, what is exactly the nature of the assistance that Canada is directing to Thailand to help that country solve the problem of Cambodian refugees coming in, and fourth, given that the minister is certainly aware of the fact that a group of volunteer doctors have in recent months accomplished tremendous work in Hong Kong camps and now want to go further and to reach the border zone of Thailand, is it the intention of the government to supply technical and financial help to those willing Canadians, to those doctors who are now in the field doing their best to lessen the terrible sufferings which are the lot of so many Cambodians now?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, first may I just say that I should like to reassure the hon. member that in conveying our offer of assistance to the United States, it was done in a
Supply
humanitarian fashion to assist those people who are without any consular services at the present time.
With regard to the situation in Kampuchea, the hon. member has noted that we have tripled our aid since the time I appeared before the committee and talked about a $5 million contribution to the appeal that the Secretary General had made for aid to Kampuchea. We have tripled that from $5 million to $15 million. We have made that aid available to the international agencies which are best equipped to handle the situation in Kampuchea, in our view, that is, to the International Red Cross and to UNICEF, which have the basic organization that will enable them to distribute the food aid, medical supplies and clothing to those who have been so hurt by this tragedy.
When listening to the news this morning, particularly that from the United States, I heard that relief planes are landing in Phnom Penh. We were assured that the supplies they carried were distributed to all of the refugees, to Kampucheans throughout the country. One has to take into consideration the lack of infrastructure there at the present time.
With regard to Canadian involvement in this, we have indicated that we want our aid to go to Kampuchea directly, regardless of the struggle between the Pol Pot regime and the present Heng Samrin regime. As far as possible, we want it to be distributed throughout Kampuchea. We also want to make sure that some is earmarked for the frontier camps in Thailand. As far as the actual physical arrangements of that distribution are concerned, we are leaving this up to these major non-governmental organizations.
I wish to inform the hon. member that our director in CIDA for the non-governmental organizations is going to Kampuchea personally to take a look at the situation and to advise our government on how he sizes up the relief operation that is under way. On his return we will be in communication with the International Red Cross, UNICEF and the United Nations Commissioner for Refugees.


Claude-André Lachance: I will only be 20 seconds, Mr. Chairman. May 1 suggest to the minister that this report be made available to the House and interested members?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I will be delighted to do that.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Chairman, I wish to assure the minister that I do not intend to subject her or the committee to a long lecture or to a display of detailed knowledge on certain matters which most people know anyway, but to ask some deliberate questions. One goes back to the question raised by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood in the general area of southern Africa. I believe the minister said that a request for elements from Canada to supervise elections in Zimbabwe-Rhodesia had not been received. That is quite understandable.

November 14, 1979
Supply
1 wonder if, in the conversations that have been going on, to which 1 am sure the minister and the department are privy, the supervisors of these elections that are expected will be uniformed personnel, civilian personnel drawn from the office of the Chief Electoral Officer, or in the nature of police. This applies just not in Zimbabwe Rhodesia but in the United Nations supervised elections that are likely to take place in Namibia, South West Africa. I realize these are different sorts of questions. I just wonder what sort of personnel are being sent. I also have a further question on southern Africa.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, with regard to participation in any internationally acceptable force that would help out in the transition period in Zimbabwe Rhodesia, we would have to await the request from the British government. We have not been informed as to the kind of force that would be required in that situation. We have made it known, as I mentioned at Lusaka, that we would be prepared to take part in trying to come to some internationally acceptable solution in that part of the world, and that meant as far as we were concerned on that point, helping to monitor the election processes. However, we would have to await the specific request from the British government before making any definitive reply.
We are not now trying to say we would be prepared to send peacekeeping troops or to send police when what might be asked for would be people who specialize in election procedures. That was how the discussion initially came about in Lusaka. Therefore, we would await that request, if it were to be forthcoming.
The second area the hon. member mentioned was with regard to Namibia. 1 would think any request in that regard is further down the road than a request for assistance for Zimbabwe Rhodesia. I mention that because at this very moment there are discussions going on in Geneva, under the aegis of the Secretary General, in which the Group of Five, of which Canada is one, is involved along with South Africa, representatives of SWAPO, and the internal group within Namibia. Those discussions will be getting under way this week. Therefore, there will still be a lengthy number of discussions that have to take place before any special formula will be arrived at as to how elections are carried out in Namibia.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanieh):: There must have been some thinking in the Department of External Affairs on the supervision of elections, which is the matter at issue, as to whether it would be uniformed personnel, in military uniforms or police uniforms, or civilians, if Canada has made an offer. Surely someone has thought where this group of people will be found. If we are suddenly asked for returning officers, is it possible to recruit experienced returning officers? 1 am just wondering if there has been any thought about that in the department. I agree the question has not been put specifically, but I hope that some thought has been given to this matter.
To go back to Rhodesia for a second, I have just received a copy of the report of the Department of External Affairs. 1 have glanced through parts of it. That part dealing with southern Africa deals with the Zimbabwe Rhodesia situation.
It says that the security situation in that area had deteriorated to such a point that martial law had been imposed and that many whites were leaving the country.
A couple of paragraphs further on it states with respect to Zambia that the country's front line position vis-a-vis Rhodesia made it a target of land and air attacks. I see no mention in this report of land attacks in Rhodesia itself by the so-called liberation force. The reasons for the deterioration of the situation in Rhodesia were surely brought about by the attacks from front line states to which I believe the Canadian government, through some of the NGOs, has been contributing support. I wonder whether the minister would be prepared to make some comments on that.
With regard to South Africa itself, on page 84, and it is true we are talking about 1978, 1 notice there is no indication that the South African government intended to depart from the essential features of its apartheid policy. I also wish to refer to the following paragraph on page 84, in the middle of the page. Then there was the announcement by the former government that South African sportsmen and sports officials would henceforth be denied Canadian visas. I am wondering whether any representations have been made to the minister or whether the department has received any representations from the South African representatives in this country, or whether the department has received reports from our ambassador in South Africa as to changes in the sports policy of the South African government. Does that ban on sportsmen and sports officials still stand?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: With regard to the question of the kind of force or group which might be requested by the British government to assist in the transitional period, in the election period in Zimbabwe Rhodesia, it is difficult to give the hon. member any details at this point because we simply do not know the nature of the request. As the Prime Minister said the other day during his press conference, he would want to consider the nature of such a request before making any statement on it. We have indicated our willingness to play a part in seeing the election process properly carried out, but we do not know the kind of role the British government would envisage for other members of the Commonwealth or, possibly, for countries outside the Commonwealth.
With regard to the annual review to which the hon. member referred, he will note that it is the annual review for 1978 and that it was prepared in a period prior to my assuming my present portfolio. It is not something in whose preparation I was involved. As to his comments about front line states, activities of other groups, and so on, I will take note of them and take them into consideration. I can assure him that in the discussions to which we were privy-and I say "we" as meaning members of the government who attended the Commonwealth conference in Lusaka-we were tremendously impressed by the contributions made by the presidents of the front line states, Mr. Nyerere and Mr. Kaunda. Throughout this period from July onward when the Prime Minister and my

November 14, 1979

department have been in touch with them, they have been exceedingly helpful in trying to move toward a resolution of this problem, and I want to commend them for that.
1 believe the hon. member mentioned that there had been some support given to military intervention-was it military intervention?


Donald W. Munro: Through NGOs.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: There was no support of that nature provided by CIDA. None whatsoever. Again I should like to stress that it is humanitarian and relief activities only which have been assisted by CIDA through the non-governmental organizations.
I myself had an opportunity to see some of those programs in action in Zambia when I visited victory camps in which CUSO is doing some work helping out in a situation where some 8,000 women and children are housed in a camp for refugees. CUSO had helped with the building of houses, the installation of facilities and so on. These are people who have been uprooted, who are separated from their homes, separated from husbands, from male partners. For the most part they are working in a situation where, through the assistance of international non-governmental organizations, they create industries in which they are engaged, are turning out clothing both for other refugees and for sale to help themselves Financially. They are now getting a very good operation going there. A lot of that initially was made possible with the help of the CUSO people in the region.
As to the question with regard to South Africa, the hon. member asked whether there had been any request from South Africa with regard to changes in the policy concerning sports throughout the world. I would inform him there has been no request of which I am aware communicated to my department.


Donald W. Munro: Or information from South Africa with respect to this?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: No, I am not aware of any information which has been communicated in that regard.


Mr. Cyr:: Mr. Chairman, Canada is a responsible member of the international community and we have proven that at all sessions of the Law of the Sea Conference. The Canadian delegation is one of the best equipped under the skilful direction of His Excellency Ambassador Allan Beesley. It has always proudly borne the Canadian flag and must continue to uphold the interest of all Canadians for generations to come. The government must continue to provide the Canadian delegation with funds to hire experts and resource staff. At the tenth session, we must not be outdone by the United States, the U.S.S.R. or Japan. Several important items for Canada will again be on the agenda at the tenth session to be held in
Supply
New York and Geneva in 1980. To name just two, the issues of territorial economic fishing zones and the development of offshore mineral resources will again come up.
Mr. Chairman, Canada has proposed to set a limit to the development of nodules so as not to endanger nickel mines in Canada, more particularly those in Sudbury. Japan, the U.S.S.R., the United States and members of the European Community interested in the development of nodules do not want to hear anything about a limit being set. Those countries which are the biggest consumers in the world will become suppliers, and that would threaten the mining industry as we know it in Canada.
Our Canadian delegation must continue to promote the idea of a 200-mile economic zone and have our 200-mile fishing zone accepted internationally. Mr. Chairman, I believe the minister is aware that the United States are not particularly in favour of those 200-mile zones. The Canadian delegation at the Law of the Sea Conference was behind a majority of the proposals contained in the working paper that will one day become the Law of the Sea Treaty. Supported by the former government, our delegates were able to choose their own friends without making enemies. Relations are excellent with the Group of Seventy-seven as well as with industrialized countries.
The minister is certainly aware that Canada's main objectives at the Law of the Sea Conference are, to mention but a few, the protection of the environment along our coastlines and in fishing areas, the protection of resources on the continental shelf, the setting of a limit on the development of seabed resources, that is, undersea mining resources, the protection of our renewable resources, such as the Atlantic and Pacific salmon, and the delimitation of our fishing, territorial and economic zones.
After this short enumeration, Mr. Chairman, I should like to direct two questions to the minister. First of all, what diplomatic offensive does she intend to start within the next few months to make sure that the Canadian delegation obtains the expected success at the tenth conference? And then, will the budget cuts forecast by the Minister of Finance and the President of the Treasury Board directly affect the Canadian delegation, forcing it to do without part of its staff? The budget cuts must not weaken the Canadian delegation at the Law of the Sea Conference.
The problems discussed at the international conference are not all black or all white, as my colleague just said; they cover a variety of colours. The Canadian delegation must have experts ever ready to take part in the debate and Canada has a significant role to play at this tenth session of the conference on the Law of the Sea.

November 14, 1979
Supply


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I thank the hon. member for his remarks this afternoon because I am fully aware of the importance of the Law of the Sea.

Throughout his time here and in various sessions of the Law of the Sea Conference over the past ten years, the hon. member has made a very significant contribution to the developments which have taken place, and we on this side of the Elouse are very aware of that.
I would like to tell him that the urgency which is now attached to this is of very real importance to the government because we know that we are now in the final stages of the Law of the Sea negotiations. We are down to trying to negotiate the last 5 per cent to 10 per cent of the agreements, and we know that these have to be arrived at in the next two meetings. They have to be settled within this coming year at the two meetings which will be held in March and, later, in June.
The difficulty which would be faced by those who have been engaged in this exercise over the past ten years is that if those final and most difficult items cannot be resolved-such as the one referred to by the hon. member, the ceiling with regard to nickel production in the seabed-everything we have decided on previously would be endangered. All of the agreements and all of the measures which have already been put in place as part of the total package which will come out after the ten-year period could indeed be jeopardized. I am talking about things like the agreements which were arrived at which would greatly benefit Canada with regard to pollution in the Arctic, or the agreements which were arrived at on the extension to the 200-mile limit. All of these things are part of the total package, and therefore it is absolutely vital that we resolve in this last six-month to nine-month period of operation the few outstanding items, so that the previous ones already in place will not be jeopardized.
1 want to tell the hon. member that under the chairmanship of Ambassador Beesley, to whom the hon. member has referred and the work he has done throughout this lengthy period, we will be taking steps to try to resolve the difficulties which still exist on these outstanding matters, whether with the United States or with other countries.
We will be attaching the very highest priority to this because, as I mentioned, we know what we would lose if we do not get those last few items locked into place.
Therefore there would be no question as to either the quality or quantity of the delegation, the people who are involved in this, being reduced in what I hope will be the last few months before the final solution is reached.


Mr. Duclos:: Mr. Speaker, this being my first opportunity to exchange ideas with the minister, I would like first of all to congratulate her on her nomination. In fact I was very happy,
and I say that in all sincerity, when in June last I heard that the Prime Minister had appointed her to that office. I think the minister possesses the high-mindedness, the open-mindedness and also the capacity to keep herself above political partisanship to fill such an important office, and knowing her extremely liberal record I know that sometimes she will feel, alas, isolated within cabinet and her party caucus, but she can count on our support.
Of course time is running short, and 1 would have liked to deal most particularly with the speech she made at the General Assembly of the United Nations last September 25, a speech which struck me because of what she said and what she did not
say.
Let us start with what she did not say. 1 would like the minister to explain in the few minutes we have left how she managed the feat of addressing the General Assembly of the United Nations without saying anything about the situation in the Middle East, the powder keg in the world that is most likely to blow up. I fear that, following the regrettable and foolish decision of her leader to move the Canadian embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, which the government reversed to the greatest relief of us all, she found herself in such an embarrassing situation that she chose to avoid the subject.
1 would ask her to say exactly, and 1 now come to what she said as opposed to what she did not say, what has been done about her recommendation, her most laudable suggestion that proceeded from extremely commendable reasons, that the position of assistant undersecretary in charge of human rights be established? Has Canada taken some initiatives to further that proposal? And finally, considering her interest in human rights, the main topic of her speech, I think, would the minister say whether the government made in the last few days or will make representations to have the Israeli government free the mayor of Nablus, Mr. Bassam Shakaa, and abandon its intention of deporting him from Jordan? It is obvious to me that it is a matter related to human rights.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Chairman, I am grateful to the hon. member for his contribution this afternoon as well as his suggestions. 1 would like to point out that I did not raise all the aspects of the world situation in my speech at the UN. Indeed, 1 did not raise the Middle East issue nor did 1 talk about the U.S.S.R. and our alliance with the European countries.


Fred Alward McCain: Order, please.
Progress reported.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: It being 6 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6.01 p.m., the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, November 15, 1979