1981-06-16

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I wish to introduce the following motion. Whereas the Grit cabinet at its Meach Lake plotting session held last Sunday has opted for greater governmental control over Canadian industry and the nationalization of key sectors of the economy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko):
That this House deplores the socialist direction being pursued by the Liberal government in opposition to the wishes of the people of Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED ADOPTION OF FREE ENTERPRISE POLICIES- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. Whereas Prime Minister Trudeau told the maritime premiers that if they needed money not to call him but to call Premier Lougheed; and whereas Alberta was once a have-not province with a debt of some $169 million, with 52 cents out of every tax dollar going to pay interest charges-most of this debt was the result of policies by the only Liberal government the province ever had and probably ever will have-but by living within its means and creating a good investment climate under a free enterprise system, Alberta now, under Premier Lougheed, has a Heritage Fund and is a have province, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Cooper):
That this House urges Prime Minister Trudeau and his government, instead of being jealous, to adopt free enterprise policies and to follow the example of Premier Lougheed, his government and his PC administration, and start living within its means, start paying its debts and creating an investment climate so Canada too, may have a Heritage Investment Fund.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In a recent speech to the Energy and Chemical Workers Union in Winnipeg, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) stated that one of the inherent purposes of the National Energy Program is to create employment. Since to date all calculations point toward a net loss of close to 60,000 jobs in Canada, and countless others as a result of the spin-off effects, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers):
That the minister of energy scrap his energy program which is costing Canadians their very livelihood and develop one which will truly live up to his idealistic expectations.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA OIL AND GAS ACT
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the government has applied closure to debate in committee on the oil and gas bill, C-48, now with support of the Conservative party, they being in bed together-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: -and whereas the committee has spent 90 per cent of its time hearing industry and government representatives and has amended the bill to their wishes; and whereas this is solidarity week for the native people of the north who are opposing Bill C-48, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie):

June 16, 1981
5.0.	43
That this House deplore the fact that while the Prime Minister speaks about the North-South dialogue, his government and MPs are not even prepared to give Canada's northern and native people a fair hearing on Bill C-48.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HUMAN RIGHTS
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. David Smith (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Victor Brailovsky is a prominent Jewish scientist in the Soviet Union and has attempted for ten years to emigrate to Israel with his family. Yesterday, after seven months of imprisonment without formal charges, Mr. Brailovsky was informed that his trial would take place tomorrow. He has been charged with disseminating fabricated material which is defamatory to the Soviet state. He could face a three-year sentence.
In view of the fact that the Soviet Union seems determined to make an example of Dr. Brailovsky, and determined to make a mockery of the principles of the Helsinki Final Act, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That the House convey to the Soviet government its concern and growing apprehension in the Victor Brailovsky case.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The CBC services to northern Quebec have recently suffered from a drop in morale as well as a high rate of staff turnover. In light of the tremendous importance which this service has to the Cree and
Inuit of this region, and in light of the role of the CBC as a vehicle for the transmission of language and culture, I move, seconded by the hon. member from Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish):
That the Secretary of State for Communications undertake to review the northern Quebec services and examine the relationship of the style and actions of the non-native management of the service to the problems of low morale and high staff turnover.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, it is obvious from the operation of the money markets that the government's obsession with maintaining an 83-cent dollar in the face of an economic program and a fiscal stance that tend to depress our currency on money markets is the principal cause why interest rates in Canada are as much as 5 per cent higher in some cases than they are in the United States. This obsession with the exchange rate is causing undue hardship to all Canadians. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That the government cease paying attention to the exchange value of the Canadian dollar and allow an interest rate to prevail in Canada appropriate to the economic well-being of Canadians generally.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FUTURE OF ALBERTA MEGAPROJECTS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas officials at both Imperial Oil's Cold Lake Project and the Alsands project near Fort McMurray have announced that the government's current pricing offer for synthetic crude production is insufficient to make either project viable, and whereas both plants could be cancelled completely for lack of a suitable pricing agreement between the federal and provincial governments and the industry, and whereas approximately $20 billion of private investment, hundreds of technology experts, and unique tarsands and heavy oil technology stand to be lost if
June 16, 1981

these plants do not proceed, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That the government table immediately its proposed pricing regime for oil sands and heavy oil production so that when a comprehensive agreement with the producing provinces is reached it will mean an immediate go-ahead for the two megaprojects in northeastern Alberta, Alsands and Cold Lake.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, this week in Jerusalem thousands of survivors of the Holocaust are meeting in silent remembrance of the murder of millions of Jews by Nazi war criminals. This commemoration focuses the attention of the world not only on the Holocaust itself but on the fact that many of the perpetrators of war crimes are still at large, some of them in Canada. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow):
That this House calls on the Minister of Justice and Attorney General for Canada to begin proceedings against Canadian residents whom he has substantial reason to believe were responsible for the commission of war crimes.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Henri Tousignant (Temiscamingue):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 about an urgent and especially important matter. We all know that yesterday the Leader of the Official Opposition was in Quebec and, as usual, he made totally unacceptable statements which are altogether incompatible with the objectives we all strive for, namely the unity of this country. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mrs. Beauchamp-Niquet):
That in the future, when the Leader of the Official Opposition intends to travel to Quebec and make such statements, he ought to seek the advice of the Prime Minister or of members on this side of the House so as to avoid making such mistakes.
Oral Questions


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I rise to underline the alarming rate of bankruptcies in Canada caused by the fiscal policies of this government which are creating chronic double-digit inflation, resulting in record high interest rates and a feeble Canadian dollar.
Comparing the first quarter of last year to the first quarter of the current year, consumer bankruptcies have increased 17 per cent, business bankruptcies 19 per cent, and what is most alarming, farm bankruptcies are up 31 per cent, not to mention any of the unreported businesses which are now closing their doors. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That the Minister of Finance change his fiscal policy and co-operate with the Bank of Canada in an effort to curb the inflation which is causing high interest rates in order to return sanity and stability to the money market.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Jim Schroder (Guelph):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity. Whereas the Conservative party in the past has played a proud and honourable role in helping to strengthen Canada's position in the global community of nations, and whereas the present Conservative opposition has refused to contribute time thoughtfully to this important North-South issue, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith):
That this House urge the opposition Conservatives to rise above partisan preoccupation when dealing with this issue.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, who will know that after the most recent Meach Lake meetings his Minister

June 16, 1981
Oral Questions
of Finance indicated that the government is intending no change in its economic policy. The stated purpose of the high interest rate policy which the government is following is to restrain borrowing and to limit the recourse of Canadians to credit. In fact the Prime Minister will know that that policy is not working and that from mid-1980 to mid-1981 the use of credit by Canadians-borrowing by Canadians-has increased a full 17 per cent.
What we have here is not a tight money policy which is limiting borrowing but, instead, a high-cost money policy which is feeding inflation. In light of that fact, I wonder if the Prime Minister will tell us whether his government intends any change in policy which would have the effect of fighting inflation head-on, rather than simply having the effect of causing more Canadians to pay more for the money they are borrowing.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Finance has had occasion to explain in this House a few times, there are many reasons and causes for the high interest rate policy. One of the main and recognized ones is that the American government is practising a very restrictive monetary policy and has set the pattern for very high interest rates. As the Leader of the Opposition would know, Canada has a choice of either seeing the Canadian dollar fall drastically, a flight of Canadian capital because of the higher interest rates in the United States or, alternatively, having an interest rate policy which is somewhat a mirror of the American interest rate policy.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, what the Prime Minister is admitting is that his high interest rate policy-and it is his; he cannot blame it on other countries-is not having the effect of reducing borrowing or fighting inflation here. It is simply creating high-cost money for Canadians who are borrowing here. He may also well know that it is having other serious effects on Canadians, particularly those who are running businesses or farms. The Prime Minister should know, and I- [Translation]
-I am astonished that the members from Quebec remain silent and do not want to hear the statistics here in the House of Commons. However, the Prime Minister must know that the total number of bankruptcies in Canada went up 20 per cent in the past three months. And the rate of bankruptcies among Canadian farmers shot up by 70 per cent.

The Prime Minister is now following a policy which is driving Canadians into bankruptcy. He refuses to do anything to stop that plunge toward bankruptcy.


QUERY RESPECTING POLICY CHANGES
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, let me ask the Prime Minister of Canada how many Canadians he intends to drive into bankruptcy before he
changes policies which are damaging the fibre of this country and the ability of people to create jobs across this country.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in ail likelihood the Leader of the Opposition drafted his questions and he insists on putting them without listening to the answers. I explained to him what has been said many times in the House; there is an international phenomenon which can be seen by all those who have eyes to see, Madam Speaker. The monetary policy of the United States has led to very high interest rates and several countries suffer because of that. The Minister of Finance expressed his regrets about that policy here in the House. We hear most of the major European countries express the same concern because, like us, they must choose between high interest rates along with the regrettable consequences which we can see, or a sharp decline of their currencies, which is indeed very dangerous with respect to inflation. We have witnessed that in Germany, we see that now in France where the franc has lost considerable ground as compared with the American dollar, and we see the same thing in the other major countries of the world. The Leader of the Opposition is very skilful when asking questions, I admit that, but he should make an effort to listen to the answers before delivering speeches which are totally alien to economic theory and practical reality.


REFERRAL TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, as always, the Prime Minister is trying to blame anyone and everyone for his own policies, but it is his government which is responsible for the number of bankruptcies in Canada, and it is his government which must take the blame for the present interest rate; it is neither President Reagan nor the French. No one else is to blame except the Prime Minister of Canada.
We now have a Liberal policy which is not effective in fighting inflation or stopping borrowing. It is only effective in driving Canadian farmers and Canadian businesses into bankruptcy; that is the effect of the Liberal government policy. Frequently the government tries to blame the Governor of the Bank of Canada. The Prime Minister will recall that in an earlier life a couple of years ago, the present Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce suggested that the Parliament of Canada should have an opportunity to review-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Charles Joseph Clark: -other approaches to high interest rates than the approach recommended by the Governor of the Bank of Canada and followed by the government. The Prime Minister will know that, when the Minister of Industry, Trade and
June 16, 1981

Commerce made that recommendation, the government established a parliamentary inquiry into other policies to deal with high interest rates and the problem of inflation.
Will the Prime Minister of Canada follow the advice of his ministers and make a reference to a committee of Parliament with a mandate to look into other means to fight inflation than the means being followed now, means which are driving Canadians into bankruptcy, which are causing high-cost money, which are not effective in the fight against inflation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, by saying that I am trying to blame others, including President Reagan, the Leader of the Opposition only shows once again that he has misunderstood the nature of my answers. If there is anyone to blame, it is certainly the Leader of the Opposition for failing to understand that the economies of all countries are interdependent. When I say, for example, that several European countries are experiencing the same problem as we are with regard to the American policy, the Leader of the Opposition prefers to change the subject. He knows, or at least he should know, that if we want to have economic policies entirely separate from those of the U.S., then we would have to resort to exchange control. That is not an option the government is prepared to entertain. Nor is it an option that the Leader of the Opposition has the courage to put forward as the sole consequence of the rather far-fetched theories he is advocating. Had he been in the House yesterday, he would have heard the speech in which I made it clear that we intend to submit these issues to the U.S., among others, during the economic summit that will be held here in Ottawa, because many industrialized countries are experiencing the same problem. It is not a question of blaming others, Madam Speaker, it is a question of taking our own responsibilities, while realizing that the policies of a country as important for Canada as the U.S. are not made in a vacuum and that they necessarily have an impact on us.


INVOLVEMENT OF PARLIAMENT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, will the Prime Minister of Canada empower a committee of Parliament to consider anti-inflation policies other than those recommended by the Governor of the Bank of Canada, anti-inflation policies which, in the hands of the government, are not working to fight inflation? They are only working to cause Canadians to be driven into bankruptcy and to pay much higher interest rates. Will he let Parliament do its work? Will he make such a reference to a committee?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, that is the final cop out that is well known on the part of the Leader of the Opposition.


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


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That party does not know what economic policy it wants to follow, whether it is the policy followed by the hon. member for St. John's West, the former minister of finance, who wants to cut spending, or the policy of higher spending advocated by so many others.

When they do not know what policy they want to follow, Madam Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am answering the question. I am advised to empower a committee of this Parliament to study the problem of inflation, just as this House was asked a few days ago to empower a committee to study capital punishment, because that party does not know what position it has on either of these questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. Member for Etobicoke Centre.


Mr. Wilson:: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister referred to courage. I think he should refer that comment to his current Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce who, a year and half ago, said he would resign if interest rates went any higher than 14 per cent. They are 20 per cent now so he should resign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member going to ask a question or make a speech?


POSSIBLE CHANGES IN GOVERNMENT POLICY
Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Many observers have attributed the current high interest rates to the low level of and weakness in the Canadian dollar, and have directly linked that weakness to the Liberal energy policy, the lack of confidence resulting from that, the outflow of money for exorbitant purchases of Belgium oil companies-


An hon. Member:: Speech.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -and the loss of capital to other countries.
Since governor Bouey stated that one of the reasons for the high interest policy he has been following is to protect the Canadian dollar, and because of the weakness caused by the energy program, can we expect any significant changes in the energy policy that would reduce this pressure on the Canadian dollar, improve the level of confidence in Canada and result in lower interest rates some time down the road?
10638

June 16, 1981
Oral Questions
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, I would have to answer the hon. member by saying that many competent observers completely disagree with his analysis of the situation. I would say that we should try to work for an energy agreement, not for those reasons, but for the reason that it is important that in this country we have an energy program upon which both orders of government will agree and will recognize to be in the best interests of the Canadian people.


Mr. Andre:: How many people are you going to allow to go bankrupt in the meantime?


Mr. Lalonde:: This is what this government has been concentrating its efforts on since last year. We recognize that the previous government in which the hon. member served did not succeed in getting an agreement. Unfortunately we did not
either.


An hon. Member:: We were there nine months, you have been there 16 years. Where have you been?


Marc Lalonde: However, we are working hard at it and I am confident that with good will on all sides we will be able to do
so.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I refer the minister to articles by Wood Gundy, Greenshields, and Rodney Anderson, all within the past week, each of which have attributed the weakness in the Canadian dollar to his energy policy, and that is the reason for the high interest rates we have today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ECONOMY
Michael Holcombe Wilson: My supplementary is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Since there has been much speculation arising out of the Meach Lake meeting last week to the effect that we will see greater government intervention in the economy somewhat along the lines of the National Energy Program, and since that program has caused the weakness in the Canadian dollar and the high interest rates we have today, would the Prime Minister make a commitment to the House that before this industrial strategy discussed last weekend is introduced and implemented, he would table a white paper outlining the full extent of the industrial strategy so that Canadians will have an opportunity to comment on this and hopefully avoid the mistakes made in the energy program?


Marc Lalonde: You had high interest rates before the energy
program.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I could answer the hon. member most simply by saying to him that the premises on which his question is based are completely false, as was the statement made in a motion
under Standing Order 43 before question period. The premises of that question about the highly interventionist and socialist government are completely without foundation.


An hon. Member:: Read your own books.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Nothing of that nature was discussed at Meach Lake, and if the hon. member wants to have an opinion on who is socialist in this House, he should ask the best witness, the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


STATISTICS CANADA
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, my question is for a non-socialist minister, the Minister of Supply and Services, in his capacity as minister responsible for Statistics Canada. The Agriculture Canada retail price survey was released today and shows that the cost of food for home consumption in May increased .73 per cent, while the Statistics Canada report released on Friday showed a decrease of .7 per cent for last month. Incredibly, it would appear that the May food price figures put out by Statistics Canada actually relate to the last week in April, while Agriculture Canada's survey covered food price averages for all four weeks of May. Can the minister confirm that the Statistics Canada survey for May actually took place in April? Can he also confirm that if we took the May figures we would see an increase of 12.6 per cent-still a record level-rather than the much-vaunted decrease to 12.3 per cent which was bandied about by the Prime Minister on Friday?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, I will have to take notice of that question and give the hon. gentleman a reply later.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, that was the first answer.


AGRICULTURE CANADA
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, my next question is for the Minister of Agriculture if I can get his attention-I know it is lonely at the top but I will just make it one question.
The minister knows that in January his department made public the release dates for the monthly retail food price index. When the figures were released in January we were told that the retail price index would be released last Thursday. They did not come out Thursday, they came out today. It would appear that the May figures were not released last Thursday as scheduled because they showed an increase in food prices, whereas the CPI, which on Friday reported the May figures
June 16, 1981

which were really collected in April, showed a decrease. Can the minister explain to the House the apparent cover-up, or collusion, and why he did not report his own department's food price index last Thursday as scheduled? Why were the figures not released as they were supposed to be?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I will have to check into that matter and find out.


THE ECONOMY
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I will make this next question as easy as I can. It is for the Prime Minister who, I know, does not like talking about economics.
Quite apart from the mix-up which has taken place with respect to these figures, it is clear that the mix-up itself is less important than the hard fact that the cost of living has reached the level of a national economic crisis, and new initiatives are definitely required. On Sunday when the Prime Minister came away from Meach Lake he said:
We talked about inflation a fair amount, and we think the Minister of Finance ... will be implementing policies which will have a beneficial effect.
Quite simply, can the Prime Minister tell us what these new initiatives are which the cabinet will be putting before Parliament? Can the hon. gentleman give us the assurance that these initiatives will be put before us this month so that the Canadian consumer, farmer, small businessman and home owner can obtain some relief from the inflationary and high interest rate policies of his government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I believe the Minister of Finance made it clear at the same meeting that he was unlikely to be considering anything in the nature of a mini-budget before the summer. When I was alluding to the policies of the minister I was alluding to the policies which he has already discussed in various forums and in this House. I am told he discussed them in an excellent speech he gave in Saskatchewan last Saturday. I recommend that the hon. member read the minister's speech and he will find out that one of our former colleagues in this House was chosen as the new leader of the Liberal party in Saskatchewan, Mr. Ralph Goodale.
As the hon. member said, I am not all that anxious to speak on behalf of the Minister of Finance. But I might be able to shed some light on the question he asked of my colleagues a moment ago. It seems to me that the important thing about statistics is that you always compare statistics taken at one period with a like period. It would be completely wrong to skip a month, as the hon. member says, in order to get the CPI figures, and to try to compare them with the figures given at the same date by the Department of Agriculture. The virtue of gathering statistics-if the hon. member can understand this-is that they are gathered at set periods. They are not
Oral Questions
brought forward or backward in order to prove the case put forward by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood.


COMBINES
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In his typically sanctimonious attitude the minister has been travelling across the country asking Canadians for support in strengthening combines legislation. The minister has produced a discussion paper, part of which recommends, curiously enough, a ban on participation in international cartels.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Chris Speyer: Specifically, the paper says:
-the increasing concentration in world trade has given rise to concerns over the dangers of the cartelization of world trade and a number of countries have taken action recently against international cartels-
Can the minister tell the House whether or not the formation of international cartels with undertakings similar to the uranium cartel will become illegal if this proposed legislation is passed by Parliament? Second, can the minister tell the House whether or not there will be any teeth in this proposed legislation to make it illegal for Canadian government officials to participate in co-ordinating cartels?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate
Affairs and Postmaster General): Madam Speaker, it is true that I am now attending a series of meetings with representatives of various national organizations to discuss possible amendments to the Competition Act. I am pleased to see that the hon. member is concerned with the question and that he has constructive suggestions to make. I hope that when the bill is considered in the House, he will see to it to use his influence so that the legislation may pass quickly with the support of Conservative members.


Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, this is another example of a minister refusing to answer a direct question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUBLICATION OF REPORT
Chris Speyer: My supplementary question is to the same minister and it pertains again to the strengthening of the competition laws in Canada. Does the minister envisage giving to the director of combines investigations the power to table in Parliament, and to make public, his reports on the investigation of international cartels, as the hon. gentle-

June 16, 1981
Oral Questions
man promised on March 4? Second, can the minister tell us whether or not he will permit the director to have access to cabinet minutes so that there will not be a situation in which there is the type of massive government cover-up which is presently going on?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Madam Speaker, I answered the member a moment ago. I did not try to elude his question. On the contrary, I told him that we were having consultations, that it was a working paper and that the views not only of the business community but also of consumer representatives and of members opposite as well were welcome. We have not yet taken any decision or a final position, and any suggestion the hon. member may want to make would be given favourable consideration. As for the second part of his question, however, I would refer him to answers already given in the House in that respect.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Because Mr. Ralph Branscombe was retained by the Privy Council Office, could the Prime Minister inform the House if Mr. Bran-scombe's recommendations about removing the secrecy classification from the transcripts of the Taschereau Royal Commission on Espionage have been presented to the government as yet and, if so, what are those recommendations, and what action is the government taking?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I should like to inform the House that Mr. Branscombe has not as yet completed his work. He is at a stage now where he is obtaining legal advice on privacy matters from the law officers of the Crown. Recently 1 asked how much more time his work will require, and I understand that he expects to complete it within two or three weeks from now.


DECLASSIFICATION OF GOVERNMENT DOCUMENTS
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, perhaps I can get an answer from the Prime Minister with my supplementary question. At his Friday press conference the Prime Minister indicated a desire to have more specifics about certain security risks that occurred over ten years ago. Because the government is already in possession of these details, I wonder if the Prime Minister would undertake to declassify and make public the reports and documentation
that the government already has relating to these individuals and events?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is talking about "these" individuals. He did not mention any names and I do not know if he intends to.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and is supplementary to that raised by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre. It concerns statements made in the past few days by Mr. Jack Armstrong of Imperial Oil Limited, and Mr. Robert E. Kadlec, chairman of the Canadian Gas Association, both of whom have accepted, from a corporate point of view, the main principles and goals of Canada's National Energy Program, and have intimated their optimism for the long-term success of the program. My question, therefore, is can the minister indicate whether the reactions of these two gentlemen is typical of those in Canada's energy industry today?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I cannot vouch for all members of the industry, but I think the view expressed by these two gentlemen appears to be shared certainly, by the most dynamic and most enlightened members of the industry.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FUNDING FOR NATIONAL HEALTH RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Considering that the Health Research and Development Program, NHRDP, is the only federal source of funds for applied research into health care, and includes such important areas of research as environmental and occupational causes of disease, disease prevention, and the evaluation of existing health programs, would the minister please tell the House why the 1981-82 budget for the NHRDP has been increased by a paltry 1.9 per cent, an effective decrease of 11 per cent when inflation is considered?
June 16, 1981


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, the question is under review. When we are ready, we will make a relevant announcement.


REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL ANNOUNCEMENT
Simon Leendert de Jong: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question. It is incredible that the government, which is spending some $8 billion on health programs and health care in 1981-82, should only spend some $10 million on the evaluation of health services. The Medical Research Council received in increase of 22 per cent, and I congratulate the minister and the government for that move. Surely the NHRDP program is an integral part of that and the two must work together on research. Again I should like to ask the minister when will she inform the scientific community that the funding for this important and much needed program will be increased?

Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Madam Speaker, as the hon. member has said, the estimates for scientific medical research have just been increased by 22 per cent.

The budget on the other hand of the NHRDP program, which is another program of medical research, is, as I said, under review. I will be announcing tomorrow the exact budget for it. The hon. member may be interested to read the clippings and the press release that I will send to his office as usual. We have lots of complex dossiers and we do our fights one at a time.


REGULATORY REFORM
Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Madam Speaker, I should like to put my question to the Prime Minister. We heard the Minister of Finance say that the answer to much of the economic dilemma we face in this country today lies in greater productivity. I think that pretty well all the members of the House would agree with that statement. We have the Economic Council report on reforming regulations, which shows that our productivity can be substantially improved by reducing the burden on those producing goods and services. Yet on the eve of this report we read about discussions that have taken place at Meach Lake to the effect that the same high level of ministerial involvement can be expected as we have had in the energy program. Do we infer then, Madam Speaker, that the government is rejecting the Economic Council report on regulation reform, and are we to expect more government structuring and intervention in our economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in reply to a previous question I indicated that the
Oral Questions
hon. member's information on the Meach Lake meeting is completely fanciful and fabricated.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Miss MacDonald:: It is from Lalonde.


Charles Joseph Clark: Lalonde was wrong again.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I regret that the hon. member has been misinformed.


Charles Joseph Clark: You cannot believe a thing Lalonde says.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Arthur Ronald Huntington: Madam Speaker, the information I have comes from the official Liberal organ, the Toronto Star, or the Trudeau Star. In light of the Prime Minister's reply would he clear up some of the confusion that remains in government policy toward the important subject of productivity? For instance, according to a headline in the Vancouver Province in December, 1975, the Prime Minister said there was "no way that the free market system can be made to work now or when the anti-inflation program ends."
On the Prime Minister's return from the Bonn Summit he said:
We will remove the intrusions of many government policies and regulations from individuals and businesses; in some cases this will mean returning functions to the private sector, in others it will mean removing the heavy hand of government and its drag on personal initiatives.
The situation in the country is serious. It is time the Prime Minister-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order, please. It is high time for the question too.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think the speech that the hon. member refers to, in 1975, indicated that the free market system is not perfect and that indeed some regulation of it is required. That is precisely the position being put forward today by members of his own party when they were enjoining the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to get along with his competition policy so that we could ensure that the monopolistic powers which exercise control over the economy are somewhat regulated through an anti-combines policy-


Charles Joseph Clark: Will it affect Jack Austin?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -to prevent that control of the economy by the private sector where the free market system does not operate.

June 16, 1981
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


EDUCATION
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Right Hon. Prime Minister in the absence of the Secretary of State.
Last week, the Secretary of State announced that the federal government would maintain its financial assistance to postsecondary education and in conclusion he said this:
The federal share of post-secondary financing exceeds that of the provinces, but it is not sufficiently directed towards national objectives ... and is hardly likely to underline the federal presence.
Can the Right Hon. Prime Minister explain to what extent his government is willing to invade this area of provincial jurisdiction?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not really understand the question asked by the hon. member, Madam Speaker. Since the mid-sixties, I think, the federal government has played a major role in financing post-secondary education in the provinces, and this because the provinces had been clamouring for very generous grants. In the past, the federal government has paid around 50 per cent of the costs of post-secondary education, and the rest was paid partly by the provinces and partly by the students themselves. If the hon. member approves this policy, as I believe he does, he should not wonder about the federal government's interest in educational problems, at least as concerns footing the bill. What the Secretary of State was saying in his reply was that it is not normal that in an area essentially under provincial jurisdiction, the federal government should pay not 50 per cent, but up to 60 per cent of financing while the provinces have reduced their own grants in the last few years for post-secondary education, which of course forces the students to pay more. What we suggest essentially in this regard is that if those provinces which claim jurisdiction in this field, as the hon. member was saying, can look after their own field of jurisdiction, they should be able to pay at least 50 per cent of the costs.


David Kilgour: I have a supplementary, Madam Speaker. I am of course talking about the Liberal notion of renewed federalism or, if you prefer, of Liberal imperialism. Is the Right Hon. Prime Minister willing to define the contents of post-secondary studies under the twelve objectives of his national colleagues?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, once again, the Progressive Conservative party should make up its mind! Do they want us to pay or not? I cannot understand the hon. member when he suggests that we are imperialists because we pay between 58 and 60 per cent of the costs.


MANPOWER
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns the Manpower outreach programs, which are some of the better programs of his department. Ontario women's Outreach groups have requested a meeting with the minister eight times now because of their concern about the future of the Outreach programs. Will the minister tell us why he is afraid to meet with these women? Will he also tell us what his plans are for the future of the Manpower Outreach programs?


Mr. Paproski:: He hates women.


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member may be interested to know that meetings are planned with representatives of the Outreach groups next week.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, it is my understanding that those meetings are with his officials, and my question concerned the future of the Outreach programs, both for women and other important groups.


SUPPORT FOR PROGRAMS AND SERVICES
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, the stringent regulations which are being proposed by the minister's department and the plans for assimilating these services in Manpower offices is just another way of terminating these important programs. Will the minister give us his assurance that he will support the kinds of programs that have demonstrated a permanent need, such as the program for the ethnic workers in Chinatown, and will he make sure that these programs are continued as permanent services.


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, in response to the hon. member, she may be interested to know that one of the primary directions we have taken in the department is to provide specialized counselling services to special groups in the community. Just a month ago we established eight major counselling units for women in employment centres across Canada. This is a pilot project aimed at demonstrating how we can re-orient the full range of government services to concentrate on that very important need to help women gain entry into the work force. What we are doing is re-allocating our resources and targeting at the real needs. An Outreach program will play a very important role in that new orientation of our department.
June 16, 1981


HUMAN RIGHTS
David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It relates to the Victor Brailovsky case. Considering the importance of the Brailovsky case in terms of human rights, and in view of the slanted information one gets from Soviet news agencies which cover these show trials, does the minister plan to instruct the Canadian ambassador to seek official observer status for one of our diplomats, as was done in the Shcharansky trial, in order to ensure impartiality of the information which the minister and his department will receive on this matter?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the Brailovsky case is one of those on which we have already made representations to the Soviet Union. I have already instructed our ambassador to seek this status at the trial in Moscow.
I should point out that on a previous occasion when observer status was requested during the Shcharansky trial, our observer was not allowed into the courtroom. In any event, we intend to seek such status and attempt to have him attend the trial.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment. It concerns the contaminated radioactive soil from Scarborough and its proposed relocation to the Madawaska mine site near Bancroft in Hastings County against the wishes of the local residents. Does the minister concur with his colleagues, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Minister of Public Works on this proposed relocation? Also, can the minister confirm or deny the existence of arsenic in this soil?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is yes, and the answer to the second part is that I will have to check and find out.


POSSIBLE DANGERS TO ENVIRONMENT
William John Vankoughnet: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also addressed to the same minister. In light of the minister's apparent strong stand on the problem of acid rain, will he use his offices to look into the possible serious consequences of this other threat to our environment, namely, the dumping of radioactive wastes in the Bancroft area?
Oral Questions


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I believe it is true to say that the Atomic Energy Control Board is looking into this matter very carefully. I will be very happy to express an interest and to find out for myself just what the facts of the situation are and to make some assessment of it.


AVIATION SAFETY
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. For the first time in history the ten aviation associations in Canada are unanimous in their approach to the formation of an aviation safety tribunal. Last week they asked the minister to table the terms of reference of the implementation team and to include representatives of the industry on this team and to exclude Mr. McLeish from it. Given this unanimity, would the minister now take the necessary steps to change his implementation team, and will he also table the terms of reference?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, on the last subject the terms of reference have been sent to the group either yesterday or today. They are going out, and there is no secret about these terms.
On the substance of the question, as I said in the House the other day, those associations which came to see me made the case that they, as associations, should be part of the committee for the implementation of the Dubin report. 1 begged to disagree with that because if that were to take place we could have a repeat of the Dubin inquiry, and that is not what is needed at this time. Then I made the case that, because my department is going to be involved in the implementation of the Dubin report, the head of the air administration had to be a member of the advisory committee in order to help me with the implementation of it.
Incidentally, I was very pleased to see the degree of unanimity that existed among the air associations on the quality and the value of the Dubin report.


TIMETABLE FOR INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
John Raymond Ellis: Madam Speaker, there is that degree of unanimity, but it is only in an attempt to get the report implemented. It is their very clear opinion that Mr. McLeish and the team will delay the implementation. If this indeed is, first, an implementation team, will the minister give us a timetable for that implementation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the committee will work as one, and even if Mr. McLeish wanted, he could not hold-up the consensus that will develop within that group of people.

June 16, 1981
Oral Questions
As for implementing the Dubin report, and I have already referred to this, whether it will be 90 per cent, 95 per cent or 85 per cent, there will be discussion on that. I have already said in the House that I very much hope legislation can be brought forward in the fall. However, when I say that, I have to turn to my colleagues in the cabinet and pay attention to their views on the subject. Therefore, I have to qualify what I say by saying, "Subject to the approval of cabinet". Nevertheless, in the fall I should have legislation on the subject of an independent agency to investigate the case involving air safety.


MANPOWER
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Earlier in the question period the minister was asked whether or not he would meet personally with women's Outreach groups. Will the minister stand up in the House and commit himself to meeting personally with women's Outreach groups in the next 30 days? Will he also make a commitment to the House that the budget available to women's Outreach groups will be at least as much this year as it was last year? Will he make those two commitments here and now?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, it may be of interest to members of the House that the number of Outreach programs for women have increased from 13 to 21 since we took power. This is almost a 40 per cent increase over the position taken by the hon. member's government. I can say that we are working very diligently to make sure that the trend we established will continue.
As I indicated previously, we plan two days of meetings with Outreach groups next week, with officials in charge of the programs. When I receive their reports and have had a chance to read them, we will then take the next step as we see fit.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: The minister carefully avoided answering whether or not the budgetary amount in the year ahead would be equal to the year just past. It is possible to have 21 projects with one staff person each, whereas there were 14 with ten, and that is a considerable budget cut.


LEVEL OF FUNDING FOR WOMEN'S OUTREACH PROGRAMS
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Will the minister indicate whether the funding in the year ahead for women's Outreach programs will be at least as great? Will he promise this House that that amount will be at least as great in the year ahead as it was for the year-just past?


Lloyd Axworthy: As I indicated in my previous answer, Madam
Speaker, we have substantially expanded the ability to provide counselling and Outreach services to women across this country, steps that the hon. member's government did not even contemplate when it was in power, such as establishing separate centres. The fact is we have increased those budgets and we will continue to place emphasis on women's projects.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Knowles:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to the business of the House. Last Thursday when the business for this week was announced, it had not yet been decided what we would be doing tomorrow. Is the government House leader now in a position to tell us what the business will be tomorrow and also what the plans are for Thursday and Friday?


Mr. Pinard:: Tomorrow, Madam Speaker, we will be considering Bills S-10, C-66 and S-19 in that order. I hope there will be agreement to dispose of all stages of those three bills with one speaker per party in each case. In so far as Thursday and Friday are concerned, on Thursday we intend to proceed with report stage of Bill C-57 and have the divisions at nine o'clock. We have worked on a House order which is now ready, but I would prefer to have it approved by the House tomorrow. On Friday we will be dealing with third reading of Bill C-57. We have already made an agreement to defer any vote until next week if a vote is required on Friday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I share the minister's hope that we can deal with those three bills tomorrow, and I believe we can. However, in a couple of cases we just learned today that they will be called. Therefore, we have not had time to check to see whether they can all be considered with one speaker per party. I did not want silence to mean consent, although I share the minister's hope.


Yvon Pinard: That is right, Madam Speaker; as a matter of fact, the Progressive Conservative House leader to whom I talked on the phone has made the same request. We will be in a better position to determine later today whether or not there is agreement to limit the debate on the two bills I have mentioned.


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. You will recall that on Friday I gave notice that I would be raising this question of privilege today. I have complied with your request that the documentation be sent to your office.
June 16, 1981

This comes about because I asked for the supplying of copies of all letters, papers and studies concerning the move of RCMP Headquarters "E" Division from Victoria to Vancouver, British Columbia. The House agreed to the motion, which was No. 51, on June 3 and the papers which have been supplied by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) came into my possession on June 11.
The paper that he supplied to me consists of five pages. The front page is a kind of cover sheet signed by someone, I have no idea who, for the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). The next page is another order sheet which reiterates what I said when I put down the order for the production of papers. At the bottom it says, "Attached-Summary of Organization Study "E" Division". It then goes on for two and one third pages with something that is unsigned. The heading is "Summary of Organization Study "E" Division". It is unsigned, undated and for all I know might have been written by somebody in the minister's office the night before it was tabled. This is all that the Solicitor General provided to me in response to this House order.
I would like to point out two things here. First, I already have in my possession several documents concerning this move. Two are of some note. The first is called "Organization Study, "E" Division". It is 35 pages long. Another one, 66 pages long, is called "Reorganization-British Columbia". It is filled with facts and figures. I might say that none of the figures represents costs, but I do not wish to get into the merits of moving or not moving at this time.
I have as well letters from mayors of some of the municipalities involved addressed to the Solicitor General, letters to and from Deputy Commissioner Reid, a press release put out by Deputy Commissioner Reid and a two-page document marked confidential, although I am rather puzzled as to why it is so marked.
I notice that when the parliamentary secretary spoke on the production of these papers, he said they were subject to the usual reservations about confidential documents; but the other documents which I have received in such quantities are not confidential. I note in this regard that Beauchesne at page 138, paragraph 390(2)(b), exempts "Papers, the release of which would be detrimental to the security of the State". I trust this is not meant to include documents which might cast some doubts on the infallibility of the Solicitor General or the RCMP.
Because I consider the meagreness of the documents to be in direct contempt of the House order by the Solicitor General and his failure to supply all documents in this matter hinders me in my duties in representing the federal constituency of Victoria, I will move, subject to your finding of a prima facie case, that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for consideration and a recommendation.
I can read the motion I have prepared if you would like, Madam Speaker. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
Privilege-Mr. McKinnon
That the matter of the failure of the Solicitor General to table all letters, papers and studies concerning the move of RCMP Headquarters "E" Division from Victoria to Vancouver, B.C., when required to do so by an order of this House, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for consideration and recommendation.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, since I was the one who tabled these documents in the House, perhaps I should reply to the hon. member.
With respect, this is not a question of privilege. The hon. member is disputing information that was tabled. He uses the words "House order" to give the impression that all members of the House ordered the government to release these documents. That is not entirely true, if my understanding of the rules is correct. The hon. member made a request under motions for the production of papers. The government complied on June 3. I stated, and the hon. member correctly quoted me, at page 10220 of Hansard that "notice of motion for the production of papers No. 51 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations about confidential documents".
The hon. member went on to quote Beauchesne's citation 390(2)(b). He did not read on page 139 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition citation 390(2)(1) "Cabinet documents and those documents which include a Privy Council confidence." They too may be exempted from the criteria of tabling in the House.
It is a normal custom in the House that all documents with respect to internal workings of a decision or internal working documents or memoranda are exempt from tabling in the House. It is for this reason that the government stipulated, as I did, that the motion for the production of papers was being presented subject to the usual reservations about confidential documents.


Madam Speaker:: I would be enlightened if the parliamentary secretary could tell me a little bit more about the documents which were quoted by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) and which I understand he received from other sources. I would like the hon. member to comment on whether those were part of the documents which were requested by the motion, or whether there are any particular reasons for failing to produce them, such as the fact that these documents do not belong to the government or were restricted for some other reason for which the government cannot table the documents. I think it would be helpful to my ruling if the hon. member could enlighten me on that particular aspect of the case.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I really can only speak to what I received and what came to the Privy Council Office by way of my responsibility to table. The hon. member did quote the names of those documents. I have a copy of the motion for the production of papers, No. 51, in my hands, a "Summary of Organization Study "E" Division" in both official languages, and that was it. Whatever other documents the hon. member may have of a confidential nature he did not receive by a

June 16, 1981
Official Report
tabling in response to a motion for the production of papers. As one knows, very often confidential documents are released from unnamed sources; but, Madam Speaker, it is not really within my purview to comment on the accessibility the hon. member has to any other documents. I can only speak to the fact that these documents were tabled. The normal practice is that internal memoranda and working documents are not usually tabled in the House, and this has ample precedent in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Practices.


Madam Speaker:: Usually members do not speak twice on a question of privilege, but if the hon. member can very shortly provide some enlightenment so I can rule on this question of privilege, I will make an exception and give him the floor for a few minutes.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, I would just like to comment that none of these papers or documents is the kind generally referred to as arriving in brown envelopes. I got most of them at the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. They are not confidential documents; they are simply documents containing information, correspondence and studies that were done which 1 asked through a privilege of the House to see. In no way are they of a confidential nature at all, unless it has become confidential to point out a lack of freedom of information in this House.
This document in my hand is one of the things that cause me concern. It is called "Organization Analysis and Development Branch". It was approved by Superintendent Fuchs and prepared by Staff Sergeant Langille. It says among other things that they considered numerous memoranda, and audit reports and statistical data were also reviewed in the course of the study.
These are the kinds of things I would like to see to determine whether this move, which is a crippling matter to the economy of Victoria, was well advised. I cannot see how we can conduct public business here if everything we want to see or read is to be classified for the benefit of government members.


Madam Speaker:: I will take this particular question of privilege under advisement. I would like to look into the whole question.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe) moved: that the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, presented to the House on Thursday, June 11, 1981, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, I seek the permission of the House to lay before it a petition signed by several hundred citizens concerning the economic loss and health hazards experienced resulting from the substance urea formaldehyde being placed in their homes.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,193, 2,230, 2,551, 2,552 and 2,556.


Mr. Herbert: Does the government make payments to the provinces in lieu of provincial consumption taxes and fees on its purchases of goods and services and, if so, what amount was paid last year by the provinces as federal consumption taxes on their purchases of goods and services and what amount is estimated to be paid in the current year?


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: The
federal government makes payments in lieu of provincial consumption taxes and fees to six provinces who have signed Reciprocal Taxation Agreements. The four western-most provinces have not signed Reciprocal Taxation Agreements. With respect to the amount of federal consumption taxes paid by the provinces, these taxes are levied at the manufacturer's level and are in most cases already built into the retail price of goods. Revenue Canada-Customs and Excise, which is the department responsible for collecting federal sales and excise taxes, does not keep records of the incidence of tax by

June 16, 1981
Order Paper Questions
individual consumers, whether private, corporate or govern-


Mr. Stewart: ment. Thus, it is not possible to know the amount of federal Did the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce purchase a Boeing consumption taxes paid by the provinces in a given year.	B-767 flight simulator for $1,237,850 from CAE Electronics Ltd. and, if so, for
what purpose?


Mr. Halliday: Were grants given to (a) the Co-op in Granby, Quebec to assist in developing their new specialty cheese plant (b) other cheese plants in Quebec and, if so (i) in what amounts (ii) during which fiscal years?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce and Regional Economic Expansion as follows:
Industry, Trade and Commerce
(a)	No.
(b)	Yes.
(i) and (ii)
Fiscal Year	Incentive Offers
1976-77	$133,000
1980-81	$207,000


[Stage Direction]
Regional Economic Expansion
(a)	Yes; $4,066,600 to Agropur.
(b)	Yes.
(i) and (ii)
Fiscal Year
1970-	71
1971-	72
1972-	73
1973-	74
1974-	75
1975-	76
1976-	77
1977-	78
1978-	79
1979-	80
1980-	81
Incentive Offers
[Stage Direction]
4.632.450	(Agropur included)
1.018.450 232,280 295,050
[Stage Direction]
(Note: All the projects which received grants are not necessarily involved solely in cheese production. In some cases, other dairy products can be manufactured in the same establishment).
Mr. Stewart: Did the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce purchase an airbus industrial A-300 flight simulator valued at $997,616 from CAE Electronics Ltd. and, if so, for what purpose?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: See
reply to question No. 2,508 part (d) answered June 4, 1981, page 10262.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: See reply to question No. 2,508 part (b) answered June 4, 1981, page 10262.


Mr. Stewart: Did the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce purchase a Boeing B-757 flight simulator for $1,237,850 from CAE Electronics Ltd. and, if so, for what purpose?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: See
reply to question No. 2508 part (a) answered June 4, 1981, page 10262.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Cossitt:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order to correct a statement I made in the House yesterday on a point of order with reference to one specific question, namely, No. 30, which I said had not been answered for a little over two years. The reason I rise to make this correction is that I have checked the matter out thoroughly and I have found that the answer has not been forthcoming for five years and five days as of today. I think that is probably a parliamentary record for stalling by this government.
If Your Honour will permit me to do so, I propose to read the question into the record. It is very short but I would like to read it into the record to show how simple it is and then ask the parliamentary secretary why, after five years and five days, this question has not been answered. It reads as follows:
1.	Since January 1, 1973, what are the names and job designations of all persons employed by, connected with, or in any way associated with, the Canadian Transport Commission who were issued passes by Air Canada?
2.	Did the wives or personal associates of any such individuals hold permanent or temporary passes of any kind on Air Canada during the same period and, if so, what are their names?
I do not see why it should take over five years to compile a list as simple and straightforward as that.


Mr. Broadbent:: Why didn't your government answer it?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: My friend on the far left from points south off the coast of Florida, etc., is asking in a heckling way why our government did not answer it. Because of inquiries I made at the time I know an attempt was being made to put the information together, but before the present government went out of office, it spent four years doing absolutely nothing. There is no reason why the preliminary work in compiling the answer done by the previous administration could not have been finished by this government long ago.
I suggest it is a record in any Parliament when a government neglects to answer a question for five years and five days. I think it is disgraceful. It is indicative of an arrogant adminis-
June 16, 1981

tration that lets on that it favours freedom of information- there is a bill on the Order Paper now respecting freedom of information which members of this government are crowing about across the country-yet does not answer a question as simple and straightforward as this. What on earth is the national secret? What is so terrible that the Canadian people should not know about it? Which people on the Canadian Transport Commission along with their wives have free passes on Air Canada? I do not understand this. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary could now tell us why this five-year-old mystery still exists.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) talks about a record but, without wanting to be too facetious, I think he sounds a bit like a broken record. He has been able to repeat this question today. This is not the first time he has repeated a question which has been on the Order Paper for some time.
The hon. member seems somewhat defensive about the fact that the government of which he was a supporter for nine months did not answer the very same question. I think his defensive remarks speak for themselves.
I note that there is a rule, referred to in Beauchesne, citation 299(2), about repetition. I ask whether one should be allowed to repeat day in and day out questions which have been put on the Order Paper in the normal way.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It seems to me that any member loses his privileges if he does not have the right to repeat again a point of order of which this government has absolutely failed for five years to take note. We have privileges here. We have rights as members, but this bunch across the way has no respect for the rights of this House. Hon. members opposite have no respect for the rights of members of Parliament. They simply answer what they want to answer and hide the rest in the Privy Council Office. I think it is time something was done to stop this charade of a government putting it over on the House of Commons and the Canadian people and doing nothing about the real issues in this country.


Mr. Beatty:: Madam Speaker, presumably the comments of the parliamentary secretary about repetition in the House of Commons could be directed at me too because this is the seventh time I have had to rise with regard to question No. 1,852. That question cannot claim the five years and five days record of the question of my hon. colleague, but I can invite the parliamentary secretary to join with me in the commemoration of the twenty-seventh week my question has sat on the Order Paper.
My question is a simple one. The minister who is supposed to be responsible for answering that question is the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox), who is currently before a parliamentary committee defending the government's freedom of information legislation and saying that the government has a commitment to freedom of information. Surely the government has a responsibility, in dealing with the House of Com-
Order Paper Questions
mons, to demonstrate that it is serious about this. Rather than simply saying there is no problem and rather than trying to prevent members of Parliament from bringing matters to the attention of Your Honour when he does not do his job, the parliamentary secretary has an obligation to tell Parliament for what reasons questions have not been answered. Is it because the minister responsible for freedom of information has chosen to suppress information, or is it that in this particular instance this parliamentary secretary is incapable of getting a lazy minister to do his job?
While I am on my feet, may I also bring to the attention of the parliamentary secretary question No. 1,439, which was put on the Order Paper on July 11, and question No. 1,450, which was put on the order paper July 16 of last year? Both of those questions deal with the government's advertising program. Again this is not something which should be confidential information. If the parliamentary secretary would have the courtesy simply to tell hon. members on this side of the House that he is refusing to supply answers to certain questions, we would be prepared to stand some of them down; but surely we are entitled to some explanation.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if I may, I would like to refer the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) to my six previous answers to his six previous questions. I have assured the hon. member that I am doing my job in trying to get answers. Evidence for that is that we have tabled in this House over 80 per cent of the answers requested by the opposition. I think it is grossly unfair for the hon. member or any of his colleagues to accuse the government of not being willing to supply information. The government has never refused to answer any question on the Order Paper.
The hon. member knows full well that many of the questions asked are complicated and that many of them require replies which involve expensive research. I find it rather ironic that the party which champions restraint of government spending puts so many questions on the Order Paper which require millions of taxpayers' dollars to answer, and then hon. members opposite state in the House that the government is not doing its job. The government has done very well in the last year and a half by answering 80 per cent of the questions. We shall continue to press for answers.
In the last month or so certain questions standing on the order paper in the name of the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville for quite some time have been answered. I pledge to Your Honour and to all members of the House that I will do my best to obtain answers to all the questions on the Order Paper.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.

June 16, 1981
International Relations



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Edward Broadbent: That this House expresses its continuing concern with respect to Canada's international relations and calls on the government to demonstrate a meaningful interest in South and Central America and, in particular, to initiate steps aimed at establishing a negotiated settlement of the tragic civil war in El Salvador.
He said: Madam Speaker, I want to begin my speech by quoting from a newspaper report as follows:
It was on a Sunday that Felix Jiminez decided to leave El Salvador.
He was in church near his home in the Salvadorean capital when suddenly a band of men drove up in unmarked cars. AH along the street, people were ordered from their houses.
Soon after, two young men lay dead and 18 others had been bundled into the cars and driven away. They were not heard from again.
That, Mr. Speaker, was from last Saturday's The Globe and Mail. Two weeks ago tomorrow I was in the capital of El Salvador and on that particular day 27 bodies turned up in the capital, many decapitated, most of them tortured. The point I am making at this time is that terrorism is all pervasive in that small country to the south of us.
To put it in some kind of perspective for Canadians in particular to relate to, I want to say that the 22,000 men and women who have died so far in that brief war compare exactly numerically to the number of Canadians lost in total during the Second World War, from 1939 through to 1945. In that war we as a nation lost 45,000 killed. Our population at that time was roughly double that of El Salvador today. I repeat: In comparative terms that brief and tragic civil war going on in El Salvador has taken as many lives in roughly 18 months as Canada lost in comparison to our population in the period from 1939 to 1945. It is not a light matter, Mr. Speaker. It is something that should profoundly concern human beings all over this planet, wherever they may live.
I want now to say something about the causes of that conflict because it is very important, if we are going to come to grips in a serious way as a nation and play our role-I will get to that in a minute-and make constructive, workable proposals, that those proposals in fact correspond to the historical reality.
Contrary to what some of us have heard-and some of it has been said in this House-the conflict in El Salvador, that terrible civil war, is in its reality exactly the same as revolutionary situations that have occurred elsewhere in the past. The civil war now being waged is the byproduct of a classic class conflict, one which has arisen because a handful of people have had a disproportionate amount of power and wealth. A very small minority at the top of that small country have controlled the vast majority of wealth and virtually all of the power throughout this century.
Just as it has happened in the past, indeed in the eighteenth century in the United States when power was thought to be unfairly held by the then mother country over the United States, the United States had their revolutionary war. So have other countries in the past, such as the French. The French revolution was a class conflict war. The English had the same in the seventeenth century. Throughout the world historically you get an internally generated crisis of a particular kind that we know as a revolution, and it is a crisis because the vast majority of people finally rise up against those who are attempting to hold them down. That is precisely what is happening in El Salvador.
The conflict is being perpetuated in part because a particularly interesting historical group of Catholic priests in recent years have taken their Christian doctrine quite literally and have, under the profoundly important moral leadership of Archbishop Romero, started to teach a Christian doctrine that says that men and women have a right to certain liberties, including the right to organize their existence, their means of labour and the conditions under which they work in society. So the Christian church has played a profoundly important role, and is doing so today, in what is going on in that conflict in El Salvador.
Another way of expressing a cause of the conflict is by reference to the moderate political leaders, Christian Democrats as well as Social Democrats, who left the junta established some 18 months ago and joined the guerrilla forces because they saw that the junta was not building justice in that land, that indeed it was perpetuating the terror it had ostensibly been set up to deal with.
The conflict is also caused-and this is also very important to note in the context of yesterday's debate-by the indifference to such circumstances by the United States of America, a country which all too often has said vis-a-vis the countries of Central and Latin America that all they require is a government in those countries friendly to the United States. Well, Mr. Speaker, when I visited Central America recently I met a person-I am not at liberty to say where or under what circumstances-who was a man who would describe himself as a devout Christian. He said to me about his country: "The Americans have historically said to us: 'We want a government here friendly to us' ". He said to me: "We Salvadoreans want a government that is friendly to us". There is all the difference. He was saying that it is time that the United States began asking in Central America for governments friendly, not necessarily to themselves, but to the people in those societies.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The conflict, Mr. Speaker, is being caused by the departure of the humane civilian and military people from the junta established in 1979, people who have had to take up arms to protect themselves, their liberties and their families. They are, I say without exaggeration, in my experience the kind of men and women who would be sitting on both sides of this House, who would be found in the Liberal party, the Conservative party and the New Democratic Party.
June 16, 1981

The reality is that those who are committed to a civil order, to reform of the most moderate kind in El Salvador, have now been driven by their integrity into a guerrilla kind of operation. That is the reality, Mr. Speaker. It was Robert White, the former ambassador of the United States, who said about the regime that existed after the junta was established in 1979:
They have killed a minimum of 5,000 or 6,000 kids just on mere suspicion.
That is the kind of government which exists in El Salvador today.
I want to stress, Mr. Speaker, as directly and as humanly as I can, that it is time that we in Canada, those in Central America who have a sense of decency, those in western Europe and elsewhere in the Third World, said: enough is enough; this human slaughter must stop. Wherever mankind is needlessly suffering, we have an obligation to help. In particular, violent death must concern us all. If it does not, then those people who have said-and there are quite a number-that the twentieth century has made man into a totally insensitive and brutalized creature will turn out to be correct.
Before turning to what we in the country can and should do, I want to deal with some myths about this conflict which were partly created in Canada, certainly perpetuated in Canada, and partly elsewhere, certainly in the United States. The first myth is that the civil war was the product of a sinister sequence of events and personnel which can be traced from its terminal point in El Salvador back to Havana and ultimately to Moscow. Regrettably this idea or belief is wedged in the minds of certain policymakers. It is certainly in the minds of key policymakers in the United States of America. Nothing could reflect a deeper misunderstanding of the history of any country than the belief that a revolution, based on the profound rejection of an unjust order of the kind being experienced in El Salvador, can be exported from one country to another. There is no country in the history of mankind which has been able to export a revolution. Either the conditions for such a revolution exist or they do not.
The kind of argument one hears in the United States is false. I regret to hear it, even from intelligent human beings. It is exactly analogous to saying that the French revolution occurred in 1789 because a number of Frenchmen happened to have heard from a number of democrats who were very successful in the American revolution of 1776. Of course it is true that the war of independence had an effect upon European thought; it would be silly to deny it. But it would also be silly to suggest that the profound change through which France was going was caused by a few ideas that drifted across the Atlantic Ocean. So, too, in Central America the cause of revolution is not the exportation of Marxist ideas; the cause of revolution is the unjust life millions of people have to live.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: The second myth is one in which I am afraid the present Government of Canada believes. It corresponds to certain views of the Secretary of State for External
International Relations
Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) and of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). It is that the present government of President Duarte is "a centre government" which somehow resides between the two extremes-the radical right, on the one hand, and the radical left, on the other.
I spent two weeks in that region. I talked with both sides in the conflict in El Salvador but, more important, I talked with people in other countries who were much more familiar with the area and the history of El Salvador than I could ever be because they grew up in that region and paid very close political attention. These political figures go all the way from Fidel Castro on the extreme left to the President of Costa Rica, who is a democrat but quite a conservative individual; ideologically he is on the right. They include the President of Mexico and, in short, a broad spectrum of political ideologies.
What is their view? Do they agree with the Government of Canada that what is in existence in El Salvador is a centralist government which is somehow keeping the forces of the right and the forces of the left at bay? The consensus I obtained from my trip is not that at all. In fact the consensus of mature people of judgment is exactly what I alluded to a minute ago- the government of El Salvador is a government of the extreme right. The people who control El Salvador today, as we debate this important topic, are not the handful of civilians, including President Duarte. The people in control are the army and Colonel Garcia. It is a right-wing, repressive regime; it is not a moderate, centralist government.
The government has lent some credibility to the third myth. I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs is doing some homework, at least to apprise himself of some relevant facts in this regard. The argument is that the government of President Duarte is committed to democratic elections, next year at one level and two years from now at another level, and that we in Canada and those elsewhere in the world should encourage this alleged democratic process. I ask all hon. members of Parliament whether it is sensible to talk about a democracy in a land where approximately two weeks ago 25 people in one day alone were tortured and mutilated overnight? Every day the body count in the capital is roughly the same. One day it is 27, another day it is 29, but it goes on day after day. It is terrorist killing. It is not the killing between the combatants on both sides, between the guerrillas, on the one hand, and the army on the other. These are innocent victims. Can we talk meaningfully about an election under those circumstances?
I pose the following question to the democratically-elected politicians of the House: Who would become a candidate now in El Salvador? Would a Progressive Christian Democrat or a Social Democrat? Would anyone other than a member of the very extreme right dare to become a candidate? Surely the answer is no. I know it is from conversations I have had, because they fear for their lives and the lives of their families.
Even if they had the courage to become a candidate, would it make sense for any of them to expect that the army would respect the election results? In the late 1960s there were elections in El Salvador. They were turned over by the army.

June 16, 1981
International Relations
In 1972 there was another election which was turned over by the army. In 1977 there was another election. Once again the army did not like the results and once again the results were denied. In one of those elections-and perhaps in two of them-a man named Duarte took part and had the pleasure of the army overturning his election.
The result of the present conditions has led the bar association of El Salvador to refuse to participate with the government in existence now in drawing up electoral regulations. Its bar association recognizes exactly what we recognize, namely, that elections under present circumstances would be a complete and utter travesty of democracy. This is something we must clearly understand as well.
Beyond that, beyond the factual reality that you cannot have elections in an atmosphere of terror, there is another concern which I have about governments, including our own. Our government has made statements-and I am looking for revisions in them-in support of the electoral process under circumstances which are totally unjustified to a person committed to democracy.
Our government does another and more subtle disservice to humanity in that country, and I had this pointed out to me, too, when I was there. This government says we must support the Duarte government because that government is committed to elections. In this argument a veneer of respectability is given to what is going on, which causes people who are genuinely concerned about elections to say, "Oh well, if the government is concerned about elections there, I guess it must be a pretty good government". So there is a more sinister aspect, conscious or otherwise, to the argument that the government in El Salvador is committed to elections and therefore we should support it. I repeat, this argument gives a veneer of respectability to a government, a junta, which civilized people would hold in utter contempt in terms of what is going on in that society.
Myth No. 4 which I would like to deal with is the claim that terror is being used equally by both sides. I wish to make the distinction here between violence and terror. Violence is an inescapable aspect of civil war. By definition, what is meant is that one part of society takes up arms against another part and, of course, there will be killing on both sides, which is regrettable. But when I talk about terror I talk about the killing for political purposes of innocent men, women and children who are non-combatants. They are innocent victims.
Therefore, when people have said that terror is being done by both sides, as a Social Democrat I was concerned to find out if it was being done by both sides. I spoke to people who I thought would have credibility, who would have a sense of integrity with regard to what is going on. In this case I spoke to people connected with the church. In Mexico City I met Mr. Roberto Cuellar, the director of the legal branch for the Archbishop of San Salvador. I put to him the following question: Who is practising terrorism? I asked him who commits the abominable acts-and photographs are available of
the most grotesque kinds of torture which is going on. I asked him who is indulging in this kind of inhumanity toward man. The answer I received was that it was not being done equally by both sides. That is not the case.
I repeat, I received this information from an official of the Archbishop. He assured me that when he received the terrible information about a mutilated human being, man, woman or child, he would go out and verify the facts before they were counted. As a result, their body count, to use very unpleasant language, is much lower than other figures which I have seen. The figures are lower because an actual inspection has been carried out, and when that inspection is done it is found out who is responsible for the killing. The report I received from Mr. Cuellar was that 80 per cent to 90 per cent of the acts of terrorism are being carried out by the security forces in El Salvador. They are not being carried out by the Front, in the main.
Of course, there are some acts of violence of a terrorist nature which are isolated acts of terrorism being carried out by the Front. Mr. Cuellar pointed this out, too; but that is precisely what they are-isolated. They are not part of a systematic policy, a systematic, barbaric form of politics which is being practised, at least with the full knowledge and cooperation of the army in El Salvador by the security forces.
Myth No. 5 goes like this: Both sides are equally responsible for the continuation of the civil war. Once again, this is not true. There is only one side which has said that it is open to a negotiated settlement, and that is the Front, that collection of Social Democrats, Christian Democrats and, yes, Marxist-Leninists in the guerrilla movement as well. That broad spectrum of Salvadorean society represented in the Front has said-and they alone have said it-that under the circumstances they want a negotiated settlement. They want an end to the violence by means of negotiation. It is not the case that the government is interested in a negotiated settlement. It is committed to the present program to which I have already alluded-elections a year from now for part of their intended democratic structure, and elections two years from now for another part.
What is important to stress is that they are totally implicated, therefore, in a military victory. That is what is meant if they say they do not want negotiations now. To put it bluntly, they mean they want more killing. They want more violence until they emerge triumphant. I also want to say that if they are implicated in the perpetuation of violence, those who have come to their aid and who remain on their side are equally implicated. I refer specifically to the United States of America which is directly implicated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I also say that the Government of Canada, when it says that it supports the Duarte government in its commitment to democratic elections, is equally implicated, by logic, to a violent solution to this civil war.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
June 16, 1981


John Edward Broadbent: To say that you are committed to democracy and to free elections when that entails the giving of your support to a government which refuses to negotiate, a government which wants to perpetuate the war, means that if you have moral consistency in your own arguments you, too, are committed to a violent solution to this civil war. I say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the people of Canada are committed to a peaceful solution to the conflict. They will have nothing to do with a government which supports, by any means whatsoever, a violent solution to the terrible problem which exists there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Before coming very specifically to some measures which the Canadian government could and should undertake, I wish to stress one other important point which flows from what I have said thus far. If it is important to change the position of the Duarte government, and if it is important to get that government to accept the necessity to negotiate, to accept the desirability of bringing an end to the slaughter, it is of the greatest importance, in fact of fundamental importance, to get the United States of America to change its policy in El Salvador.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: As long as the United States props up the junta with military assistance, as sure as we are in this chamber taking part in this debate will the junta go on forever in terms of a military solution. A flexible attitude cannot be built up in the junta if it is built up militarily. The only way to get the junta and the army to negotiate is to take away some of their weapons, to take away their means of destruction. That is fundamental. The Americans are involved and we must do everything we can as a nation to change American policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I now want to come to six specific suggestions which I think ought to be considered. More important than being considered, these are suggestions which should be acted upon by the Government of Canada. First, in my view the Government of Canada should now publicly offer to provide a mediation role in El Salvador. On the basis of my travels to a half dozen countries in the region, I can say that if the Government of Canada publicly did this there would be widespread support for such a peaceful gesture.
Second, statements supporting negotiations must be made soon to increase the visibility and credibility of a mediation proposal. Again the Prime Minister of Canada and the Secretary of State for External Affairs should show some leadership by making statements to this effect.
Third, Canada should actively seek out other possible mediators in Central America. I know that among the states that I visited there are some that would be willing to join in such an important mediating process. I also know that a very
International Relations
substantial consensus of all governments that I met, in their vast divergence ideologically, want a negotiated settlement. They want an end to the violence.
Fourth, Canada must encourage international organizations like the United Nations to play an important role in building international support for a negotiated settlement.
Fifth, Canada must promote the establishment of a multinational consortium of potential donors to establish a reconstruction fund contingent on the prompt resolution of the conflict through diplomatic means. There are serious economic problems in that land, no matter the outcome of the civil war, and we must do our part to provide some financial assistance to those people.
Sixth, the last but certainly among the most important points, Canada should join with all those states in Central America, those countries in Europe, those many states in the Third World which favour a negotiated settlement, in demanding that the United States cease supplying arms to the junta. That is absolutely crucial if we are to get a peaceful settlement.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired. He may continue with the unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank hon. members. I shall conclude shortly.
Yesterday, when participating in a debate on foreign policy and in particular on the North-South question, the Prime Minister said the following:
Within our own borders we have long realized that there can be no freedom for some without freedom for all. An assault against the basic rights of my neighbour inevitably places in jeopardy my own rights, my own security and freedom. We have little trouble accepting the truth and the implications of that statement within our own borders.
We have more trouble in giving a modern answer to the very old question: Who is my neighbour? Is she the woman rummaging for food in the back streets of an Asian shanty town? Is he the man in South America in prison for leading a trade union?
Perhaps in Guatemala; perhaps in El Salvador. The Prime Minister continued:
Are my neighbours children running from the sound of gunfire in the streets of Beirut?
If we, the peoples of the North, say yes, then we will act; we will act together to keep hope alive. If we say no, then they are doomed and so are we.
I want to say on behalf of my colleagues in this House, Mr. Speaker, and I am sure many more, that I agree with those sentiments. I also want to say that it is very easy to make statements of that kind; it is equally easy to agree with them. What counts in human affairs is action, not talk.
In his speech the Prime Minister called for a new kind of attitude by world leaders. He made an appeal for that. If this call is to be at all effective, it must be illustrated by action. This action must be bold and imaginative. It must reject some of our own outmoded policies, such as automatically following

June 16, 1981
International Relations
the United States even when the Americans are profoundly wrong.
Canadians want leadership on the tragedy that is El Salvador today. Since I have been a member of Parliament I have never received letters of such moral concern on an international question as I have on this matter. So I say that if the Prime Minister does not act in the direction that I have suggested, then other world leaders will appropriately turn a deaf ear to his persuasive rhetoric.
We in this party say that Canadians will not settle for words alone. We can and we must, as a nation, do much more.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in the government-initiated debate the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) spoke of the flashpoints of crisis in international life against the backdrop of global challenges and difficulties. In my own contribution I addressed specific foreign policy dilemmas that we face in the framework of Canadian foreign policy values. Today, on an NDP motion, we are invited to continue the debate on Canada's international relations, with particular reference to South and Central America, and, by way of example, we are directed to consider the tragedy of El Salvador.
The countries of South and Central America all, without exception, belong to the Third World, and in a general debate on foreign affairs I believe it is incumbent upon me to advance some generalizations about our foreign policy toward the Third World as a whole.
Obviously, my response must admit both diversity and nuance. The quality of Canada's relations is not the same with small, remote islands as with large, developing countries. Neighbours have a different priority from those remote from us. We protect and cherish the special links of the Commonwealth and la Francophonie.
Even though the process of decolonization has been largely completed, many developing countries remain highly volatile. Government methods and social forms are often still in formation or are fragile. It is in the interest of democratic countries like Canada that Third World states develop freely-created institutions which correspond to the needs of their own societies and form the basis for stable government, while at the same time providing adequate protection of individual human rights.
Whatever attractions Communist ideologies may have had in the first blush of post-colonialism, they have been overtaken since then by the self-serving record of the U.S.S.R. in the developing world and the poor economic performances of the most eastern European countries. There has also been a diminution of the compulsive anti-western sentiments which often characterized political views in the developing countries two decades ago. These trends have in fact all combined to create a more positive set of circumstances for co-operation between Third World and western countries.
However, Canada's first principle toward the Third World is the promotion of genuine independence, non-alignment and stability. Putting it another way, I can say that we want to immunize the Third World from, rather than involve it in, East-West confrontation. As I said yesterday, our approach is to treat Third World countries on their own merits. Our goal is, in fact, a pluralistic world in which there would be room for the Third World objectives of independence and self-determination.
Second, we do not believe forms of government or economic systems are matters to be imposed from outside. Obviously, we will seek to explain to Third World countries why we believe as deeply as we do in free and representative institutions; but their social, economic and cultural circumstances are totally different from ours. The example of the success of our societies will of itself be the most convincing argument we can present. But short of international consensus, as in the case of Iran, or the Soviet Union over Afghanistan, or Rhodesia, we will not impede trade flows to reflect our view of their choice. In extreme cases, trade facilitation measures may be diminished, as was the case with a developed country, South Africa, in 1977. But we have not traditionally cut off aid relations, directed as they are toward improving the standard of living of people, when governments adopt positions we do not favour.
The third principle is that we expect that governments of all countries will be vigilant in the observance of their first and fundamental obligation-to their own people. Gross violations of human rights are and must be a source of concern and action on the part of the international community. However, when considering the appropriate response, I favour action which is effective and which stands a real chance of influencing the government in question. I oppose hollow gestures and the withdrawal of mechanisms which benefit Canadians, withdrawals which will not change the minds or the practices of the offending government. Especially in cases where the momentum for democracy and human rights of the foreign government is in a progressive rather than a retrogressive direction, we must try to use private counselling and positive reinforcement rather than strident public denunciations.
Fourth, we believe that it would be inappropriate for our foreign policy to reward adventurism and interference. Countries of the Third World face desperate and formidable challenges. It is for this reason that we have withdrawn aid programs from those countries whose scarce resources are diverted to war and conquest.
These four principles may set us apart from some other developed countries, but that does not mean we cannot work with them. We will examine, for example, the invitation of the United States and Mexico to work together to promote economic development in the Caribbean and the Central American region. For our part, this task is well in hand in the Commonwealth Caribbean, and we expect that our major emphasis will continue to be on these islands.
June 16, 1981

We may well not endorse all of the foreign policy imperatives of the American-or indeed of the Mexican-government, in promoting this initiative, but we can, I am confident, find common cause in the overriding need to develop the region and therefore find ways of reconciling our differing objectives. National motivations need not be identical for a common plan of action to be established.
For too long there has been a tendency to consider Latin America and the Caribbean as a single area, ignoring the fact that it is an area made up of 39 independent countries, dependent colonies and territories where the languages spoken are English, French, Spanish, Portuguese and Dutch, in which at least 20 have enjoyed political independence for over 150 years and all of which were at one time colonies of the great European colonial empires. Almost the only common thing about them is their colonial heritage and the fact that in many of them Spanish is the common language.
But these countries are no more like each other than are Australia and Canada. Each has its own history, its own racial mixtures, its own social development and its own economic status and potential. We must, therefore, deal with them individually.
Some will be important to us as export markets; others as sources of needed imports. Some will be sources of immigrants; others the destination of Canadian tourists. Some will be important because of their role in international affairs; others because of their need for development assistance to which we can contribute. Some will have shared political values. All have cultural traditions to which we can relate and in which we can share for the mutual benefit of our societies and our peoples.
Looked at in economic terms, these Latin states are all countries of the South. What is Canada's role in Latin America, or indeed in other parts of the world, in promoting the North-South dialogue? The government agrees with the Parliamentary Task Force on North-South Relations that Canada should base the development of Canadian policy on North-South issues on two major principles. First, the mutuality of interest of both North and South in solving global economic problems. Second, the humanitarian need to focus attention and resources on the world's poorest peoples and countries. These concepts will motivate Canada's aid programs and govern our efforts in the search for compromise.

Neither countries of the North nor those of the South constitute homogeneous groups. In spite of their diversity the south countries draw their feeling of unity from the convictions they share and from a common perception of their position in the world. Among other things, they are convinced that the international economic system has been overly favourable to the rich countries, and that is why they are asking that the rules of the game be changed. They want the system to be more accommodating for them. The poorest among them entertain more limited ambitions: they only want to survive, to improve their lot to a certain extent, and to keep their societies
International Relations
intact, and that regardless of forces and situations over which they often have no control whatsoever.
We should not wonder if developing countries seek to use existing international institutions to achieve their aims. New industrialized countries, such as Brazil, are ever more active within the GATT. Canada itself did contribute to set up post-war international institutions because it looked upon them as a means of reducing its own vulnerability and opening new avenues for international co-operation.
Unfortunately, the poorest countries are the ones which will probably benefit the least from any change in the institutions or in the exchange and payment system which might result from the North-South negotiations. It is towards those poorest countries-Haiti, Honduras and Guyana-that Canada will continue to direct its bilateral aid. In fact, our bilateral public aid to development has always been concentrated on low income developing nations. During the seventies that concentration accounted for an average of 70 per cent of our funds earmarked for public aid to development. Canada ranks first among industrialized nations in terms of percentage of aid to development which it gives to the poorest countries. The main objective of the Canadian program of co-operation and development is to support the efforts which the developing nations are themselves making to meet the needs of their own people. To that end, the bilateral program will be focused on three priority sectors: agriculture, energy and human resources development. It is in those three sectors that Canada's resources are best tailored to the needs of developing countries. We will be giving priority treatment to those sectors in the coming years.

As far as Canada is concerned, our commitment to development assistance is now well entrenched. Let me simply reiterate the government's policy to allocate to ODA 0.5 per cent of our GNP by 1985 and to do our utmost to achieve the international target of 0.7 per cent by 1990.
As some members well know, I take particular interest in promoting consultations with NGOs, church leaders and business representatives, and I have been impressed by their strong moral and intellectual commitment to the over-all Canadian effort in favour of Third World development. I would like to pay tribute to the impressive work that is carried out by NGOs and the church groups in Latin America, and I would like to repeat the strong commitment of this government to continue supporting financially the initiatives taken by private citizens in this country.
I want just to mention a serious issue with a human face which is having an adverse impact on the economic and social development prospects of many developing countries. I refer to the international refugee situation, the dimensions of which are expanding at an alarming rate.
There are now some 10 million refugees in different parts of the world and many more millions of internally displaced persons. The situation in Africa, which has witnessed a quintu-

June 16, 1981
International Relations
pling of its refugee population in the past few years, is of particular concern and led to the convening of the conference in Geneva in April, in which I participated, on the subject of international assistance to refugees in Africa. At that conference Canada pledged, in this year alone, a $22 million contribution towards the longer term requirements of $1 billion to assist in humanitarian relief, and local reinstallation and possibly eventual repatriation of the five million refugees in question.
There are also major unresolved refugee situations in Central Asia, in Southeast Asia and in Latin America. These situations, apart from the grave humanitarian problems for the refugees involved, impose economic, social and political burdens on the countries providing asylum which tend to undermine the stability of the countries and regions affected. It is for this reason that Canada, while contributing in a major way to the humanitarian relief effort, has led the international efforts at the United Nations General Assembly, the UN High Commission for Refugees, the UN Commission on Human Rights, and within the economic summits to address the fundamental political and human rights problems which underlie most of the situations of massive exodus.
My department has further initiatives under consideration. I want to emphasize in particular my pleasure at the agreement of Prince Sadruddin Aga Khan to serve as special rapporteur of the Commission on Human Rights on the question of the relationship of massive exoduses and human rights abuses. This particular exercise is the result of a Canadian initiative, and during my visit to Geneva in April I assured the Prince of Canada's strongest support for his sensitive mission.
I am pleased that my colleague the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) will be able to participate in this debate today, elaborating on his department's concern over the question of resettlement of refugees from the Latin American region.
I spoke yesterday of the over-all importance to Canada of its trading relationships and the growth of trade with the Third World. Latin America provides a dramatic illustration: in 1979, five of our top 25 trading partners were developing countries in the western hemisphere.
In development assistance terms, in Central America, despite the absence of close political ties, Canada has recognized the pressing needs of the region and has been a leading aid donor, providing more than $60 million in bilateral aid since 1972. In terms of concentration, Honduras and El Salvador, as the poorest of the area, have received the largest portion of the funding.
I should like finally to deal with that illustrative part of the motion which calls on the government "to initiate steps aimed at establishing a negotiated settlement of the tragic civil war in El Salvador".
Canada's links with El Salvador in terms of historic, linguistic, cultural, commercial and other ties, are limited in comparison to those of other countries in the world or, indeed, in
the western hemisphere. There are only 40 Canadians resident in that country and immigration has been about 100 per year. Canadian investments total less than $10 million and exports in 1980 were only $15 million. Our major involvement is in the aid field and even here all new planning has had to be halted because of the violence.
Although our direct links with El Salvador have historically not been great, this does not mean that Canada is not concerned at developments in El Salvador, in particular at the high level of violence and the continuing disregard for human rights which characterize the political scene. In dealing with these issues, our policy has been clear and consistent.
Canada's opposition to the supply of arms to competing forces in El Salvador was spelled out in my speech in the House of March 9. Canada's abhorrence of human rights violations has been and continues to be emphasized both in bilateral contacts and in multilateral forums. We also continue to believe that a political solution should be sought for El Salvador.
President Duarte of El Salvador has called elections for a constituent assembly for 1982. He has invited all political parties to register for the elections, including extremist groups willing to lay down their arms. He has indicated a willingness to open a dialogue with the left on the election process and the monitoring of it. He has also made clear that he would not negotiate the formation of a non-elected coalition government and has said that he would not accept mediation offers by third parties, whether from regional states such as Venezuela and Mexico or from the Socialist International, which is committed to aiding the Democratic Revolutionary Front, the FDR.
The leader of the NDP has said that he shares the feeling of the FDR that the elections proposed by the junta would be a travesty of democracy in current circumstances, not a viable political solution to the conflict. This view is not shared by many of Canada's friends in the area, such as Venezuela and Costa Rica.
We agree that the obstacles to holding elections are formidable. After all, El Salvador has no tradition of democratic rule and is beset by violent armed opposition from extremists of both left and right, none of whom has any real interest in seeing the implantation of liberal democracy.
It should also be recognized that there are many within the power structure of El Salvador, particularly in the security forces, who are not happy with the prospect of elections. President Duarte has made great progress in obtaining their agreement to abide by the will of the population as expressed in the elections called for 1982 and 1983. There is no doubt, however, that if the President were forced into negotiating the formation of a non-elected coalition government or some other form of power sharing as advocated by the FDR and the leader of the NDP, he could well be overthrown and the prospects for the institution of true democracy spoiled.
President Duarte's reluctance to be drawn into negotiations with the left is also understandable in the light of information
June 16, 1981

contained in documents captured in April. The FDR has not denied the authenticity of these documents, which spell out the objectives of the left in negotiations as follows; first, to draw out the conflict, which is going badly for the revolutionary forces; second, to drive a wedge between the Christian Democratic Party of President Duarte and the armed forces; third, to enhance the image of the left as a peacemaker; and fourth, to seek to expose the Christian Democratic Party as a facade for a military controlled government.
However, Canada refuses to dismiss out of hand the feasibility of holding fair elections, as the leader of the NDP does. Elections were possible in Zimbabwe in similarly difficult circumstances. President Duarte is on public record as saying that the OAS would be welcome to monitor them. His words as quoted in the March 6 edition of the New York Times are:
We are going to request from the Organization of American States not only to send us a protocol mission, but to send us contingents from all of the Americas to come and inspect and to really make these free elections.
As I said recently before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, if requested, and if we believed we could be of assistance, we would certainly be prepared to consider participating in such a mission.
In our view, Duarte has earned the right to be given a chance to bring about a political solution in the most democratic of manners-through free elections. A founder of the Christian Democratic Party, he has fought all of his life for democracy. Together with the present leader of the FDR, Guillermo Ungo, he waged and won the 1972 election campaign in his country. This victory was blocked by the military and Duarte was jailed, beaten and tortured. Exiled to Venezuela, he was one of the leaders of the opposition movement whose efforts eventually led to the overthrow of President Romero in October, 1979. He returned to his native land only 13 days after the revolution and was appointed to government in March, 1980, becoming president in December, assuming the position he had rightfully won in 1972.
It is ironic that the FDR is pressing Duarte to negotiate with them, presumably to enter into a form of power sharing in advance of the people's support in the election, all in the name of democracy.
It is my belief that many men and women of good will made a tragic miscalculation in late 1979 and early 1980. They thought that the same circumstances prevailed in El Salvador as had prevailed in Nicaragua before the overthrow of Somoza. They gambled that the armed leftist groups would win, ignoring the fact that the repressive regime of General Romero had already been overthrown. These men and women of essentially moderate persuasion, many of whom are represented in the FDR-people who, as the leader of the NDP said earlier, who would be members of all political parties in Canada if they were here-are now stranded with their extremist bedfellows.
The FDR, if it is really interested in seeing democracy introduced into El Salvador and is not just a front for armed
International Relations
Marxist revolutionary groups, has a responsibility to join with the Duarte government to ensure that the elections scheduled to be held in a scant nine months are a success.
The leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) has also, I believe, a responsibility in this regard. Most of his proposed courses of action are based on a negotiated settlement, which is the cause of the revolutionaries. By supporting the revolutionary forces in their desire to share power before the holding of elections, he could contribute to the prolongation of the suffering in that country and thereby impede the political solution which all members in this House support. To use his own words, he adds a veneer of respectability to the rebel position.
Finally, what is our responsibility as the government? It is not to attempt to arrogate to ourselves, from the outside, the right to resolve El Salvador's problems and, even more, the form of their resolution. It is rather to be modest enough to allow the people of El Salvador to decide their own future through the processes of the ballot box. That may not lead to political power for the socialist opposition in El Salvador, to which the Socialist International and their distinguished investigator are committed, but regardless of the falling of political chips, I believe it is the right and certainly it is the democratic course.
El Salvador is a human tragedy. It is ours to express our fellow feeling, to offer aid, to encourage a solution which corresponds to the wishes and needs of the people and to rebuke perpetrators of acts of criminal terrorism. It is not ours to assume the principal role in solving the crisis. That way would lie another tragedy, our own. Third World governments are not prepared to admit without qualification that their tragedies are ours. Modesty, patience and a sense of our own limitations are sometimes the most difficult virtues to practise, but I commend them to the leader of the NDP and to my colleagues. Genuine independence for the Third World has to mean independence even from us. Our own independence is too precious for us to do violence to that of others. This is the course of action we intend to continue to urge upon all governments.


Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I wish first of all to indicate my appreciation of the official opposition to the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) for his comments and his sensitive observations about the situation in Latin America, and more particularly in El Salvador.
I wish as an introductory comment to a House and a nation which have become almost desensitized by the overkill that it is held across this country and across party lines to be one of the great tragedies of our time that with all of our resources and with all of our capacity in our world for communication we cannot bring the instruments we have for understanding and communicating into the forum where there are resources to bring this travesty, this great illustration of man's inhumanity to man, to an end.
We could debate whether or not this is our moral responsibility, or whether we let a cock fight go on or two people in a corner fight it out to the bitter end; but in other areas where

June 16, 1981
International Relations
we would deal with animals we would not in the Canadian tradition follow in that way.
I hear, unhappily, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) suggesting that somehow these nations are independent in name, yet we cannot see the trappings with our eyes, or at least they are not apparent to the forums of our world. Let us not think this is just what Canadians think, but for a moment let us turn to see what the United Nations, the OAS and other forums in Europe are saying. Let us cross the frontiers of parties and find a way whereby Canada can be part of a coalition to bring this great human tragedy to an end.
I want for a moment to address the three concerns which today's opposition motion brings before this House. First, the motion expresses a concern regarding Canada's international relations. Secondly, it calls for a meaningful interest to be taken on the part of Canada in South and Central America, and thirdly, it calls for Canada to take steps toward a negotiated settlement of the civil war in El Salvador.
In relation to our concern for international relations, this was discussed at some length yesterday in the House. Let me suggest that already in our debate today we are seeing the lack of a foreign policy in terms of directions and initiatives as to how we will approach this changing world and this changing hemisphere of ours. We are also in great need of clarifying our relationships with our closest and greatest ally and friend, the United States. I am one who believes that good fences make good neighbours.
At the Progressive Conservative policy conference held some months ago, this resolution was a part of seeking to outline that term of reference:
The Progressive Conservative party believes in the importance and the necessity of maintaining the historic friendship and mutually beneficial economic and defence relations between Canada and the United States, always recognizing the need for Canada to guard its national identity and political, economical and cultural independence.
Over the past weekend we have seen our Mexican neighbours spell out their agreements with the United States but reject the isolationist policy of the United States in Central America. Let me also make one other observation in terms of our concern for international relations; it is a concern about the future of our peacekeeping capacity which may seem only peripherally to bear on the subject at hand today. We are in need in our world of collective security, and yesterday's discussion focused on collective security. We need in the East-West relationship for Canada to be a part of those collective security arrangements and to contribute to them.
I want to suggest that there is a sense of security which is involved not just in Cyprus between Greeks and Turks, or in the Middle East, but a type of collective security which is involved in our capacity to be a peacemaker in the areas of ferment in our world. We need a refocussing of our foreign policy, for what we have today is far too broad for the changing world about which we speak. We need to see ourselves as part of the formation of a world police force to begin to deal with terrorism in all of its forms, whether it be the
violence we see in El Salvador, the violence we see in Europe or violence wherever it is taking place.
Secondly, the motion today calls for a meaningful interest to be taken by Canada in South and Central America. Yesterday we heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) speak of his government's belief in peace, in development, in a new era of equality among nations. But in answer to the specifics of Central America, whether it be Guatemala, Nicaragua or El Salvador, we heard an uncertain sound; if the trumpet shall make an uncertain sound, it is written.
Unfortunately, this is what we have heard as the government has sought to spell that out. When questioned about El Salvador and the areas of Central America, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has responded: "It is an area in which we have no special interest". When pressed further, he has said: "We have no traditional Canadian involvement in that sphere". Yet we have been prepared to go as peacekeepers, which is part of our Canadian heritage, to the ends of the world to be a part of peacekeeping efforts and to be in parts of Africa, or wherever called, to supervise and to help bring about elections or whatever.
Yesterday in his intervention the minister spoke of our policy of having mechanisms and arrangements for the peaceful settlement of disputes. Rather, we have seen a bankrupt Canadian policy regarding Central and South America in the face of the disruptions and the tragedies of Central America. When questioned on the specifics, the Prime Minister says: "Why, of course if one side has arms, we will send arms to the other side". How can the Canadian government say that elections are possible if we have no knowledge and if we show so little sensitivity?
Maybe in this new day, of which the Prime Minister spoke yesterday and of which the minister speaks in terms of the evolution of our world, the time has come for us to take the symbolic action of joining the Organization of American States, no longer as an associate member somehow standing on the side saying: "This is something we can nod at when we choose to". If this is a new day, let us begin to build new working relationships. Let us also begin to realize that stability involves literacy, land use and all of the moderate reform which has been referred to already in this debate. If we do not have stability in that area, how can we hope to have effective economic relationships and to trade in the way we hope to trade in the future? If Central America continues to be up in flames, the prospect for our economic, cultural and immigration contacts seems very dim and only possible under emergency situations all the time.
The third part of this resolution suggests that Canada should take steps toward a negotiated settlement in El Salvador. In the March 9 debate in this House the official opposition, through the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), put forward the proposition that Canada undertake extensive consultations with El Salvador's neighbouring states. We continue to press for that. In its recommen-
June 16, 1981

dations today the New Democratic Party joins with us-and we join with it-in calling for that type of consultation.
Second, there should be international action through the United Nations or other appropriate international agencies. If we cannot understand El Salvador-the question comes quite clearly into focus-how will we understand the complexities of the North-South dialogue, about which we have been talking so much and of which El Salvador becomes a case in point?
Let us think about that case in point for a moment. El Salvador has a population of 4.5 million to 5 million. That population is getting smaller each day, as the leader of the New Democratic Party has so graphically and brutally described. There are 207 people per square kilometre living on the land. The gross domestic product of the El Salvadorean economy is $3 billion U.S. a year, or $679 per capita per year. With respect to health care, there are 603 persons for each hospital bed and about 3,685 persons per doctor.
When we begin to look at the capacity for stability, we must realize that 3.6 per cent of the gross national product is spent on education. Only 65 per cent of those eligible make grade one. There is an illiteracy rate of 35 per cent. This means that less than one third of the population is economically active. The export ratio is marginally above imports. Food production has lagged far behind industrial productivity over the last ten years. This is the legacy of El Salvador. This is the background of stability into which we hope to integrate our lives as part of this global community.
We hear and agree with the rhetoric of the Prime Minister, but we find ourselves strangely uneasy because over these many years of Liberal government we have heard the same tune, but we have seen contributions to the ODA drop. We have seen opportunities lost again and again. The ball has been dropped when Canada could have continued the Pearsonian tradition of involvement and leadership.
We hear rhetoric from the government benches about the possibility for elections in today's world, but we are hearing from people who have a lack of sensitivity about legitimate struggle. As one who has lived through a period of civil war inside a country such as El Salvador, I know how little freedom there is, how little opportunity there is to speak and what great risk is involved in speaking, let alone standing for office or voting. If there are democratic elections, are there to be corpses voting?
When we begin to look at proposals and at what might be done, let us suggest that the government take strong initiatives to inform itself and to inform hon. members on all sides of the House. We are indebted to the leader of the New Democratic Party for his risk-taking. We are grateful for his interpretation. But because of party backgrounds there will be those who will be suspicious of the comments of the leader of the New Democratic Party. They may feel that the press has not been accurate or that the church has not been accurate. Why do we not send from this House those who will go and enter into discussion? Why do we not take the skeptics along with those who are already convinced?
International Relations


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Franklin McLean: I hope to propose that the subcommittee on Canada's relations with Latin America and the Caribbean, which is now at work, travels, even if it be in neighbouring countries, and begins to have the same conversations as the leader of the New Democratic Party has had, as churchmen have had, and as representatives of voluntary agencies have had, and then comes back and reports to us.
In case there are those who feel that this cannot be done because of security, about which we hear often from the government, let me inform this House that there will be a delegation from all parties of the Parliament of Europe- Social Democrats, Christian Democrats and all parties of the right and left in that House-which will travel to El Salvador, to Mexico City and to Costa Rica in order themselves, as a parliamentary committee, to hear people there. They will travel from June 22 to July 3.
Second, let us explore with Mexico, Europe and, by all means, with the United States-in the context of the minister's comment about the government's considering the invitation- taking part in working with these groups to find suitable joint action.
Third, in order to be helpful in El Salvador we need to affirm-and we need to hear clearly from the government- that El Salvador, Central America and Latin America are a part of the Canadian sphere of interest, that anywhere in the world where human rights are violated is an area of the Canadian sphere of influence.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Franklin McLean: Let me touch on a matter which the Secretary of State for External Affairs mentioned. I refer to the matter of refugees. In Newsweek of June 15 there is a report on our world's newest refugees. The report reads in part as follows:
Perhaps 2,000 a week pull up stakes, according to social workers in the capital city of San Salvador, many heading north immediately on the bone-jarring bus journey through Guatemala and Mexico to the U.S. border. No one knows how many have made it, but estimates start at 60,000.
The article concludes:
-the flow of illegal aliens from El Salvador is certain to continue until peace comes to that war-weary country.
Canada has a proud tradition, one in which this party when in government gave leadership, and others on all sides of this House have supported. When the Southeast Asian refugees were here we had an experience of learning what hurt there was and what needs there are, not only of welcoming but also of beginning to go and look at the root causes towards which we need to address more thought and effort. Is it not time that Canada, in the United Nations forum, began to take an active role in calling for the overhaul of the U.N. covenant on refugees in order that there can be an effective framework, not one of the 1950s but one of the 1980s, in terms of dealing with these most unfortunate people caught in large part in wars about which they know little?

June 16, 1981
International Relations
It is our hope, Mr. Speaker, in the official opposition that the concerns expressed from this side of the House today about the importance of the mediation, the importance of making noises that Latin and Central America can hear, the importance of seeking out other mediators to join with us in Canada, about encouraging the instruments of the United Nations to be effective, about the multilateral consortium or about joining with our friends in providing aid to those who suffer most, will be listened to. Let us not wait until the situation is ripe; let us have our volunteer agencies, the Red Cross and others, take the food and medicines at this time until such time as we can find the answers. Let us also invite our closest friends, the Americans, to come and reason with us and others in the family of nations in order to continue that proud tradition, that of the peacemakers.
Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for the opportunity to participate in this debate.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie)- Veterans affairs-Suggested adoption of new index and provision of energy supplement; the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields)-Energy-Possibility of reaching agreement with Alberta; the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga)- Energy-Negotiations with province of Alberta on pricing agreement.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Broadbent:
That this House expresses its continuing concern with respect to Canada's international relations and calls on the government to demonstrate a meaningful interest in South and Central America and, in particular, to initiate steps aimed at establishing a negotiated settlement of the tragic civil war in El Salvador.
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, like the member who just spoke, I
consider it a privilege to be able to participate in this very important debate. It is a warming feeling to know that in this forum there are those occasions when members on all sides have the opportunity to address themselves to issues which are not part of the drumbeat of daily affairs, but in fact have a longer and deeper set of roots to them, one in which our own country can play a very important role.
I am particularly pleased, Mr. Speaker, that several of the members who have spoken have mentioned the issue of refugees around the world as an area in which Canadians can play a significant role. There is no doubt in my mind that refugee policy constitutes an area in which this country is in a unique and very favourable position to offer leadership.
The issue of refugees is not a new one to us, Mr. Speaker. I was reminded of that while reading the very interesting report produced by the Mennonite Central Committee called "Making Room for Strangers". They open with a word from St. Luke, chapter 9, verses 57 and 59, which says that as they were going along a road a man said to Jesus: "I will follow you wherever you go". Jesus said to him:
-Foxes have holes, and birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head.
It is clear, Mr. Speaker, that the issue of a displaced person goes back many generations, many centuries, but in terms of our recent memory we have had a particularly interesting history as a country. We have accepted well over 400,000 refugees since the end of the Second World War, and a major movement of displaced persons in the early period of close to
135,000.	We had very large numbers of people who escaped the difficulties in Czechoslovakia, Uganda and Hungary. We brought in large numbers of people from Chile, and contrary to the opinion that some groups have about the interest of this country in South America, we were one of the largest sponsoring countries for Chilean refugees, bringing in close to 7,000 in the period 1975 to 1976.
The fact of the matter is, Mr. Speaker, the issue of refugees, much as we make an effort to solve it and bring more and more people in, grows beyond our bounds. Every single hour of every single day there are far more refugees being created than this country and every other industrialized country could ever hope to resettle. Current estimates suggest that the numbers of refugees in the world are somewhere between 12 million and 15 million. As other members, including the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan), have pointed out, every time there is a major insurrection or political dispute in the world thousands more are left homeless.
What is even more tragic, Mr. Speaker, is that increasingly there are signs that refugees are becoming a political weapon. Certain countries almost deliberately export some of their problems, create problems by the expulsion of people. All of a sudden the world is faced with the tragic sight of boats bobbing and weaving on a hostile sea, people flinging themselves overboard for lack of room. Whether it is Southeast Asia or off the coast of Cuba or Haiti, the fact of the matter is the number of refugees grows apace.
June 16, 1981

There is no doubt in my mind, as one who has the responsibility of trying to deal with the issue of refugees and how to cope with them domestically, that many of the answers and many of the programs and policies we have in place have not been adequate. Yet we should be careful not to destroy what is in place by outright condemnation. We do have the United Nations High Commission on Refugees which this year has a budget of close to $500 million, with close to 1,700 personnel in its operation, which commission is strongly supported by Canada. We are one of the major contributors to that commission and we support its work and activities. They provide worldwide services, whether in El Salvador, Nicaragua, Somalia, Eritrea, the Horn of Africa or Southeast Asia.
The commission is there to provide a basic service, but what is oftentimes missing is the political answer to some of the root causes of the refugee issue. It is not a problem that can be solved by one country alone. We make a serious mistake to think that by climbing on the barricades and beating our breasts we will solve the problem of the refugees. It must be solved in co-operation and co-ordination with other like minded countries. It must be solved as part of the North-South dialogue. It must be a solution jointly arrived at by all countries, rich and poor alike, because it is a problem we share equally. No one is immune from dealing with the problem of refugees around the world.
However, I believe that we do have a particular role to play because of our traditions and our recent history. We have a country which has developed a reputation, going back to the Second World War, for having a strong humanitarian and compassionate feeling for those who are displaced and homeless. This reputation has stood us in good stead. It is a base upon which we can build a reputable set of initiatives for others to follow. I believe this policy has been supported by all political parties and by all groups. It is not a partisan issue; it is not one in which one should make political points. We all agree upon the necessity of the country developing political moves and initiatives to bring together the different countries of the world as part of the dialogue concerning the changing conditions of refugees around the world.
We have attempted within our country not only to go beyond the question of simple intake, but to try to demonstrate to other countries that we can develop a fairly rational and comprehensive plan dealing with refugees. Now we have an annual refugee program which we table in Parliament, and hon. members should recognize that it has become a worldwide refugee program. It is not simply a reactive program; it is not simply set up to react to crises. We have set target levels for Southeast Asia, Africa, eastern Europe and Latin America.
It is important for hon. members who have asked what we are doing in Central and Latin America to realize that under our refugee program last year we doubled the target. We have now set as a level close to 1,000 refugees coming from that area. Furthermore, we have adopted a number of initiatives within Central and South America in the last year to demon-
International Relations
strate our commitment. We offered to take in 300 Cuban refugees, even though our country was not an area to which they were particularly anxious to come because of the lack of strong contacts and roots. We have developed a major program for the resettlement of Haitian refugees this fall in co-operation with the Quebec government. Recently we adopted special measures to deal with Salvadoreans. These measures go substantially beyond those of most other countries.
I want to point out to hon. members that our decision on the Salvadorean refugee situation was made in very close consultation with the United Nations. The first priority of the United Nations is the necessity to provide for settlement within the immediate problem area. The advice we received from the United Nations was that until the problem clarified, until there was some sense of a political arrangement for settlement, it was not encouraging large-scale resettlement into host countries. Even with that measure we were prepared to relax the requirements for Salvadoreans who were in Canada, who had relatives here, or who were being displaced from other countries and had nowhere to go. We offered them asylum in Canada.
It is not fair for certain members to suggest that we have been blind and irresponsible in the area of Central America when it comes to refugees. We have been taking initiatives as they should be taken, in constant co-operation with the United Nations and with other countries. It is that basic principle upon which we should develop new initiatives in the international arena.
One problem which all countries will have to face is the issue of the definition of "refugee". The old definition of someone who is escaping for fear of political persecution no longer applies to the vast thousands of refugees who escaped from Cuba. In many cases they are escaping from countries where poverty is of a severe and tragic proportion. Are they refugees, or are they simply people who are driven by an enormous desire to escape from want and use the refugee route as a way to get around normal immigration practices? It is clear that we must establish different definitions and rules to apply to the definition of "refugee" in the world today.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has begun such discussions. Certainly we will have an opportunity within the next year during the North-South dialogues, summit meetings and Commonwealth meetings, to use further our influence with other countries such as the United States, Australia and West Germany which provide the other major areas of host support and resettlement so that they will engage in a discussion about the general issue of refugee problems.
We have another important opportunity as Canadians. Not only do we have the opportunity to build upon our past reputation, but we can build upon the immediate experience which came our way as a consequence of one of the most fascinating and rewarding experiences through which the country has gone; that is, the large movement of Southeast Asian refugees. Approximately 60,000 people coming in over 18 months is a large swallow. It takes extraordinary efforts at

June 16, 1981
International Relations
resettlement to ensure that they have proper opportunities for work, homes and education.
One of the most important developments arising out of our major commitment was the tremendous involvement of private sponsors. Under the changes to the Immigration Act of 1978, we now have the power to join in partnership with a wide variety of voluntary groups, church groups and ethnic organizations, so that they can provide sponsorship, resources and support for the settlement of refugees in this country. It is satisfying to see the tremendous response to those groups throughout Canada. There were close to 7,000 sponsors for Southeast Asian refugees alone. Many ethnic groups are now undertaking sponsorship for eastern European refugees.
I have indicated to various organizations that I am prepared to sign agreements similar to the ones I have already signed with the Polish congress and the Czechoslovakian association. We are prepared to sign agreements with them so that they can bring in refugees under sponsorship agreements. The same offer to provide such resources applies to any group that wants to bring in refugees from Central or South America.
In almost the last 2.5 years we have built up a very strong and forward-thinking constituency of Canadians who are active and interested in the problems and plight of refugees. Now we are asking the questions: what do we do next; where do we go from here? Perhaps the most important refugee priority to mention would be to engage our interest and resources in developing programs in refugee camps around the world. We should draw upon the inspiration and the commitment of church organizations and voluntary organizations to bring their resources to bear upon the huge refugee camps in Africa and Central America.
When I met with the Somalian ambassador a few months ago, we talked about the refugee issue. He said that there were close to one million refugees in camps in Somalia alone. Somalia is one of the poorest countries in the world and it has to bear the full cost of almost a million refugees. He said that they needed people who could provide medical and agricultural services as well as technical assistance.
This is a tremendous opportunity for Canadians to find a new cause. Those many thousands of Canadians who have committed themselves to the resettlement of refugees at home now have a tremendous opportunity abroad. It is certainly my ambition-and I know it is shared by my colleagues-to begin providing such support and assistance for the outward reach of Canadians to deal with the refugee problem where it is most serious and most drastic; that is, the vast number of camps in various regions around the globe.
We have taken a major step toward restructuring the Canadian Foundation on Refugees to enable it to begin providing support for the co-ordination of technical assistance in the development of an international aspect of Canadian involvement in the refugee problem. We have met with a number of refugee organizations. For example, I met with perhaps one of the most prominent and effective groups, the Mennonite Central Committee, about two weeks ago.


Mr. Friesen:: What was the name of that group?


Lloyd Axworthy: They are a group which deserve full recognition.
As for the question about what we do next, the answer given to them was, "Let us begin to broaden the base". We have said to them, "Let us use the resources and the money that you can collect and the commitment of those who want to work abroad to begin working in the camps abroad". In a sense, we have a chance to set a different model, a different example in the area of refugee policy. Mr. Speaker, I can tell you that is something we intend to do. It is a commitment we are making to provide leadership in the outward reach of refugee programs and policies and to give Canadians the opportunity to become engaged, not in a passive way by reading about the tragedies in newspapers or by watching them on television, but by active involvement in a direct way with a vast problem which is growing by leaps and bounds.
I would say, in particular, that we recognize increasingly the importance of the issues as they appear in South America and Latin America. That is why we have taken a number of steps to begin developing approaches to the settlement of refugees from that area. We have indicated to the United Nations that we are prepared to accept Salvadorean refugees who cannot find homes elsewhere.
We are taking measures to strengthen our embassy connections, as the Secretary of State has said. We have taken measures to strengthen our reporting missions and our ability to organize and develop political control and contact. In effect, we are really talking about a two-pronged approach with regard to dealing with refugee aid and settlement. It is important to state that none of these initiatives is possible or probable unless we have an underlying consensus and agreement that we are prepared to do something in these areas.
I commend the New Democratic Party for giving up one of their opposition days in order to allow the government to continue this debate. It is only unfortunate that others did not have the same sort of zeal and commitment. There is a broad base of support in this area. We will be able to develop a better understanding among Canadians of these issues. It is necessary for us to go beyond our view and perception that refugees come as a result of a crisis. We must begin to develop an approach to the refugee issue which is consistent, cohesive and long term.
Refugees will be around for a long time and the problems associated with them will not be subject to easy solutions or panaceas. The problems are not subject to grandstanding or rhetorical flourishes. This situation requires a painstaking effort and an allocation of resources. As we well know, any foreign policy initiative will not succeed unless it receives a basis of support from the people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: I regret to interrupt the hon. minister but his allotted time has expired.
June 16, 1981


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to participate in this debate today. I also want to say it was a privilege for me to serve on the North-South Parliamentary Task Force, to be involved in the hearings and to listen to the many fine presentations which were made to the task force. 1 wish to pay tribute to the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche), who is not in the House at the present time. He has made many contributions in this House and, indeed, across the country with regard to Canada's role in aid and development, and to the entire theme of external affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: One of the most important things which impressed me was the role of the non-government organizations. The task force heard many people from these organizations. They play a very important role in projecting Canada to the many parts of the world. The self-sacrificing manner in which they work is to be commended. I am impressed by the non-government organizations in our country.
Along with four other members of the task force I was privileged to visit some countries in Asia in February. I was able to view first hand some of the work involved in aid and development, for we had the privilege of visiting the Philippines, Bangladesh and Singapore. I saw the development and aid projects which are taking place in these countries. We were able to talk with Canadians and to see the kind of work they were doing. The enthusiasm generated among them was selfevident. I returned from the trip being supremely proud that I am Canadian and proud of the work that Canada is doing overseas.
One of the recommendations our task force made was that there should be greater parliamentary input into the North-South debate. I am pleased to have the opportunity to do that today. There must also be input from members of Parliament. Members of Parliament must have the opportunity to travel, to see first hand the projects in which Canada is involved. We need to be able to question the people who are there in order to find out what is happening.
I believe that there is a grave danger that the party to my left, the New Democratic Party, and other socialist parties and their leaders, will try to turn legitimate problems regarding relations among nations into an instrument for promoting international socialism. That frightens me because I believe there is a danger of distorting the real needs of people in the world into the cause of world socialism. If the North-South dialogue is subverted into a tool of international socialism, an instrument to wage peace-another form of warfare-then this will only contribute to the conflict among the superpowers rather than assist the poor people of the world.
The NDP motion which is before us today was moved soon after the leader of that party returned from a mission abroad-perhaps it was "Mission Impossible". The critics and the cynics say that he went because of his unpopular support of the Prime Minister's constitutional proposals. They say he went because of his need to regain his popularity and his prestige as party leader, not only among his caucus but among
International Relations
members of his party as a whole. Rather, he went abroad, or perhaps amiss, as the vice-president of Socialist International.
The hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) met for more than four hours with President Castro, one of the Prime Minister's pals. But it was a secret meeting and reporters were forced to stay in a hotel. The Ottawa Citizen reported that the NDP leader obtained astonishing insight into the communist leader. The Globe and Mail reported that he said secret meetings were extremely important and extremely useful. In the name of freedom of information, let the leader of the New Democratic Party, who was in the House earlier to report to Parliament about his trip, tell us what took place with Mr. Castro. What offers did Castro make toward him? Did he invite Castro to participate in the economic development of the Caribbean and Latin America? We also know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) never reports in this House about the trips he makes either.
Complexity makes understanding all the ramifications surrounding the so-called North-South dialogue almost impossible because such an immense topic covers subject matters such as the recycling of the OPEC surplus, the proposed changes in the gearing ratio of the World Bank and the allocation of special drawing rights. It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that too often the whole question of the North-South dialogue is boiled down to a simple controversy over foreign aid. In these difficult economic times, when so many western nations are faced with double digit inflation and high unemployment, foreign aid is viewed with disfavour and increased foreign aid is viewed with extreme distaste.
In perspective, though, it can be easily seen that the target for foreign aid recommended by the North-South task force, of which I was a member, is not excessive. We argued that official development assistance should rise to .7 per cent of gross national product by 1990. When one discovers that federal support for the arts in Canada, a worthwhile venture in itself, amounts to 2 per cent of gross national product, the amount budgeted for official development assistance is seen to be quite reasonable, especially when such moneys are targetted to providing the following: clean water, health services and education. These three are simple necessities to the hundreds of millions in the Third World who are bereft of what we in Canada view as our inalienable right. However, although the contribution of foreign aid to the alleviation of human suffering should not be minimized, it is but a small part of the solution to North-South relations.
Another part of the solution is provided by the many individual Canadians who have been moved by humanitarian concerns to share generously with those less fortunate. This caring is represented not only by financial contributions but by contributions of time, energy and experience. These Canadians are members of the over 200 independent non-governmental organizations known as NGOs involved in assisting development in the Third World. The organizations range from small, effective groups such as Match International, which involves

June 16, 1981
International Relations
itself at the very basic level in teaching women in the south how to raise rabbits, to the Mennonite Central Committee, where years of expertise in farming are shared with newly-landed peasants, to CUSO whose members teach the illiterate to read.
Non-governmental organizations are enjoying wide financial support from the community at large, even to the point where private contributions are increasing in spite of the shrinking of the economic pie. In 1978-1979, NGOs raised over $63 million for projects in the Third World.
In light of these facts, the task force recommended that the government direct an increased share of ODA to support the activities of NGO. Additionally, the bilateral programs branch of CIDA should assign some of the funds it expects to spend on agriculture, health and rural development to small projects which would be operated by Canadian NGOs.
The North-South dialogue is further confused by calls for a new international economic order. Paramount in my mind are the attitudes that would be reflected in being party to such a fundamental change in the economic affairs of the world. I firmly believe that human rights, free will and the sovereignty of nations must not be placed in jeopardy in any move toward change. These nations which are blessed by already having such benefits should neither give them up nor avoid the responsibility of seeing that less privileged nations are assisted.
I also strongly believe that the developed countries should not redistribute wealth but should apply development programs in such a way that the less developed countries become able to create their own wealth.
I do not think that it is beneficial or desirable to foster dependency in recipient nations. We should as a nation undoubtedly concern ourselves with the less fortunate, but with an eye on the long view. Our main goal, I believe, should be to get the less developed countries to stand on their own, independent and self-sufficient. That goal may take some time to be realized, but it should always be our final target. It has been my observation that collectivism and socialism rob people of their initiative.
We need to ask ourselves, why is Canada not an underdeveloped country? The party to the left needs to ask the question, why are we not an underdeveloped country? It is because of our economy and through the free enterprise system which has allowed us to grow and prosper, even though it is now threatened by the present government. Our system has further allowed us to be in the position where we can share our bounty with others. I personally feel a strong responsibility to see that other nations are allowed to learn and benefit from the free enterprise system, as Canada and other western nations have.
In a number of important ways the situation of Canada is analogous to nations in the south. They, like us, were once colonies; they, like us, have an economy which is largely predicated upon the export of primary commodities and the import of finished goods; they, like us, are not major world
powers and therefore have a stake in co-operation and working together without recourse to power.
All these similarities have conspired to put Canada in a position of trust in the eyes of the Third World. We are looked upon as a nation which can act as a bridge between the concerns of the South and the concerns of the North.
The bridge-building role which the parliamentary task force envisioned for Canada uses to advantage this position of trust, for not only does Canada have much in common with the South, but we are undoubtedly a member of the nations of the North. Canada is therefore uniquely situated to act as an arbiter, a go-between to aid in more meaningful dialogue between the North and South.
The Prime Minister's attitude to this crucial topic has trivialized it. He has not bothered adequately to explain to the Canadian citizen his concerns, his goals and his methods of achieving those goals. The Prime Minister should realize, Mr. Speaker, that he has a major problem with credibility out there in Canada, and oftentimes the mere fact that he says he is in favour of something is enough to turn people off. The people of Canada have been presented with the spectacle of the Prime Minister flitting around the world, bemoaning the lack of avocados and hobnobbing with world leaders. Granted these were the leaders of Third World countries; but for all we know the Prime Minister could have been talking to them about the new hem lengths in Paris, for he has not seen fit to take the people of Canada into his confidence. We are asked blindly to trust him when he assures us that the problems of North-South are of primary importance to him.
The members of the task force were convinced that North-South relations were critically important, but there are those of us who seriously question the Prime Minister's commitment. His actions, however, will determine whether that opinion is positive or negative, and I am deeply concerned that there will be negative public perception.
Mr. Speaker, in the course of our hearings, members were surprised to learn that Canada is involved in 89 countries, although 79 per cent of that involvement was in 27 countries. This massive but necessarily superficial involvement led us to question the effectiveness of our programs, as our Canadian personnel are spread extremely thin. We found that there are less than 100 CIDA personnel in the field, while in Ottawa CIDA is top heavy with about 1,000 employees. This can easily be seen to be an unsatisfactory situation.
The decision-making process is centred in Ottawa, far from the realities of the field, and is ponderously slow to respond to changes in field conditions. CIDA personnel in the Third World are hard-working and dedicated, I am sure of that, but they surely could do a better job with more support there and fewer officials at headquarters in Ottawa.
The task force therefore recommended that the government seek to reduce the number of countries in which it has aid programs. Further, it was recommended that the government strengthen the administration of its development assistance programs in the field.
June 16, 1981

Another area which the task force studied quite intensively dealt with the subject of food aid. The role of emergency food aid in disasters is one that is not questioned. It is the ongoing role played by food aid that is controversial. However, it should be pointed out that not all countries in the South are dependent on food aid. In fact, there has been some remarkable progress. For example, India suffered a major drought ten years ago. The response in food aid from other nations was immediate and massive, but thousands of Indians starved to death. Two years ago India underwent another severe drought, but because of gains made in agriculture production, India was self-sufficient and able to feed its people from grain grown and stockpiled in India.
The Indian government is joined by the government of Bangladesh in its determination to make food production one of its highest priorities. So it can be seen that self-sufficiency in agricultural production is an attainable goal. It is also the case that people can starve to death, not through lack of food but through lack of money to buy food. We urge that aid be given to the poorest of the poor, to avoid this type of situation arising.
We found in our discussions that food aid had often exacerbated problems faced by newly emerging nations. A dependence on food aid was fostered, sometimes upsetting market balances to the detriment of domestic production, which robs people of their initiative and self-esteem. We determined therefore that food aid from Canada should be used only as a transitional measure to fill the gap which exists between a country's food needs and its food production.
Food aid should be part of a detailed and well integrated food production plan in which food aid would gradually decline and assistance for food production increase.
I feel that this subject is too important to be left to civil servants, who are cautious and careful not to put themselves into positions where they can be criticized. This issue of North-South relations needs to be handled with imagination and verve, qualities not called for in the job descriptions of most bureaucrats.
I think it is time for new blood, and that is why I call for an ongoing mandate for members of Parliament to involve themselves in this topic. As members of the task force, we found our travels greatly beneficial in bringing home the realities of the situations faced in the developing countries. We had a firsthand opportunity to observe the Canadian government's involvement in development and were, therefore, able to suggest practical alternatives to present procedures. Travel is a valuable educational tool and members should be allowed to visit countries where Canada is involved in aid or development projects. Members should be allowed not only to view firsthand what Canadians are doing, but to question and to criticize.
May I ask how much time I have left, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: One minute.
International Relations


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: I shall conclude by saying it is ironic that the Prime Minister supposedly has such a keen interest in world affairs and the North-South issue when he is unable to resolve the Canadian east-west problem. Apparently he delights in paying world prices for oil to Mexico, OPEC or Venezuela rather than paying 75 per cent of that price to Canadians.
I say it is ironic because he appears to want to solve world problems but cannot successfully deal with domestic problems. There is no doubt that there are real needs in the world. We as Canadians can be proud of our efforts, but more Canadians would be willing to rally behind the Prime Minister for this cause if he showed more sympathy, more concern and more understanding regarding our own problems.


Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, before speaking to the motion moved by the New Democratic Party, I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to the fact that our friends in the official opposition have refused to give up to the House one of their allotted days. I suspect that decision will sadden the thoughtful Progressive Conservatives, and I know some among my friends across the floor who do not suffer from tunnel vision, who are greatly interested in international political issues, and who will be all the more upset because in the past their party made a significant contribution in the definition and the preparation of Canada's foreign policy.
It is unfortunate that they were unable to set aside their purely partisan considerations, if only for one day. This being the second day of the first debate on foreign policy held in the House in many years, it is disappointing to see that the New Democratic Party have deliberately chosen to ignore certain issues which are crucial at this time, such as the North-South dialogue which was so aptly set in its proper perspective yesterday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan). Similarly, they have chosen to ignore other important questions, including disarmament, nuclear non-proliferation, the law of the sea, as well as the situation in Africa and in the Middle East, simply to enable their leader to rehash the same arguments we have already heard in the debate of March 9 last on El Salvador. According to the motion moved by the New Democratic Party, Mr. Speaker, this House ought to express the continuing concern which hon. members feel over Canada's international relations. It is rather strange that the New Democratic Party should want to concentrate on only one question which, as I just said, was debated at length hardly three months ago, and that they should decide to remain silent on other issues which are even more important to Canada and world peace.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs has just reiterated the policy of the government on El Salvador. As he pointed out, that is a region where traditionally Canada has not been

June 16, 1981
International Relations
very active. In fact, before the Nicaraguan revolution in 1979, Canadians generally knew precious little about a region which basically left them rather indifferent. When the revolution broke out in that country, the then secretary of state for external affairs and now the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) maintained that Canada should not get involved and that she did not expect Canada to take any special measures to straighten out that country's difficult situation. However, the turn of events in Nicaragua, and more recently in El Salvador, led Canadians to show a growing interest in that region of the world, and we all regret the escalating tension and violence which have characterized the situation in that country for several months.
However, pitiable the situation may appear to us, there are limits to what Canada can and should do in El Salvador or Central America. Canada should not do as the frog in La Fontaine's fable which wanted to get bigger than the bull and did finally burst. This does not mean, Mr. Speaker, that we should ignore this region. Indeed, that is certainly not what the Canadian government is doing. In the past, we have established economic development assistance programs for Honduras, Guatemala, Nicaragua and El Salvador. Only a few days ago, the Secretary of State for External Affairs announced that Canada would provide over $4 million worth of wheat to Nicaragua, and we hope that peace will come back to El Salvador so that we may, in co-operation with other countries, help in the economic development of this country which is now rent asunder by savage conflicts which are very costly in terms of human lives.
The hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) has insisted that Canada should take action to allow a negotiated settlement in El Salvador. Mr. Speaker, a negotiated settlement by way of an election is precisely what the government of El Salvador is suggesting. We know that some elements of the conservative forces in that country object to this process, but we are also aware that the socialist forces with whom the hon. member for Oshawa associated lengthily during his recent visit there are also against such a settlement. The government of El Salvador has indicated that it is now willing to have political discussions about the terms of an election to form a constituent assembly in 1982 and a government in 1983. The government of El Salvador has also indicated that it would willingly consider foreign assistance to make it easier to set up the electoral process in acceptable conditions; specifically, the Organization of American States has been mentioned as being able to ensure the holding of an election according to generally accepted democratic standards.
I therefore wonder, Mr. Speaker, whether the hon. member for Oshawa is right in stating bombastically that an election held under international supervision would be a travesty of democracy. The hon. member has also been very critical of the military and economic assistance provided by the United States, contending that this was the equivalent of supporting a
military regime. The government of Canada has clearly stated on several occasions that it disapproves of arms deliveries by any side, but we also believe that if revolutionary forces are determined to overthrow a government, it is quite legitimate to help this government, which actually wants to establish a democratic regime, to protect itself.
Mr. Speaker, much has been said about the military assistance provided by the United States to the government of El Salvador. What we should know in this regard is that this military assistance accounts for a mere quarter of the $126 million in economic assistance that the United States does provide to El Salvador in the form of credits and balance of payment assistance to allow this strife-ridden country to import goods to feed its people and equipment to operate its industries. It is strange, Mr. Speaker, that the same people who request international economic assistance for Nicaragua denounce at the same time any economic assistance to El Salvador. Apart from the political hue of their respective governments, is there something exclusive to the Nicaraguan people which warrants it being provided with goods and basic necessities that should be denied to the people of El Salvador? Perhaps the hon. member for Oshawa could explain this point later on. The hon. member also maintains that he can see only three possible options in Central America in the years to come. First, a radical change to a regime of the moderate left with a mixed economy in which both the public and private sectors would participate and which would probably remain neutral in its relations with the United States and non-aligned in its relations with the major political blocks. In fact, this seems to be direction in which the government of President Duarte wants to go. The two other alternatives suggested by the hon. member for Oshawa are a radical marxist-leninist non-democratic state dominated regime, hostile to the United States and aligned with the communist block, or else, as a third option, a very oppressive military oligarchy where social change would be met by violence and all human rights would be held in abeyance in order to maintain the status quo.
On the basis of his recent article in the Toronto Star I suppose that the hon. member for Oshawa does not favour that last solution not any more than we do. However, as he does not seem to favour the first solution, which is the direction the Duarte government seems to be taking, we must conclude that he would rather accept the second one. I do not think, Mr. Speaker, that the people of El Salvador would agree to that solution. Mr. Speaker, we have already had a debate on the conditions prevailing in El Salvador and I would like to take this opportunity to make a few comments on the whole economic and social conditions in Central America. My comments of course are aimed at El Salvador, but I think that they are also quite relevant in the context of the North-South dialogue and I am convinced of the imperious necessity of considering critical social and economic problems of emergent
June 16, 1981

countries in a climate of sympathy, generosity and understanding.
The situation in Central America is a good example of the problem which may arise when the social and economic needs of the people are disregarded. The tensions and terrible disturbances which occurred in Nicaragua two years ago, which are occurring now in El Salvador, and which may occur in Guatemala in the near future are only early signs of what may occur elsewhere in the world if the international community fails to soon take the necessary steps to meet the economic and social needs of developing nations.
I was quite pleased when the Secretary of State for External Affairs started by placing the issue in the larger context of the social and economic situation in Central America, both during the March 9 debate on the situation in El Salvador and today. He was quite right in insisting that Central American countries are in a transition stage between traditional authoritarian regimes, with the people at the top hardly concerned about the needs of their people, and new regimes of a different type little known in that area of the world, where the people at the top are more aware of the needs of modern societies and more eager to meet present challenges.
Unfortunately, these regimes are facing innumerable difficulties. On the one hand, there is the opposition of the old guard as well as of the political and economic interests which stubbornly refuse to accept change or to look to the future, or at least appear unwilling to do so, and which try desperately, sometimes resorting to force or violence, to hang on to their old priorities and privileges. On the other hand, the left and the extreme left in their attempt to exploit the legitimate grievances of the people to promote their own political objectives, seem to hinder the reform process in order to take over and assume power on a wave of popular dissatisfaction. These new regimes are also exposed to outside factors, such as oil and energy prices and their impact on the price of other imported goods as well as the fluctuating prices of their main exports.
Mr. Speaker, in the course of their history, most of the countries of Central America have known long and painful spells of military dictatorship and social shortcomings for which they are now paying dearly. It is in those countries that the highest rates of overpopulation and the greatest instability are found. The lack of health care, illiteracy and malnutrition relegate those countries to the lowest ranks amongst nations, while population growth is perhaps the highest in the world. They are also up against unequal sharing of income, persistent agricultural problems, unemployment, illiteracy, and systems of income distribution that create wide gaps between the rich and the poor, to the extent that people in the lowest income brackets under present circumstances, may never see any improvement in their lot. The unrest born out of those needs is fostering internal pressures for change in Central American countries, as well as the abuses and violence which shock us so.
International Relations
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier, Canada has traditionally no close ties with the countries of Central America: as I pointed out, our interests there are rather limited. I am happy that we should have been amongst the first countries to recognize the pressing needs of that part of the world and that we should not have rejected the whole question out of hand under the pretext that we were simply dealing with a demonstration of East and West rivalry. I am also happy that the modest assistance programs implemented in the last few years and our trade relations are increasing.
If, as some Canadians advocate, we should increase our involvement in Central America in terms of aid, trade and other areas, the government will have to invest more financial and human resources to this end. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I want to say, as far as El Salvador is concerned, that I hope the voices of reason will prevail in that country torn by conflicts and that militants, both right and left wing, will cease their fighting, kidnappings and slaughter in order that the government of El Salvador can get on with the monumental task of ensuring social reform and securing political democracy.


Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes I have before we adjourn for the six o'clock dinner hour, I should like to discuss briefly one particular item and then, after the dinner hour, possibly two others. I want to vary somewhat the context of my remarks from those of most other members who have spoken today. I do not intend to talk about El Salvador to any great extent. I think the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) and the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) have dealt with that issue adequately.
There are three areas I should like to touch upon. I want to inform the House, and through the House the country, of the work which is nicely under way in a special subcommittee on Canada's relations with Latin America and the Caribbean, a committee of which I am a member. Then I want to touch, also briefly because of the shortage of time, on the whole question of population and whether there is anything we, and I say "we" in the global sense, can do in terms of population. I also want to touch on the question of agriculture in the context of being able to feed the world as it will be between now and the year 2000, a world in which there will be over six billion people, as well as in the context of our relations with the Caribbean nations and Latin America.
The first matter I should like to speak to is the whole question of the recent committee that has been set up to take the first in-depth look at Canada's relationship with Latin America and the Caribbean. The committee has been empowered to look at all aspects of our relationship from immigration to trade, which is certainly the main thrust of our committee's work, and also the question of humanitarianism, and whether Canada as a country can, should, or has the wherewithal-the knowledge and expertise-to mediate, as has been suggested

June 16, 1981
International Relations
before in the House of Commons in terms of a situation such as that in El Salvador.
The questions of economic development and economic promotion are of prime concern to the committee which is hearing witnesses and briefs at the present time. As an example of that philosophy, in 1980 we sold more to Brazil than we did to China, we sold more to Venezuela than to Norway and Sweden put together, and more to Argentina than to Spain. Our total exports in 1980 amounted to some $3.7 billion, an increase of 32 per cent over the previous year, and we can expect further increases in 1981. Some 33 per cent of those exports were in the form of processed or manufactured goods, many in high technological areas. So it is not hard to see the economic importance we in Canada attach to various countries of Latin America. This is something which I think the Canadian public generally has a tendency not to realize.
The committee will also endeavour to look at our relationship with Latin America to move us out of what could be considered to be merely a one-sided relationship which consists in effect, of only trade. Trade will have to be supplemented by industrial co-operation and technological exchanges, and there is a greater need to give further attention to the political relations on both global questions and population questions between the two areas.
Economically Canada obviously views Latin America as a substantial market. In 1980 our exports to Mexico, for example, amounted to $482 million which represents an increase of 104 per cent over the previous year. Agricultural commodities are a big part of that, as are processed and manufactured goods. Imports from Mexico increased by some 65 per cent to a total of $344 million and will, of course, keep increasing as the years go on.
Canada has not had a history of a great deal of activity in Central America, but we should be moving steadily to increasing trade and development assistance in that area. There is, of course, in countries in Central America like Nicaragua, El Salvador and Guatemala, a substantial degree of uncertainty because of political turmoil, economic underdevelopment, abuses of human rights and military violence, of which everyone knows and is aware. The committee is also going to be looking at this particular aspect.
The Caribbean area is also going to be viewed with special priority as far as this particular committee is concerned, and certainly it is viewed with special priority as far as Canada is concerned. We are now working actively both bilaterally and multilaterally, to increase economic assistance to the Caribbean countries, and we intend to take a closer look at this particular aspect during our committee hearings. Our aim in Latin America and the Caribbean, as elsewhere, must be to contribute to the improvement of human rights either by private or public means, or both, by increasing trade between the two areas where trade is beneficial to both.
The area of Latin America and the Caribbean has been neglected by Canada for just too long. What the committee will try to do is to enhance the knowledge and interests of Parliament in this area, increase the awareness of Canadians
generally as to the benefits of trade between the two areas, and also the awareness of the whole area of human rights about which Canadians do not appear to be overly concerned at this time. For too long there has been a trend on the part of Canadians to look at Latin America and the Caribbean as basically a single area, ignoring the fact that in this particular area there are some 39 independent countries, and dependent colonies and territories where the languages spoken are as diverse as English, French, Spanish, Dutch and Portuguese. We must deal with countries in Latin America and the Caribbean on a more individual basis than we have done up to this point. Some no doubt will be important to us as export markets, others as sources of needed imports; some will be sources of immigration and others destinations for Canadian tourism. Some will be important because of their role in international affairs, and others because of the need for development assistance to which we can contribute, and still others because of the great need for humanitarian contributions Canada can make.
It will be incumbent upon the committee to take an in-depth look, or as much so as a parliamentary committee can, into the whole question of human rights and the violation of human rights in some of these countries, and El Salvador I suppose is a perfect example. Canada may be able to fill a very needed role in this particular area because of the status, standing and good will which we enjoy in the Latin American area.
Because this will really be the first in-depth look at this particular region, the committee will offer Canadians a window on Latin America and the Caribbean. This will act as a challenge not only to committee members but to Canadians in general to get to know this very important region better and to come to understand it, which we hope will result in us all being drawn closer together. I think this is a very important part of the committee's work.
May I call it six o'clock, and ask that I be allowed to resume my remarks after the dinner break, Mr. Speaker?
[ Translation]


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Jack Burnett Murta: Mr. Speaker, I would like to continue where I left off at six o'clock. In the last few minutes I have available to me, I would like to try to put into perspective the whole question of world population and our ability as a developed country and the ability of other developed countries to try, in some way, to feed that growing population.
To put population figures into some perspective, let me say that there has been a population increase from about half a
June 16, 1981

billion people in the sixteenth century to 1 billion by 1820. That number grew to 2 billion by 1930, to 3 billion by 1960 and to 4 billion by 1976. It is a virtual certainty that a further 2 billion will be added by the end of this century. The United Nations Fund for Population Activities has stated that world population rose by 80 million last year alone and will go up by an estimated 90 million each year for the rest of this century. That is the type and size of the problem confronting us when we talk about world population.
It has been said by many people that family planning programs will be one of the main keys to the survival of the world in the future. I happen to believe that is true, yet less than 50 cents per capita per year is currently spent on family planning and population programs in developing countries, and the demand far outstrips available funds.
One of the big problems the world will face in the next few years will be in the cities. Cities will be a major problem, first, because they will contain tremendous concentrations of people in relatively small areas and, second, they will occupy valuable land which could be used for agricultural production. It is estimated that large cities will grow more rapidly than smaller cities, and some of the former are likely to reach proportions which are totally unfamiliar to city planners. In 1950 only four of the largest cities were in the less developed countries. In 1975 this number rose to seven, and it is projected that 12 of the 15 largest cities will be in the less developed countries by the year 2000.
In 1950 there were six cities with populations of over 5 million, and their combined population was 47 million. In 1980 there are 26 cities with populations over 5 million, with a combined population of over 252 million. Projections indicate that will increase to over 60 cities with an estimated population of nearly 650 million by the year 2000. Figures reflecting the size and growth of cities are truly alarming. There is absolutely no question in the mind of anyone who has looked at the whole question of population and population growth that there will be six billion people by the end of this decade and eight billion or ten billion in the years after the year 2000.
The question which must be asked is whether, given that population, we will be able to feed all those people. The hard fact is that the developed countries-and Canada is obviously one-cannot or will not be expected to be able to feed the world. It is just not possible, even though we would like to think it might be. There will not be enough production because on a world basis population is growing faster than the agricultural production to feed that population. If we did have the production, we do not have the transportation capabilities. If we had that, in most cases the countries that really needed the food cannot buy it. Oil price increases have made this problem much worse because there now has to be a trade-off in the developing countries as to whether to spend money on food or on energy.
An example of the situation I think is most graphically illustrated right here in Canada. We set a target of exporting
International Relations
30 million tons of grain by 1985. I frankly do not know whether we will reach that target. It is quite a modest figure, yet farmers in Canada are hesitant because of rising fuel prices and the substantial and increasing costs of production. Another problem is that most of our land is already in production, as is the case in a good many other developed countries in the world. In addition, because of transportation sector difficulties it is doubtful whether we will be able to meet that export commitment. These are just Canadian problems. When you multiply those on a global basis in terms of the developed countries, it makes the whole situation seem very dark and frought with all kinds of dangers.
What can governments do? That has to be the question we ask in terms of increasing agriculture production. Obviously it means that countries like Canada, the United States, Australia and countries of Europe keep up food aid to the very maximum possible. That has to be done, but we have to realize that will not solve the problem. Obviously another step in that direction which I think has to be taken is the setting up of grain storage capability for emergencies. That also has to be done. However, the real emphasis in my opinion has to be on money, time and effort in terms of plant and animal breeding, producing plants that in effect supply their own fertilizer. I think countries like Canada can make a big contribution in money, time and effort on those kinds of projects.
Credit for countries to buy fertilizer, machinery and insecticides has to be increased, and we also have to provide technical help. We have to realize, Mr. Speaker, that countries which need food the most somehow must be encouraged to produce it themselves. International relief and help can and must help poor countries, but the bulk of the work must come from the countries themselves.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that all the policies and strategies outlined by the people concerned with this problem here today and throughout this long debate which has taken place over a number of years, problems of people, of food and the environment, will not mean one iota if the will between the developed and developing countries is not taken into account. In some respects we are at the very beginning of the kind of information program which will have to take place in the developing countries to get the awareness level up to the point where the citizens of these countries allow their governments to move forward. The central question obviously must be whether the rich and fortunate are imaginative enough, and the resentful and underprivileged poor patient enough, to begin to establish a true foundation of sharing, co-operation and joint global effort. If over the next few years the answer is a resounding yes, then of course we have something to look forward to in terms of life on this planet. If it is no, then I think this planet is doomed to a destructive fate. In my opinion, Mr. Speakfer, we will know the answer within the next decade.


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, this morning when I woke up I found that I had been dreaming about something I had read about last night. I was dreaming about a little boy called Alfredo Rampi. No one except his family
10670

June 16, 1981
International Relations
knew his name last week, but most of Europe and practically all of North America knew it this week because Alfredo Rampi is the little boy who fell down the well in Italy and has since died. When I awoke this morning I found I was semi-dreaming about the little boy, the fear he must have experienced, the inability to move, the hopelessness and helplessness of being caught in that tunnel. Up above people were trying to help him. They tried to feed him artificially, give him a drink, and at the same time almost in a panic they tried to save him by digging another hole so as to reach him. But little Alfredo Rampi died.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I believe I know a lot of little Alfredo Rampi's. I believe I know a lot of little boys and girls, human beings around the world, who are trapped in the tunnel of oppression, poverty and misery, who must be experiencing and who do experience in a way what was expressed in the last emotional cry of little Alfredo. And so tonight I am going to address my remarks as much as I can to the personal problem confronting each human being on the globe today as it relates to something which has been very easily dropped into the phrase "North-South". North-South, as has been explained by others today, is simply a new set of words relating to countries that we ordinarily call developed and those we ordinarily call underdeveloped.
I have had the privilege, Mr. Speaker, of having lived a good part of my life in the North and a part of my life in the South. I have deep personal friends who are part of the North and deep personal friends who are part of the South. I have deep feelings for both sides of the question at a very personal level. I feel today that our world, our country, you and I and all the people in the world, are caught up in a moment of history that literally has never happened before. Statistics cannot explain what is happening, and a vision of where we are going has not really been clearly seen by anyone.
Let me try to put this in context. I am 52 years old, having been born in 1928, and with a little bit of luck I could live until the end of the century. It is a possibility. If I live the next 19 years, half the people who have ever lived on this planet will have lived while I was alive. They were either alive when I was born or they will still be living when I die. So in a way people my age or those now living on this planet will live through half the history of humankind. To put that into the bread and butter words of everyday life, half the food, water, air and literally half the products which the world has ever produced will have been produced and eaten or used by people living during my lifetime.
We are caught in a moment of history which has not happened before, and problems that were solvable in one way before cannot now be solved by the old solutions. In the debate tonight, and each one of us I am sure can speak for hours, we want to say and we will say something about the importance of so many things involved in this little phrase "North-South". I think it is important that we bring to the debate the question of what is development, because development seems to be what distinguishes the North from the South. The word "development" is understood and used by many people in different
ways. As I use that word in my speech, I will use an understanding of the word which I think is extremely important if it is to be put in the North-South context. Development today is often used by some people who would, in a sense, tear down a set of old buildings and raise up a new building; they would call this development. In a sense it is a kind of development. Then there is the other group of people who would say we should just go up, take over the north and put in the pipelines; they would call this development. To me development is those things which make it possible, in a certain place, in a certain context, and in a certain culture, for a human being to live as a human being in what I would call frugal comfort. It does not mean that they will have all the material goods of the world or even a great part of the material goods of the world. It means that they will have enough in their lives to live in frugal comfort.
As we talk about the notion of development, it is extremely important to constantly keep in mind that development concerns human beings. We must develop, build and create a situation in which human beings can live and be human. Things that work against the possibility of a human being living as a human I call underdevelopment or anything but development. Things that work for and build up the situation and the climate in which a human being can live and be a human being, I call development. This is what the question of North-South is about. We must continually put underdevelopment at the bottom of our equation. If we are not bringing about the situation and the climate which will create a world in which people can live as human beings, it is not development; it is exploitation or something else, but not development.
I believe every human being is the most precious element which exists in creation as far as we know it. No matter where persons are, no matter how intelligent they are, no matter how much schooling they have had, no matter what colour they are, no matter how rich they are, no matter whether they are old, young or whatever, they are human beings and they deserve to live as human beings.
When the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) began his speech yesterday afternoon, he used an image which I felt was very important. I heard it again several times today. It is the image of the good neighbour. In my first speech in the House of Commons I used that same image. I would like to repeat what I said at that time because the ability to be a good neighbour to one and all will be involved in bringing about the process of development. The phrase "good neighbour" comes from the Scriptures. On a certain occasion when the Lord was challenged about what was the greatest of all commandments, he simply replied, "You know what you are talking about. You are a lawyer; tell me." The lawyer replied, "Love the Lord, your God, with your whole heart, your whole mind, and your whole soul; and love your neighbour as yourself'. The Lord said, "You have spoken rightly". And the man replied, "But who is my neighbour?" That is where the story comes from. The story is very simple but it is well worth telling over and
June 16, 1981

over again because it talked about today as well as about the world in which the Lord lived 2,000 years ago.
A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho and on the way he fell among thieves who beat him, stripped him and left him half dead. It so happened that a priest was going by on his way to the temple, and he saw him and passed by. Then a Levite came and did the same. Finally a Samaritan, a person who did not really belong to the society at all, came by and saw him there. He stopped his beast of burden, dismounted, bound up the wounds of the person, poured in oil and wine and looked after him. He took him down to the inn and left him there. He gave the man who kept the inn a denarius and said, "I will pay you for tonight. When I come back, if there is something else owing, I will pay for that too". And the Lord said, "Among these, who was the good neighbour?", and everybody said, "The Samaritan".
It is a simple story but a profound principle. There are basically three kinds of people in the story. The first are the thieves. They are the ones who came along, took, robbed, beat, stripped and left the person in the ditch. The second group was the priest and the Levite. They are the ones who saw the problem but they were unwilling to get their hands dirty; they would not look after the person in the ditch. Finally the Samaritan, the one who came last, stopped, took the risk and gave up everything. He took all the chances; he was willing to give what he had. He took the man and he looked after him; he was the neighbour.
In the North-South we are dealing with neighbours. In those three different groups of people who approached the man in the ditch, I believe we have the principles by which our world still works. The first group came and said, "What is yours is mine", and they took from that person or anybody at all, no matter who they are. Their land, their wealth, their labour, their sweat or whatever it is, they took and said, "What is yours is mine".
The second group came and said, "What is mine is mine", and they did not care about anybody else. The third group came by and said-and I am calling upon the House of Commons and the people of Canada to put us into the third group-"What is yours and what is mine is ours". It is an old story, but I believe the elements which make up the story are being lived out in the world today. I believe that story has a lot to do with what must happen in the Third World, the South and the North and the way we all relate to it.
Sometimes when we talk about the North-South, we sort of feel that we have it all and the South has nothing. Because I have had the privilege to live in the South as well as in the North, I know it is a completely false idea. The South has great values to show the North. With its richness and multitude of cultures all over the world, the South has many things to show us. I believe it is necessary in the North-South dialogue to listen extremely carefully to what the South has to say about many things-about ways of life, about values and many other things.
The consumer society builds upon the fact that we have a lot of things and that we have the ability to get more things, and
International Relations
more and more, until the graveyard finally tells us that it was not worthwhile after all. There are no Brink's trucks in funeral processions. It is important to realize the elements and goods which make up this planet. There is enough for everybody, if we find a way to share. It is not just taking a little bit out of my pocket; it means taking the super risks of stepping out into the world of today and making profound changes in our systems so that distribution to all the world is possible.
The Prime Minister indicated his deep concern in relation to the North-South dialogue. I wish him well and I trust that his efforts will bear fruit. I also suggest to the Prime Minister that when he takes trips around the world, he should take more care in planning them. It is important to care, but it is also extremely important to look as if you really cared. I do not think it a good idea to put a Third World trip on the tail end of a skiing holiday. There is nothing wrong with skiing and there is nothing wrong with putting it in the right place, but that is not the way the South sees it. The people in the South see that as a flippant way of treating them after we have looked after ourselves. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but that is the way it is.
I would suggest to the Right Hon. Prime Minister that he make sure he is extremely well briefed from many sources on what is actually taking place in the countries he visits. I know some countries in Latin America. I know a little bit about the great country of Brazil. When the Prime Minister visited Brazil, he should have done as President Carter did when he visited Brazil, and he should have seen people other than the Canadian business community and a few diplomats, besides spending a few hours on the Amazon. He should have seen some of the people who are leading the movement of liberation in that country, as President Carter did when he was there. He should have spoken to the lawyers' society and other people, such as the trade unionists. The whole movement that is taking place in that country is not often shown to visiting diplomats. They are not always made familiar with the political situation.
I was happy to have the privilege to work with the North-South task force. It is a beginning but there is still a long way to go. Two areas were not touched that are extremely important to the whole question. One was the area of multinationals, which probably control more of what is happening in the North-South dialogue than all the countries involved.
The other area is the link between armaments and underdevelopment. That was not touched upon either. I feel that the report, which I was glad to work on, has value. Yesterday the government supported almost all of its recommendation-and we will see that it lives up to its word-but there are areas that were left out of the report. I hope that we will be able to continue working in those areas.
I should like to make a few recommendations here, Mr. Speaker. Canada is going to buy 138 fighter aircraft. I really do not believe that we will feel any safer with 138 planes, but I am willing to let the government buy 137 planes, and instead of buying the last plane, I should like the government to take

June 16, 1981
International Relations
that $30 million or $25 million, or whatever it is going to cost, and put it into a separate fund to finance research on peace.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Joseph Ogle: Development and peace are like two hands washing each other. If there is no development, there will be no peace. We have to find how peace can be achieved. We have to research and use every human ability to do that.
I should like to congratulate the government for appointing an ambassador for disarmament on a full-time basis. At the same time, I should like to ask the government to give him a budget and make it possible for him to do something above and beyond a little bit of visiting. He should have a real budget.
Finally, I should like to ask my friend, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) to reconsider his position on Central America. I felt very much like the little boy, Alfredo Rampi, as the minister made his speech this afternoon. I felt I was confined in a tomb. I ask the minister to seriously reconsider the situation. Six months or more ago I wrote to him asking him to visit Latin America, Central America, so that he could meet the people and see the situation for himself.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.
The hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Breau:: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) had not concluded and I believe there was agreement to let him conclude his remarks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Gloucester. There is no unanimous agreement.


An hon. Member:: Who said no?


Benno Friesen: I did.


Miss Jewett:: Benito Friesen.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. In my opinion, a good debate was held yesterday and it riveted the attention of almost all members of the House. I think that is an encouraging fact. I have always believed, Mr. Speaker, that our political system did not provide enough opportunities to discuss international issues, especially with respect to international development and co-operation. It is normal, since we are elected to represent certain interests, whether they are the interests of our constituencies or philosophical and political interests and we normally tend in politics to centre on the problems of such groups in our constituencies. Our concentration on-Mr. Speaker, 1 wonder if we could not have some order in the House.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Gloucester has the floor.


Herb Breau: It is normal, Mr. Speaker, to centre our political efforts and our political discussions on the interests of our constituents, as I said earlier, as on our philosophical or political interests. Unfortunately, our parliamentary system, our political system generally does not provide enough opportunities to discuss important questions outside our immediate interests. This is why I am pleased that the government decided yesterday to devote an entire day to a debate on international affairs and I am pleased to see that the New Democratic Party has decided today to devote one of their allotted days to deal with them. I had the opportunity for almost a year with six other members from both sides of the House to belong to a working group on North-South relations which I chaired.
I want to say how much I appreciate the co-operation I was extended as chairman, first of all from the spokesmen of both the opposition parties, the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) and the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle), and from the other member of the opposition, the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz). From this side of the House, I was also extended a good deal of co-operation and dedication to the cause by the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras), the hon. member for Guelph (Mr. Schroder) and the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Frith). This has been a valuable and rewarding experience for the seven of us, and I feel that we have made the point that our parliamentary system, when there is a strong will to . .. We often talk about the need to reform our parliamentary institutions. I suggest that we should be concerned more with the need to change our attitudes as members of Parliament, for when there is a will, there is a way for members representing different parts of this country, various political formations, to agree on a statement of policy such as the report of the parliamentary task force, a document which does not necessarily represent the views of a particular member or group of members or party in the House, but is the result of an honest and sincerely negotiated effort. In order to achieve such a result, we had to reconcile several of our views, in some cases there was some give and take we had to defend our points of view, and the result was a coherent statement of policy comprising several recommendations. I am happy to note that in general the government has accepted the directions of the task force. Yesterday the government said and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) repeated that the government accepted the main directions contained in that report and which are as follows, Mr. Speaker. They are quite simple. It is that we should show concern as individuals, humanitarian concern, when making important policy decisions and that it should not be our only concern. What this report says is that there is a mutual interest, there are practical benefits for the
June 16, 1981

North, for the West, for Canada in meeting the people's needs in the Third World and the South.
I think that our constituents are not very interested in the matter. They have heard too much about it in the past. They have been told that there was a hunger problem in the world, that they had a moral responsibility, that they should not let such things happen as human beings. That is quite true. But what is important in politics is to convince our political, social and economic agents across Canada, in all walks of life, that it is in the best interests of Canada and the western world to take part in the changes that are going to happen, like it or not.
Mr. Speaker, for years, ever since the beginning of mankind, there has been change in various parts of the world throughout the evolution of mankind. You cannot stop the aspirations of people who want to be free, to develop themselves and have better opportunities. Like it or not, change is bound to take place, and if we fail to act now-it is always too late to act in such situations, but if we do not grab the opportunity-At the present time, there seems to be a momentum, a desire at least in some parts of the world, both in the North and in the South, to initiate a process of discussions and negotiations. That is the important thing.
I think we should take the opportunity of being partners in that changing process because, if we do not, in any event, Mr. Speaker, the change will take place and we will have to respond later on. We should learn from the past, from the history of humanity, the recent history of the past 30 or 40 years in almost every area of the world. Emerging powers, whether political, economic or merely social, were not always recognized as such. But the mere fact that they were not acknowledged for what they were does not mean that those people did not continue to strive for their freedom and independence. The end result is that the Western world, at times embarrassed, had to respond to the changes involved. We say in our report, Mr. Speaker, and I am glad to see the government accepted that recommendation, that we must be positive agents in this changing process.
I would like to deal with two aspects of the whole issue of the North-South dialogue as it is emerging this year. I would also like to deal with aspects of international development and co-operation, which I believe are most important, not because I believe they are exclusively important or because other issues are not important, but because I want to be brief. I want to give other members an opportunity to speak.
If I were asked what would be the most important event of this year in international development and co-operation, with regard to North-South dialogue, I would say first that the North and the South must make compromises to agree on a process. People do not realize that the institutions are not yet at the point of discussing substance. That is bad enough.
International Relations
So the first point I would like to make is that we must agree on a process. There must be a process of global negotiations this year which will work. There will be disagreements in substance, but we must learn and try to manage the disagreements and move forward with some action.
There are two policy aspects with which we must deal urgently. There is the food problem, both the question of food production and security of supply, and the energy question. These two matters are very much related.
I would like to quote from two passages from the report of the Parliamentary Task Force on North-South Relations. At page 48 of the French section it says:

World grain supplies have fallen to 14 per cent of all grain consumed in 1980-81, bringing them down to about the same level they were during the 1972-73 food crisis. Imagine.
Eight years later we are back at the 1972-73 levels.
Production has dropped and it is expected that prices will increase 20 to 30 per cent.
The report also states, Mr. Speaker, that in some regions of Africa especially, food production increases at a slower rate that population growth.
That is one of the most urgent issues. Also, the energy question is related to this because unless we help developing countries, which are importers of oil, finance their balance of payment deficit, which is huge, these countries may face balance of payment deficits of around $80 billions. That is a huge amount, Mr. Speaker. Eighty billion dollars. There is no way any corporation, or any Third World government can be expected to solve its food production problems when it must find $80 billions to finance its balance of payment deficit.
Bangladesh, for example, must spend 70 per cent of its foreign exchange to buy the oil it needs. Most of the poorest countries, which are oil importers, must spend on the average 50 per cent of their foreign exchange to buy oil. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, world organizations, especially the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund must realize that unless we go ahead with this energy affiliate idea-

What is most important to me is that the world institutions and the governments of the North try to take an active part in the summits of this year, not only in the summits but in the negotiations of the central institutions themselves.
I would again like to quote from the report of the Parliamentary Task Force on North-South Relations at page 57. I believe it is important to put this passage on the record, since it is not realized to what extent the problem of energy deficiency exists in the Third World. The problems of high balance of payments deficits which stifle the efforts of poor countries in food production are not realized. I read the following from page 57:
The oil importing developing countries are experiencing severe difficulties in this new energy situation. Many poor countries are now entering the phase of

June 16, 1981
International Relations
industrialization which is fueled by increasing amounts of energy. The World Bank estimates that the energy requirements of the developing countries will grow at a faster rate than those of developed countries. In the agricultural sector, increased productivity depends in part on supplies of petroleum-based products such as chemical fertilizers. This was a major factor in whatever success has been attributed to the Green Revolution. The transport sector, which is vital to better distribution of agricultural products and the development of industry, is still largely dependent on gasoline powered vehicles. Thus the very process of development and modernization has made the oil importing developing countries extremely vulnerable to problems of energy supply and price.
This predicament illustrates the vicious circles of development: countries, already too poor to invest adequately in human or industrial development, require both for development; their ability to invest is diminishing daily because of mounting oil bills; and aid donors often offer assistance in the form of technology and equipment which consume even greater quantities of oil.
That is the most important thing which the central institutions can decide this year.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Gloucester has the floor.


Herb Breau: I am happy that the government has accepted the basic thrust of parliamentary task force report. I am happy particularly that the government has accepted the position that the energy affiliate is one of the most important things that can be accomplished in the short term.
I mentioned earlier that the task force, comprising seven members of Parliament, could agree on a coherent political statement which has now been accepted in its basic thrust and orientation as government policy. I believe this augurs well for Parliament. This concept of a parliamentary task force, which was started by the Clark government when it was in power, was seeded at that time and now is being developed further, is a concept that will work well, where elected members of Parliament can really get together and negotiate their differences, whether they are party differences or philosophical differences. When that is done, the government will study the recommendations and if it accepts them, we will fulfil a role as elected parliamentarians by orienting policy which the bureaucracy will then follow. That is the way Parliament should work. It can work when there is a will to make it work.
As I said before, we should realize that the whole question of reform of parliamentary institutions sometimes has to do with the reform of attitudes. When members can get together with this kind of mandate and authority, it is good for the future of Parliament.
I want to touch briefly on a point raised by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent). He made a good, eloquent speech. He explained the history of the problems encountered by most countries of Central America, particularly instances where there has been revolution. However, I have two comments to make about his speech. First, I do not think it is good enough continually to build political support for a position against the United States of America.


Pauline Jewett: Who is doing that?


Herb Breau: The United States of America is our neighbour; it is our ally. The new administration has just received a mandate. Although I disagree with that administration, I have to respect the fact that the people of the United States of America elect governments the same way as we elect governments here.


Pauline Jewett: So what?


Herb Breau: It is the same way as members of the New Democratic Party are elected here. It does not help the situation in El Salvador or in the South to have people basing their positions on some anti-American feelings. That is not good enough for the formation of foreign policy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: A lot of Americans are critical too. What is wrong with being critical?


Herb Breau: Of course. But I would like to remind the
spokesman on foreign affairs for the New Democratic Party that she is not in the Congress of the United States. There are people in the United States who can speak-


Pauline Jewett: It is an independent country.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Pauline Jewett: Let him continue.


Mr. Roche:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau) has exceeded his time, but with the consent of the House and with the consent of the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday), is it possible to put a brief question to the hon. member for Gloucester?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to extend the time allotted to the hon. member for Gloucester?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Pauline Jewett: On that point, I would like the hon. member to continue his speech.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) to put a question to the hon. member for Gloucester?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to participate in what amounts to a debate on North-South relations. I am even more delighted because at last we are having such a debate. It is high time that international development were given a thorough hearing and discussion on the floor of the House. The infrequency of foreign policy debates in this chamber is worth noting and lamenting. As the
June 16, 1981

Brandt commission observed, for some time in the developed world, including Canada, the air has been thick with alibis and it has been rife with rhetoric. Now is the time to act.
It has been six years since the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) impressive Mansion House speech and seven years since the Prime Minister proclaimed that if Canada's presence in the world were to be judged by a single criterion, it should be Canada's humanism, its pursuit of social justice. If concrete actions and specific commitments are not made, and soon, there is the danger of our Canadian statements expounding social justice having a very hollow ring to them. That danger may not be far off. Witness the Brazilian newspaper which, in January of this year, speculated that the Prime Minister's stop in Brazil was nothing more than a mutual publicity stunt on the part of the Brazilian and Canadian governments. For despite impressive advances in the early 1970s, Canada's aid is now down to .43 per cent of its GNP, a far cry from the low .7 per cent suggested by the Pearson commission and a long way off the 1 per cent allocation proposed by the Parliamentary Task Force on North-South Relations.
I am reminded of a newspaper article in January which discussed the Prime Minister's world tour and which reads in part:
Like a nineteenth-Century Russian nobleman in one of Chekhov's classics, Mr. Trudeau had the cosmos on his mind; poverty and affluence; violence and disorder; tradition and change; the future of the human condition. He discussed these worthy subjects in lofty, sometimes philosophical, often moralistic ways, but ultimately he failed to put much effort behind answering the question, "What is to be done?"
We know of the Prime Minister's fondness for abstractions. We were treated to the famous hexagon in the foreign policy review, the six policy themes, which were to provide the framework for Canadian foreign policy but which were so general as to offer no guidelines for policymakers. We have seen major initiatives, such as the third option and the contractual link fizzle and die.
North-South relations now is the issue and the government has promised that it will pursue an active role in fostering a constructive dialogue with developing countries. Mention was made in the government's report of Canada undertaking a bridge-building role, which is most praiseworthy and marks a welcome departure from the Prime Minister's attitude in the foreign policy review period during which the government's handbook entitled "Foreign Policy for Canadians" held that the opportunity to pursue sensible policies, one firmly anchored in domestic concerns, had been squandered in the quest for roles, influence for its own sake, and international applause.
That was not true of Pearsonian diplomacy and I hope that it will not be the case today. I support a bridge-building role for Canada and can see the potential for Canadian leadership in North-South relations. But, as I said, the time has now come to act.
I share the Brandt commission's premise that mankind wants to survive and that mankind has a moral obligation to survive. It is imperative that we, as citizens of the world, work
International Relations
to overcome the tragedy of world hunger, mass misery and the gross inequalities which exist between rich and poor. However, rather than succumb to the intellectual vice of oversimplicity and rather than rely on abstract concepts, such as the quality of life and international social justice, laudable though they may be, the time has come for a strategy which focuses on a concrete specification of human needs, a strategy which is specific in terms of attempting to channel particular resources to particular groups in particular ways.
The facts and statistics, such as the figure of 800 million destitute people on this earth, are striking and alarming, but they seem all too unreal and for some reason fail to spark a groundswell of public support for international development, particularly when Canadians themselves are facing varying degrees of economic hardship. It is important to realize that development means very simple and basic things; enough food, a job, somewhere to live, a future for one's children, some basic security. Cast in these terms, development becomes understandable and nowhere is development more sorely needed than in the Third World and in countries like El Salvador, which are beset by many problems. In light of the civil war in El Salvador, one should make the point that development which does not touch the majority of the people is not development at all. It is our moral duty and it is in our interest to eradicate the suffering in the Third World.
I believe, and I am not alone, that we need a comprehensive, multidisciplinary, sectoral development approach, the vanguard of which should be population policies. Population seems to have been a forgotten factor in the work of the Parliamentary Task Force on North-South Relations, and it is not addressed in the government's response to the task force report tabled yesterday. This omission is a most significant and unfortunate oversight, deliberate or otherwise.
Since the Bucharest Conference on Population in 1974, most countries have come to recognize that population and development are inextricably bound together. Just as no population program should be considered in isolation from policies and plans on such issues as health, housing, education, employment, the environment and the use of resources, so too must all development projects incorporate a population component. This conclusion was reached unanimously by parliamentarians from 58 national parliaments at the Colombo conference in 1979, which included four Canadian representatives, and this view was adopted unanimously at the subsequent meeting in Caracas of the Interparliamentary Union where 82 countries participated.
Moreover, the Brandt commission report, which appears to have served as a guide for the parliamentary task force, devoted a chapter to population issues and strongly emphasized their importance in any effective over-all international development strategy. Further, the need for population policies is recognized worldwide and many committees on population and development formed by parliamentarians in Canada,

June 16, 1981
International Relations
Great Britain, Japan, West Germany and elsewhere can attest to this fact.
Population problems are not confined to one area of the world and the implications of population increases are staggering. More important, they directly affect individuals and both perpetuate and exacerbate present inequalities in the world.
There is the problem of employment. In the developing countries between now and the end of the century, 800 million additional jobs need to be created. Indeed, the labour force in the less developed countries was projected to expand by over 90 per cent between 1970 and the year 2000, nearly doubling within the span of a single generation.
There is the problem of per capita consumption of resources, mostly by the developed world, which has engendered much pollution and waste and has contributed to worldwide shortages of key resources. Worldwatch Institute director, Mr. Lester Brown, has pointed out that human needs have already begun to outstrip the productive capacity of many local biological systems as presently managed. He has calculated that the world production per capita of key commodities peaked for wood in 1967, for fish in 1970, for beef in 1976, for mutton in 1972, and for cereals in 1976. In addition, crop lands are being diverted from essential food production for the purposes of making fuel. There must be a reduction in population growth to buy time to make new adjustments and develop new technologies.
Finally, population growth can affect peace and stability, of which we see all too little nowadays. Uncontrolled population increases will give rise to social unrest and despair. There may be forced migration and greater numbers of refugees, which are disruptive to the world's economic and political stability. The Brandt commission dealt with these problems in some depth.
Aside from the aggregate effect of uncontrolled population growth, costs are paid within societies. These costs include a decrease in the growth of per capita income and, more important, impede efforts to eradicate inequality. The World Bank Report of 1974 makes this point clearly:
For many countries population growth appears to affect the rate of growth of average per capita income less than the quality of the development process. Population growth contributes significantly to inequality. It has made social targets, such as universal literacy or full employment, much harder to attain and slowed down improvements in health and nutritional standards. It diminished an individual's chances for education and, in the competition for entry into the educational system, children from poorer backgrounds do relatively badly.
In addition, population increases push against limits of arable land, leading to smaller holdings and perpetuating poverty and malnutrition. Population growth, it can be seen, is an important cause of poverty. Trends of population growth, structure and distribution must be kept within the balance of social, economic and environmental factors. Population growth trends must be reversed for development efforts to take hold.
What is required is a multidisciplinary, comprehensive development approach with a strong population component. I must concur with the World Bank's conclusion that:
Direct population policies and general development policies reinforce each other in raising per capita incomes, especially among the poor, and in reducing fertility. Neither can adequately address the problem of rapid population growth alone. Direct population programs can accomplish much in most developing countries, but even the most elaborate programs will not reduce fertility sufficiently unless standards of living of poverty groups are significantly improved. It is therefore essential that population programs be integrated with over-all development strategies, and that the design of social and economic policies whose major objective is not demographic take explicit account of how they affect fertility.
For instance, it is known that healthy families tend to be smaller families, so to achieve this end programs may be set up to improve the health of mothers and children. Other programs might involve improving education or sanitation or providing for uncontaminated water, or for effective distribution and instruction in the use of contraceptives. In another case, a government may wish to know for its future planning the rate of urbanization and the rate of growth in different areas of the country. International organizations, such as the United Nations Fund for Population Activities, can provide this service.
It is important that population activities cover all population aspects of development which pertain to fertility rates, mortality and morbidity as they affect developmental aspects and human well-being. Population activities involve the collection of basic population data, population dynamics, population policy formulation and implementation, contraception and child spacing, communications and education. For UNFPA and other organizations, population assistance must be tailor-made for each recipient country, responding directly to its particular conditions and concerns.
Canadians have learned from the recent census just how important it is for governments to have reliable population statistics on hand while formulating policy. As recently as 1971, UNFPA was assisting 21 African countries to carry out a full or partial census on their populations, which in most cases had not been previously done.
Many countries in which economic development is being hampered by population growth are already drawing up developmental strategies and legislation aimed at influencing people to have smaller families. According to Dr. Salas, director of the UNFPA, a recent UN survey covering 114 developing countries showed that 83 of these have entrusted a central planning authority with the task of integrating population factors with development planning, while 69 countries were said to believe that their current rate of natural population increase imposed severe constraints on the attainment of developmental objectives.
Many successes have been recorded in reducing the rate of population growth. In each case, policies were implemented which suited the unique condition of each country. In Sri Lanka, a reduction in infant and child mortality has led to a decline in the birth rate. In Korea, increased economic growth and increased distribution of wealth has similarly led to a reduction. In India, there have been 11 million sterilizations. In China, a drastic reduction in the birth rate is due to the use of incentives and disincentives. Incentives can have wide application and might involve housing, maternity benefits, tax
June 16, 1981

deductions, pensions and subsidized education, where the incentives are geared towards convincing people to have small families. Education is an important tool. For instance, in Latin America, women who have completed primary school average two children less per family than those who have not. Raising the status of women, by providing education, developing skills in women and offering wider opportunities for women, all improve the chances for a lower birth rate. I applaud the government's support for this issue in its program.
Still, one cannot be complacent. There is a sense of urgency. Some 35 per cent of the present world population is composed of people under the age of 15 years. The World Bank reported in 1974 that countries which offer family planning services in their health programs now account for over 80 per cent of the population, but the proportion of women who, when exposed to the risk of pregnancy, use a method of contraception, is less than 20 per cent. The recent world fertility survey showed that nearly one-half of women who said that they did not want any more children were not using any method of contraception.
Finally, of the approximately 500 million women in the world today who are capable of bearing children, 70 per cent use no contraceptive methods at all. The desire to control fertility is there, but the means to do it are absent or not well understood. As a result there are millions of abortions. More should be done to stem population increases and to cut back on abortions. The need and demand for population assistance is great, but as the Brandt commission reported, the UNFPA can only handle two-thirds of the requests it receives.
If we look at El Salvador, for instance, we see a real tragedy. El Salvador's population statistics are intolerable, and no doubt they have played-perhaps the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) can tell us about this-a role in the present crisis. El Salvador has a 3.2 per cent annual increase in population, meaning that its population will double in only 22 years. The figure for Canada is 89 years. The average number of children per woman is 5.8 in El Salvador compared with Canada's 1.8.
Forty-five per cent of the population of El Salvador is under 15 years of age, and already in 1981 there are 383 people per square kilometre of arable land in the country. El Salvador faces real structural problems, which undoubtedly have a definite bearing on the present hostilities there and do not augur well for the future.
Population policies and programs of action touch upon the most intimate of human relationships-the act of love and the family-and involve other basic institutions such as the church and school. For this reason population assistance operates best on a personal, grassroots level, showing respect for the feelings of those concerned and suited to fit the needs and cultural values of the recipients. To be successful a policy must reach and affect the behaviour of individual people and be accepted by them. This decentralized grassroots approach is quite different from a loan for a factory or an airport, the effects of which, good or ill, operate indirectly.
House of Commons
A continuing role for multilateral assistance in population through international organizations must remain. These organizations, particularly UNFPA, are able to transmit and collect information, lend experts to needy countries and propagate certain technological advances. I ask our government to increase its support to UNFPA.
I approve of the government's intention to increase funds to the NGOS, and I ask that the International Planned Parenthood Federation receive increasing financial assistance. After all, the IPPF is the second biggest international voluntary organization in the world, after the Red Cross.
Finally, I share with the task force the view that Canada has great potential for leadership in North-South relations. I wish to point out that there exists ample Canadian resources in the field of population studies. I hope that our highly trained demographers, sociologists, geographers, and physicians with expertise in the population field might be given a larger role to play in matters of population assistance to the South. Similarly, the statisticians at Statistics Canada and the demographers with the International Development Research Centre here in Ottawa could and should play more active roles.
Population should no longer be a forgotten factor in Canadian or world development strategy. Rather, I hope that the government will incorporate a population component wherever possible in new development projects financed by official development assistance.
Before closing I would like to say that it would be my hope that the government would see fit at either or both the upcoming summits here in Ottawa and the one in Mexico to give serious consideration to putting this subject on the agenda.
I will close with the words with Dr. Salas, and I quote:
Interest in population is not a concern with the figures on a chart or the curves on a graph alone, however important they may be, but essentially an involvement with the future of humanity itself.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF FORMER PREMIER OF NEWFOUNDLAND
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: With the permission of the House I would like to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a very distinguished visitor, namely the former premier of Newfoundland, the hon. Joey Smallwood.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

June 16, 1981
International Relations BUSINESS OF SUPPLY


ALLOTTED DAY, S.O. 58-INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Broadbent:
That this House expresses its continuing concern with respect to Canada's international relations and calls on the government to demonstrate a meaningful interest in South and Central America and, in particular, to initiate steps aimed at establishing a negotiated settlement of the tragic civil war in El Salvador.
Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, just like my colleagues who spoke before me, it gives me great pleasure to take part in this debate on the North-South dialogue, the relations that we could establish in Latin America and the Caribbean, and finally the tragic events in El Salvador.
As concerns the last element of this motion, the tragedy in El Salvador, I have listened very carefully to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, and this has led me to realize that my own sources of information, since I had the advantage of spending about ten days in El Salvador, did not correspond with his own. There are contradictions in many areas, especially as concerns arms deliveries. I have always believed, Mr. Speaker, that a conflict always involves two elements and that it was impossible to start a conflict unilaterally.
Mr. Speaker, I heard the comments made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who made a few corrections as concerns the Canadian position, and as mentioned by my colleague for Gloucester (Mr. Breau), this was certainly a good opportunity to urge the United States once again not to interfere in an increasingly unfortunate situation, which I would not want to exploit more than need be.
Mr. Speaker, I particularly want to speak about the experience of the task force on North-South relations and about that part of the motion which concerns our relations with Latin America. The task force report has been very well received everywhere. The Canadian government tabled yesterday its response to approve it, and it is reassuring to know that the efforts of a number of members of the House have been appreciated and I think that this will help other ad hoc committees to develop some credibility for the research work to which we have committed ourselves. The substance of the task force report will lend weight to the initiatives and the efforts that the Canadian government and the Prime Minister himself have made these last few months to give Canadians and the heads of states who will be here in July an increased awareness of some of the problems of the developing countries.
Mr. Speaker, the task force does not pretend to have covered all aspects of international development. Of course, we did examine certain important aspects, we discussed them, and my colleague for Gloucester, the chairman of the task force, has already talked about them. There are also certain very important elements with which we unfortunately did not have time to deal. Among those, I would like to mention the outflow of
expertise, the brain drain as it is usually called, which is causing more and more problems for developing countries when young people who have received some type of training which could help their own country decide to remain in the country where they have been trained. I have found that the Canadian government is often blamed for having kept these new talents, and I believe that this is an unfair judgment since it is up to the country of origin to see to it that if these young people really want to work for the economic development of their country, they return urgently to their country to make their contribution. This is an aspect of development which is enormously costly for developing countries.
Mr. Speaker, there is another problem related to this one, namely the increase in administration and registration fees that Canadian universities must charge foreign students. I believe that this is unfair for those countries which depend on Canada to give adequate training to their young people. I think that this is a marvelous opportunity for us to develop and train in Canada the future leaders of developing countries. Those people will be allies of Canada in 10 or 15 years; they will be the decision-makers, the leaders of their societies who, quite naturally, could be favourably disposed towards Canada if they have studied here. I think it is most unfortunate that an increase in tuition fees should have been imposed on foreign students.
A closer look at North-South relations has also given to most of the members of the committee the opportunity of finding out through our travels that the Canadian International Development Agency and the International Development Research Centre enjoy considerable prestige throughout the world, and just how happy people are to welcome Canadian parliamentarians who are concerned with the problems of the developing world, because of the high calibre of the representatives of those two Canadian institutions, the work those two institutions have achieved and the help they have given developing countries. I was particularly impressed with the work done in the Philippines and Bangladesh.
I believe that one of the recommendations of the task force was that more funds be set aside for the International Development Research Centre. 1 suggest that it ought to be done without delay since that is not the type of assistance which developing nations find hard to accept. Indeed it is not simply a handout but rather technological aid to help developing countries raise the level of the technology they need so badly for instance, to boost rice and wheat production, to launch a food growing industry, to devise ways of conserving and storing foodstuffs and process them so they will produce more food for their people.
Mr. Speaker, there is another topic on which we did not have enough time to dwell, and I refer to the policy concerning multinational undertakings. A number of the most pressing
June 16, 1981

economic questions of this and the forthcoming decade are related to the efforts of the world community to solve the problem of multinational companies. The major multinational companies' income and productive capacity exceed those of most of the member countries of the United Nations and those companies are beyond the control of national governments. Even in times of economic austerity and despite the restrictive policies of their host country, many of those companies are so successful that it can only reflect the outstanding efficiency with which they transfer technology, develop resources and know-how, and promote world-wide marketing and distribution techniques. The multinationals are the institutional incarnation of the interdependence which is the hallmark of the world economy, a fact which prompted the head of a nation to say that certain industries should be nationalized rather than be allowed to grow into international giants. I fully appreciate the urgency which some countries see in the nationalization of their industries.
Throughout the seventies, the OECD and the United Nations held negotiations concerning the standards that would make it possible to assess and improve the conduct of those undertakings. The 1976 OECD guidelines for multinational companies proved to be a major milestone in that respect, and the government is keeping a close eye on the negotiations which are going on before the United Nations Commission on Multinational Companies concerning an international code of conduct for multinational companies.
Canada probably knows more than any other country the problems and frustrations associated with the regulations of multinational subsidiaries. It is therefore in a good position to help other host countries and to make exporting countries aware of the problems than can crop up. At the same time, some important Canadian multinationals in the resource field have made Canada a large exporter of capital in the last few years, with no less than $27.3 billion of long-term investment capital going abroad in 1977. Developing countries might be concerned that their economy will be controlled by multinationals, but Canada's level of technological development and sophistication is comparable to those of investing countries. That puts in us in a good position to require a balanced and efficient code agreeable both to corporations and governments.
The Canadian position is based on a double premise. On the one hand, host countries have the right to expect that foreign companies will comply with the national legislation and policies defining the behavior of a good corporate citizen. On the other hand, they must also recognize the generally accepted standards of international law and sound management practices. Canadian spokesmen carefully avoided endorsing proposals that would make the exporting country responsible for the conduct of foreign subsidiaries of corporations under its jurisdiction. It is indeed up to the host country to determine what is appropriate and legal in terms of business practices within its boundaries. Our experience with foreign control as
International Relations
exercised by other countries, in the case for example of trade with China and Cuba and the implementation of anti-trust measures, has only reinforced our views in this regard.
We can easily understand some of the problems and concerns which developing countries ascribe to multinationals: transfer costs, exchange distortions, lack of local framework, slow technological change and lack of sensitivity to local conditions, since we must face them ourselves. However, some of the more extreme solutions put forward in developing countries would result in stopping the flow of private investments in the countries which would implement those measures, which would be most unfortunate indeed. Many developing countries feel that they do not have enough bargaining power to negotiate effectively with multinationals, that they are controlled by firms which are ahead of them as far as information, know-how, capital and market control are concerned. The governments of developing countries tend to ask for an automatic and total right of access to information and to technology as well as to the other assets of multinationals.
The government of Canada, Mr. Speaker, has attempted to deal with that inequality in bargaining power by developing a greater awareness among developing countries of the structures and rules of competition in exporting countries, by giving them better access to current sources of information and by trying to reach an agreement on the type of information which might be reasonably required from firms. The fundamental problems arising from the disparities in size and wealth cannot obviously be eliminated or dealt with readily. Furthermore, they should not be magnified. Most big firms are responsible. Far from seeking only short-term profits, they try rather to establish with their hosts relationships that are mutually profitable in the longer term. The uncertainty created by vague or arbitrary rules of the game can shy away desirable investors and make room for unscrupulous profiteers. On the other hand, the experience of co-operation with responsible multinationals can help a country learn to make better use of new foreign investments. That is a major objective of Canada in negotiating a code for multinationals and in establishing its general assistance and development policies.
In view of all the prerequisites to national sovereignty, it is quite unrealistic to expect the early emergence of some form of supranational code applying to multinational corporations. Indeed any such code should most probably be based on guidelines coming from the parent country by way of the headquarters of these companies. That is certainly not desirable. But it is a realistic and useful exercise to seek an agreement on the legal and political requirements that the host and the parent countries can reasonably impose on multinational corporations and that the latter will consider in their best interest to comply with both the letter and the intent of these agreements. I am quite happy to be able to say that in that area Canadian policy is strongly based upon our own experience and that it has decided on that realistic approach.

June 16, 1981
International Relations
Before concluding my remarks 1 would like to refer again to the speech made by the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) who called for Canada to play the role of intermediary in the present conflict in El Salvador. I find this motion quite interesting, because the Leader of the New Demcratic Party seems to have departed from an apparently well-established rule whereby mediation is something asked for, and not just something offered by a branch of the labour movement. And since President Duarte has already indicated his opposition to any such interference on the part of Canada, or on the part of any other Canadian or American citizen, I cannot see how we could impose our services as a mediator, because this is not the proper approach, for instance in the area of labour relations. And I am quite surprised to hear this from the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


Benno Friesen: Mr. Speaker, I planned to speak directly to the text of my remarks, but I think I owe the House an explanation for the encounter earlier this evening. Spontaneously I wanted to give the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) extra time, but as I listened to and reflected upon his speech, I remembered his speech last Thursday when he launched into a personal attack on an hon. member of the House. He compared the member to Pontius Pilate, but tonight he talked about compassion and the good Samaritan. We are supposed to give him extra time when he assassinates people in character one day and talks about compassion on another day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Benno Friesen: I was present all afternoon for the debate. I heard the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) make his speech. I enjoyed his speech, I thought it was a good one, it was well presented. But I did not agree with everything he said. When his 45 minutes had run out he needed extra time and no one objected.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It was 30 minutes, not 45.


Benno Friesen: Yes, thirty minutes, but no one objected to giving him extra time.


Pauline Jewett: Are you apologizing?


Benno Friesen: Then the hon. member for Saskatoon East wanted extra time. The two members of the NDP who were entitled to speak in this debate wanted extra time.


Pauline Jewett: Why don't you read the dictionary?


Benno Friesen: When I protect the right to speak of other hon. members of the House, the hon. member for New Westmin-ster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) calls me Benito Mussolini.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Benno Friesen: The cheapest retreat of members of that party is to talk fascism when anyone else does not share their point of view. I know the good people of New Westminster-Coquit-lam will be interested in the kind of retreat their member goes into if someone disagrees with her. It seems to me we face the old adage-members of the NDP love humanity; it is people they cannot stand.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Benno Friesen: I hope Your Honour gives me extra time because hon. members of the NDP are interrupting me.
I enjoyed the speech of the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party. One phrase he used captured my attention because it graphically described what is going on in El Salvador. He said that terrorism is pervasive. I think all of us would agree with him on that assessment. It reminded me of a quotation I read a few days ago in a book entitled "The Terror Network" by Claire Sterling. She quoted Lenin as having said that the purpose of terror is to terrorize. It does not matter whether it is the left or the right, both sides do it. It is no better if the left does it or the right does it; it is the same. There is no morality in terror regardless of what side it comes from.
Also I was reminded of the statement of Che Guevara not too long before he died. He was quoted at the Tricontinental Conference in Havana in 1966 as saying:
We must above all keep our hatred alive and fan it to paroxysm. Hate is a factor of struggle, intransigent hate of the enemy, hate that can push a human being beyond his natural limits and make him a cold, violent, selective, and effective killing-machine.
This was quoted in the house organ of the Red Brigade of Italy in July, 1978. Obviously it was well learned. I am not taking sides in this. Regardless of whether it is the right or the left that does it, it is wrong. The extremists on both sides in El Salvador have learned how to fulfil the wishes of Che Guevara very well. It does not matter who is doing it.
The missing ingredient in the international debate on this subject is political disinterestedness. It does not matter to whom one listens. It does not matter what speech one hears. It is in defence of one side or the other. Everyone has an axe to grind. Everyone takes sides with one or the other of the protagonists.
I listened to the hon. Leader of the NDP today when he supported the revolutionary front which is calling for a negotiated settlement-they are the good guys. Then I heard the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) supporting Duarte and his call for elections-they are the good guys. It reminded me of a grade B 1952 western where the good guys wore the white hats and the bad guys wore the black hats, but it depended upon who was speaking who wore what hat. The trouble is that the world community has divided itself into two opposing camps.


Mark R. MacGuigan: It is three.


Benno Friesen: All right, it is three. Nothing can be gained any longer because there is no political disinterestedness.
June 16, 1981

When we have taken sides like this, the only certain thing is that there is one loser-the ordinary, common people of El Salvador. They are the losers. The left wants to paint the revolution there as a peasants' revolt, as a mass popular uprising against the rightist regime of Duarte. The right wants to paint that situation as a democratic agrarian reform movement, ready to restore all rights to the peasants. The peasants are squeezed in the middle between those two extreme protagonists. In terms of foreign aid, this unavoidably determines the level, the kind and the destination of foreign aid. Depending upon whose side one is on, those who favour Duarte will ensure that he gets military equipment, those who favour the revolutionaries will ensure they get the equipment they need, but the peasants will not get the equipment they need.
It comes to the bottom line. In all too many of these cases, government to government aid simply does not work. There are at least two reasons for this. One is that it is determined by people who have axes to grind. They have a motive, they have a reason tied to the aid program. As the Prime Minister said yesterday, it is in our self interest to give aid. The reason then is not that the people need it; it is that we will suffer if we do not give it. This is not the best of all motives in the world. We have an axe to grind. The simple truth is that donors in the northern hemisphere really cannot know or understand the needs of those people.
The hon. leader of the NDP went on a two-week tour of Latin American countries. I give him full points for that, but there is no way that someone from Canada can spend two weeks down there and expect to meet the people at their level. By the time the lists of whom he wants to see have been laundered-they have gone through so many checks to ensure that only the right people meet him-the people who are suffering the most are never heard from. It is not the fault of the leader of the NDP; it would have happened to anyone. Those of us who are designing aid programs in this country simply cannot know or understand how to meet the needs of the people in receiving countries.
The other half of the equation is that the receivers have their own bureaucratic programs to fulfil if it is a government to government operation. Every country has its own bureaucracy. I am sure that if we looked just a little more closely at the bureaucracy in El Salvador we would find that that government has vested interests in the kinds of aid programs which are given to it, which do not necessarily meet the needs of the people. Have we not learned that fact within Canada? Do you not think that what goes on in El Salvador also goes on in Canada? All countries have their bureaucratic games. Therefore, for aid to be effective, it must be people to people. As other speakers have said, that means the governments on both ends are avoided and the work is done through non-governmental organizations, such as private agencies, voluntary agencies and charitable organizations in Canada which have gone to the receiver country ahead of time and have become one with the people. The people from these agencies know what the needs are. They show compassion at the grass roots
International Relations
level and not at a distance of 2,000 or 3,000 miles. They are people who are willing to drink the contaminated water along with the people they are there to serve.
When non-governmental organizations get into the act, we can rest assured that aid will go to the people who need it most. There will be no filtering off to meet the backsheesh desires of government officials. It will not be filtered through graft, but it will be from the people in the homeland who care to the people in the receiver land who care.
The second reason why government to government aid does not work is shown in the 1980 report of "World Military and Social Expenditures, 1980," by Ruth Leger Sivard. I would like to read to you, Mr. Speaker, some of the statistics which come from that 1980 report. Using Canada as a base for comparison, I wish to point out that in 1977, which I believe was the year used for this report, Canada spent 2 per cent of its gross national product on military expenditures and at the same time spent 5.5 per cent on health care.
I would now like to give some figures for the government of Peru, which is a rightist regime. In 1977 the government of Peru spent 3 per cent of its gross national product on military expenditures and 1.1 per cent on health programs. In Cuba, in 1977, 6 per cent of that country's gross national product was expended on the military while 4.3 per cent was spent on health programs.
The next figures I would like to cite are for Tanzania, where the life expectancy is 51 years. In 1977 Tanzania, whose president is a great buddy of our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), spent 4 per cent of its gross national product on military expenditures and 2 per cent on health care.
Using Canada as a base, do you not think that there is a violent wrenching of priorities in these countries, to which we must address ourselves? We ought to take a look at what is happening with regard to the radical priority differences which exist in the countries to which we give aid and make loans. It is hypocritical for us to spend nearly three times as much on health as on the military and not expect Third World countries to do the same. That does not make any sense. Maybe that radical problem ought to be addressed. It seems to me that we are relieving those governments of the responsibility of spending money on health care so that they can spend it on the military. That also makes no sense. This matter must be addressed.
Perhaps there should be a second recommendation. On the one hand we ought to cut off government to government aid and work only through non-governmental organizations. On the other hand maybe we ought to have the UN establish a benchmark of a "reasonable limit" which Third World countries can adopt. Every country will have some kind of military spending. A reasonable limit which that country is entitled to spend on military expenditures ought to be established. But if the country spends beyond that limit, it should no longer receive foreign aid from our government, especially if health services are denied to its people while military spending escalates.

June 16, 1981
International Relations
We cannot think of El Salvador, or any other Third World country, and the wrenching agony under which they are living, and leave our emotions behind. Nor can we leave our reason behind. We must approach this issue with some kind of understanding. We must demand some kind of commitment from those governments which will honour the values which are important to us, that is, human values.
The second point I wish to raise in the few minutes which I have left to me is the following. We have been speaking in circuitous terms of the new world economic order. But there is another new world order on which UNESCO is working, and that is a new world information order. Mr. Speaker, that is even more terrifying than the new world economic order, since the new world information order is based upon the recommendations of the McBride commission which worked mostly with Third World and eastern bloc countries. That commission has come out with recommendations which have the effect of calling for information agencies in each of the countries of the world. That in itself appears innocuous until it is realized that these information agencies will be the conduit, the funnel, through which all news agencies in each country will receive its news. As one newsman described the situation to me today if the news agency provides a piece of information, for example regarding a UNESCO report, to a reporter, or to UPI, that information must be accepted holus bolus. If that reporter wants to phone back to UNESCO headquarters or to another country to obtain more information, or contrary information, that is not allowed.
I come back to where I started, Mr. Speaker. It does not matter if it is the right or the left, both are attracted to the new world information order. Once information is controlled by an information agency in any country of the world, democracy is doomed. Freedom rests on information. If it is a rightist regime, as exists in Panama, or if it a leftist regime, as exists in Allende's Chile, it makes no difference. They both have the same goal-controlling information so that power can be consolidated.
The journalist with whom I spoke today told me of a friend of his in Panama who wished to attend a radio broadcasters' conference. He called to inform a friend that he could not attend the conference because the police, the military, had come to his studio and smashed his equipment. They put him on the first plane leaving the country, the destination was of no consequence. At the same time the journalist told me of a friend of his who owns a chain of radio stations in Chile. During the days of Allende's regime he gave a radio editorial which mildly criticized Allende. He drove home at seven o'clock that night. On the street in front of his house he saw jeeps, military vehicles, machine guns in place in the yard with soldiers camped there. They were there for 30 days. Did that owner of the radio station tone down his criticism of Allende? I think he did.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party said that terrorism is everywhere. If we allow the recommendations-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please, I am sorry, but I have to interrupt the hon. gentleman. The hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant).


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, 1 must admit I was a little suprised by the self-righteousness and phony piety expressed by the last speaker. He is obviously a little sensitive at having his "right-wingedness" thrown in his face. This comes from a member of a party which, for the last week, has heckled the leader of my party simply because while on a mission of some importance, a mission which we are debating today, he happened to stop in Cuba. I might point out to members of the party to my right that Cuba is one of the major players in that region.


Mr. Gamble:: You are right.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: In opening my comments tonight, Mr. Speaker, 1 had planned to say that I am pleased to participate in this debate, but after spending most of yesterday preparing a speech that I was not able to give last night, and after spending the better part of today revising that speech and only having about eight or nine minutes available, I am a little disappointed. But as my friend, the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) suggested, perhaps I should save the speech and if I am fortunate enough to stay in this game, in another ten years we might have another opportunity to debate external affairs in this House.


John Albert Gamble: The speech will be the same ten years from now.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Unfortunately, if members of the party to my right, or even the government opposite, is still ruling, I am afraid I will need the same kind of speech.


Herb Breau: You won't be here.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Don't bet on it. I had planned to expand my comments to deal with the arms race, disarmament, and how these methods affect the Third World. I had planned to discuss the absurdity of a world that would spend $600 million on weapons of war while 1 billion or more people starve or do not have an adequate standard of living.
I wanted to expand on the ludicrous situation in which we find ourselves where the major powers maintain the capability of destroying the world some 14 or 15 times over, yet they want to add more nuclear weapons-to be able to destroy the world more than 14 or 15 times over. Surely once is too often. Unfortunately, in the few minutes remaining to me, I cannot get into that question.
Let me direct a few comments to how the arms race affects the Third World and perhaps a few comments to the way that Canada is part of that game, as was pointed out by the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) in his comments earlier this evening.
I was struck by the comments of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) yesterday when he expressed concern for the 800 million or so citizens of this earth who barely manage to stay
June 16, 1981

alive. The arms race, of which Canada is very much a part, has played an enormous role in this. Let us examine some of the reasons for this, Mr. Speaker.
Throughout the seventies, Third World military spending increased faster than the GNP. Today it represents over $100 billion in arms purchases-75 per cent of the world arms trade. This has led to the unfortunate and bizarre situation where governments, already badly in debt, have squandered precious foreign exchange on sophisticated weapons systems while neglecting the basic needs of their people.
Another reason is that the extraordinarily large amounts spent on arms by the developed countries-and increasing in the latest U.S. budget-has made it impossible for any of them to achieve the goal of 0.7 per cent of GNP for aid money, resulting in incredible, unmet, human needs in the Third World.
Yesterday the Prime Minister mentioned that the money required to provide adequate food, water, education, health and housing for everyone in the world has been estimated at some $17 billion per year. That is a reasonable amount of money, Mr. Speaker, but it is less than the world spends on arms in two weeks.
In yet another way the world arms race has already affected the Third World, and that is by fostering hostilities among Third World nations. Frank Barnaby of the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute has said:
Since 1945 there have been 133 wars involving the territory of more than 70 countries and the armed forces of more than 80 states... Almost all of these wars took place in the Third World. The bulk of the weapons used in them have been supplied-through the arms trade-by the industrialized countries.
These wars have killed some 30 million people. We have failed miserably to maintain peace and security in our world, Mr. Speaker. We have allowed the insane growth of the nuclear complex. We have widened the gap between the rich and the poor nations of the world.
Canada's role in all this, I am sorry to say, has not been insignificant. We have encouraged Canadian participation in the manufacture of nuclear weapons. We have contributed to the proliferation of nuclear weaponry through our sales of nuclear technology. We are the ninth largest arms trader in the world. We sell some $30 million annually in military commodities to Third World countries. The Prime Minister stands in this House and talks proudly of his government's role in the Third World and in disarmament. The hypocrisy of this is astounding.
If the Prime Minister is sincere-if he wants to make believers of the many Canadians who have looked on with mounting skepticism over the years as he says one thing about foreign policy and then does something quite different-then let us see some independent thought and some independent action. Let us cut the ties to the aprons of Alexander Haig and Richard Allen. Let us show considerable concern at the alarming increase in U.S. military spending as well as concern at Soviet spending. Let us not acquiesce, or too quickly agree that the world needs more nuclear weapons, as we did in December 1979 with the LRTNF program in Europe.
Adjournment Debate
Let us see some action, now, on the move to a goal of 0.7 per cent of GNP for foreign aid. This pap that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) fed us this afternoon about 1990 as the target for that percentage, is another example of no action.
Kurt Waldheim has called for all nations to devote 0.1 per cent of their defence spending for peace education and peace research. Mr. Speaker, 0.1 per cent is peanuts. If the Prime Minister was sincere yesterday, if peace is important enough to him-and Lord knows it should be-why not spend 1 per cent or even 10 per cent on peace?
Canada has had an excellent reputation in the past as a creative and independent participant in the pursuit of peace. We could do so again. But it will demand a lot of political will-the same will the Prime Minister spoke of yesterday- and a lot of guts. I am not sure that this government has that will, or the guts. But I fear that our time is getting short. If something is not done soon to turn around the insanity, we may have no world left to worry about.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, permit me to use a couple of quotations. The first occurred at a meeting of the American Society of Newspaper Editors in Washington in 1953. I am sure that a number of members of the House will have heard it before. Addressing that meeting, President Eisenhower said:
Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies- in the final sense-a theft from those who are cold and are not clothed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member.

Order, please. It being 10 p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that, pursuant to Standing Order 58(11), proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, earlier this week I raised a question in the House directed to the acting minister of veterans affairs suggesting the adoption of a new index and provision of an energy supplement for pensioners because of the inflation rate of 12.5 per cent and the disastrous effects on the Canadian economy of the National Energy Program. I also asked the minister a supplementary question. As reported in Hansard at page 7554 for February 23, 1981, it reads:

June 16, 1981
Adjournment Debate
The government energy pricing policy and the budget have hit particularly hard at recipients of veterans pensions. Would the minister consider an energy supplement to pension payments?
To which the minister answered:
This will be taken into consideration, Madam Speaker.
Perhaps we will have an answer tonight. This also ties in to another problem concerning veterans affairs, concerning a matter which has been raised time and time again. That is the need for immediate legislation to eliminate the phasing in of a section of Bill C-40, thereby making all veterans' widows eligible now for an increase in their pension.
I wish to put on the record an example of what the government is proposing for some widows. In 1986, the government proposed that some widows receive an additional increase of $25.35 and those with some dependants receive $1.52. I am sure that everyone in the House realizes that by 1986 that amount will be just the same as handing somebody nothing. We want all the phasing in to become effective immediately. I hope the parliamentary secretary will announce tonight that a piece of legislation dealing with the veterans' widows will be brought in before we recess for the summer. I hope that the parliamentary secretary will pass on to the acting minister the suggestion that he read the June issue of the Legion which has an excellent article on the veterans' widows and the problems they are experiencing.
This ties in with another serious problem we have within veterans affairs, a matter I raised recently. It concerns the delay in processing pension applications. It is taking from one to five years to process veterans' pension applications in Canada. I have described this a number of times as nothing but a national disgrace. In the United States they process veterans' pension applications in 60 to 97 days. I raised this matter on June 9, 1981. The answers I received came from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of State for Mines (Mr. Masters). I do not know how he got into the act. However, his answer to me with regard to the delay in the processing of the applications, as found on page 10443 of Hansard reads:
I would like to see the adjudication time reduced. However, I would not like to see it reduced at the expense of the veteran.
I found that to be a very strange sentence. The death rate is very high among veterans waiting for pension applications to be processed. The parliamentary secretary went on to say:
Steps have to be taken to improve the pension system and to curtail the delays in adjudication.
We have seen no evidence at all of any speeding up in this process. The parliamentary secretary also said that the veterans' organization support the present legislation and they do not want to see things speeded up too much. That statement is incorrect.
I would refer the parliamentary secretary and the acting minister to the submission to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs presented by the Royal Canadian Legion a couple of weeks ago. There is a section in that submission on the delays of pension adjudications. On page 4 we find:
The veteran population is dismayed by the delays which persist in the processing of pension claims and ancillary benefits.
They do not say anything about supporting what is going on right now and they do not want to see any speed. They never made any such statement. In the submission at page 7, we find:
Other than to again put forward the thought of cancelling the move of the Canadian Pension Commission to Charlottetown, the Royal Canadian Legion can offer no solution to resolve this question of delays which quite obviously is related to the staffing situation. However, the government surely has to do something quite quickly to correct this issue!
That is why I am hoping we have something concrete from the parliamentary secretary tonight in regard to the delays in processing of pension applications, or some kind of energy credit to veterans to assist them.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, the Auditor General has run into problems in relation to the move of DVA to Prince Edward Island, and he points out:
-that less than 20 per cent of Headquarters personnel, on strength at the time of the relocation announcement, was planning to move to Prince Edward Island.
The Auditor General went on to say, in an audit he did recently into the Veterans Affairs Department:
Notwithstanding intentions to relocate with a minimum of disruption ... Those not wishing to relocate have been given priority status by the Public Service Commission in their search for other employment in the National Capital Region.
The chairman of the Pension Commission has stated that this is causing him no end of problems with staff quitting and refusing to move. We also know that many of the veterans' service documents are in the archives and we want to know how-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. [Translation]


Mr. Gerald Laniel (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I shall gladly try to answer the questions asked by the hon. member, but I must still restrict myself to the question he put on February 23. I am all the more happy as he raised all these questions quite coolly. He is often very aggressive, but it is interesting all the same to note that some members are bent on safeguarding the interests of veterans. Of course, we all do it in our own fashion. The hon. member may be more aggressive than I am, but not every member is blessed with a cheerful disposition like mine.

Mr. Speaker, in the question raised by the hon. member on February 23 he touched upon only one point, the question of indexing veterans' benefits to the rise in the real cost of living. This is the question I will try to answer.
For many years now all veterans' benefits awarded under the Pension Act and the War Veterans Allowance Act have been tied to the rise in the consumer price index. The consumer price index system of changing rates is used almost univer-
June 16, 1981

sally in government and in the private sector and has evolved by considering many factors including housing, food and energy costs. Of course, it is not easy to establish the exact increase in the cost of living. The present government shares the member's desire that veterans and their families not be adversely affected by inflation and has embodied in veterans' legislation some safeguards against inflation.
Disability pension rates are adjusted from time to time and the 1975 adjustment brought the rates into line with a formula which was established in 1973. In addition, the rates were adjusted last January 1 and increased by 9.7 per cent, thus bringing the amount payable to the unmarried disabled pensioner whose disability is assessed at 100 per cent to $811 per month or $9,737 per year, income tax free. To this you can add 25 per cent for the wife, 13 per cent for the first child and 9.5 per cent for the second child, and so on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How many hundred percenters are there?


Gérald Laniel: War veterans' allowances are adjusted four times a year automatically, thus ensuring that veterans and their families receive as quickly as possible any increases due to the rise in the CPI.
The government moved quickly last spring and introduced legislation that corrected some of the inequities contained in the War Veterans Allowance Act, and provided increased benefits to recipients of WVA who are under the age of 65.
Bill C-40 contained some $106 million in addition to what was offered by the previous Conservative government in Bill C-28. It is generally acknowledged that Canada has some of the best legislation as far as veterans affairs are concerned.


ENERGY-POSSIBILITY OF REACHING AGREEMENT WITH ALBERTA
Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I refer the House to page 9337 of Hansard for April 21 when I asked a question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde). Basically I asked the minister to accept his responsibility and to recognize that an energy agreement must be in place by June 30 or the equivalent of $20 billion to $25 billion of private capital ready to be invested in this country in the form of heavy oil and tar sands plants would go down the drain. The minister replied as follows:
-since last November we on this side of the House have indicated that we were eager to reach an agreement as soon as possible and that we were willing to show flexibility. Obviously any agreement would imply an equivalent amount of flexibility on the other side-
I would like to look for a moment at the flexibility which has been shown on the other side. The price of Canadian oil has risen by $8.55 per barrel at the refinery since last November. Albertans received only 43 cents of that price increase, or 5 per cent. The Liberal government here in Ottawa received $7.55, over 90 per cent.
Adjournment Debate
Last July Alberta proposed that the wellhead price of oil be raised to $19.25 a barrel by June of this year. Instead, by order of the sitting Liberal government the price of oil today is $27.05 a barrel at the refinery and only $17.75 at the wellhead. What is the difference? The difference is federal taxes.
The difference is also thousands of jobs lost in Canada and hundreds of millions of dollars lost to foreign countries. The list of irrational economic costs goes on and on. The difference is also human. We now have political polarization appearing in western Canada. There is bitterness, there is anger, there is frustration, and there is even rage.
Meanwhile, in Ontario and Quebec the Liberals have a new chain of gasoline stations, all sporting the Petro-Canada sign. They have broken election promises to keep oil prices low, a promise whose breaking they blame on Alberta.
In Ontario gasoline sells for approximately $1.66 a gallon. Ottawa takes 56 cents of that, Ontario takes 25 cents and Alberta approximately 22 cents. But it is Alberta's fault! One might think that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources would get a lot in return for raising energy prices so high and so quickly, faster than Alberta would have raised them. But has he?
Is exploration for oil in Canada expanding? No. Is production of oil in Canada increasing? No. Is development of synthetic oil plants proceeding? No. Is national unity strengthened? No. What then is the minister achieving? He is shifting our energy search from Alberta to the Canadian Arctic. He is shifting our energy search from Alberta to the United States. He is raising energy prices through non-productive taxation, most of which goes to foreign countries. What an excellent policy!
What was offered by the provincial government of Alberta last July? Let us remember that what was offered was rejected. Let me put what was offered on the record. Alberta offered to raise Canadian oil pices at the wellhead in stages to 75 per cent of the North American price by 1984. Alberta offered to price existing natural gas at 15 per cent below relatively cheap Canadian oil. Alberta also offered to price new natural gas at 35 per cent below the price of Canadian oil for the first five years. Alberta also agreed to invest $7 billion in three new oil sands plants to assure at least 51 per cent Canadian ownership and to pursue a policy of continuous oil sands development. Alberta also offered to accept significantly lower royalty rates, particularly on the new oil sands plants, so that this would allow the Ottawa Liberal government to move in and impose extra billions of dollars in taxes on these plants. Alberta also offered to finance a natural gas pipeline to Atlantic Canada and to support other energy projects in Canada. They offered to provide $2 billion in grants for upgrading transportation in western Canada, particularly in B.C. and Manitoba where transportation is so vital for our agricultural industry. Maybe that was not the best offer in the world but it was certainly good enough to work with. The Liberals announced instead their unilateral national energy policy and the rest is really sad history.

June 16, 1981
Adjournment Debate
Now the minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is meeting with the minister of energy for Alberta on June 29-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose the first thing to say about the hon. member's statement is that he errs in stating that back in April, when he first raised his question, he referred to the date of June 30. In fact, if he looks at page 9337 of Hansard, he referred to June 1, and he referred to it repeatedly as a deadline for cancellation of the new oil sands plants. Well, of course, June 1 has come and gone and the sponsors of the plants have not cancelled their plans to construct them.
I suppose that among the various allegations and curious statements which the hon. member has made this evening, his principal purpose is to draw attention to the state of the Alsands and Cold Lake projects. If that is indeed his purpose, I should like to put on the record a few facts for the benefit of his constituents in particular who perhaps are unaware of the actual situation.
The hon. member did quote accurately the position of the minister in seeking with flexibility an agreement as soon as possible. That is against the background of the history of the initiative on the part of the federal government to ensure that oil sands and heavy oil projects take place. I have in mind particularly the initiative of the federal government in the Syncrude project which would not have occurred without the national government taking a determined lead.
As for the National Energy Program, there is obvious emphasis on oil sands and heavy oil development through such measures as the maintenance of the depletion allowance, provision of special tax incentives for heavy oil upgrading plants, and the application of reference prices at or close to international prices to encourage the development of these resources.
I should like to re-emphasize the efforts of the federal government in the last year to reach an accord with Alberta on the pricing of oil and gas and, in particular, on the basis for getting new oil sands projects under way. Throughout these discussions we have been willing to show great flexibility. In October, 1980, when it became evidence that an over-all pricing agreement with Alberta would be impossible at an early date, the minister endeavoured to guarantee the future of the oil sands plants. In a meeting with the Alberta minister of energy, the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) offered a price of $38 a barrel for non-conventional oil, and $30 for enhanced recovery oil which would be escalated annually with inflation. When Alberta was not prepared to negotiate, the federal government then offered to loan $40 million to Imperial Oil so that the Cold Lake project would not be abandoned. On another occasion last June the minister-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please.


ENERGY-NEGOTIATIONS WITH PROVINCE OF ALBERTA ON PRICING AGREEMENT
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, it has been over seven months since the National Energy Program was bestowed upon the nation by the federal government in Ottawa. The oil industry and the producing provinces responded to it at the time with consternation, outrage and alarm, but the federal Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) confidentially reassured us that he had come to expect that kind of emotional reaction from the provinces and the oil industry. He said that very soon both the industry and the provinces would come to accept the new arrangements and that everything would return to normal. Now let us see what has happened since he gave us the National Energy Program. What does he consider normal? Here are a few symptoms.
First, oil and gas exploration activity in the western provinces has been reduced by more than half. Three thousand of the 20,000 men employed in the trade have been laid off by mid-May and another 6,000 are expected to be laid off by mid-summer. Where 370 rigs were drilling last year, 177 are drilling this year; 131 rigs have left the country. In short, an industry upon which both the economy and security of the country depend has been thrust into a depression.
Second, development of the heavy oil and tar sands plants has been brought to a hald, although there is enough synthetic oil in Alberta to meet the needs of Canada for 300 years at present rates of production.
Third, Alberta has reduced its supply of crude oil to central Canada and will cut back the supply by 15 per cent by the end of September.
Fourth, nearly $1.5 billion is being sent to Belgium to pay for the Petrofina Oil Company as a federal gift to Petro-Canada, an expenditure which will directly raise the price of gasoline and at the same time will not add a single barrel of oil to Canada's supply.
Fifth, per capita consumption of oil in Canada continues to rise because the National Energy Program holds Canadian prices far below prices charged in nearly all countries in the western world, in fact at about one-third the price charged in Great Britain which is self-sufficient in oil because of the North Sea developments. In the United States, by contrast, higher prices have had the effect of reducing imports by 24 per cent in a single year and cutting consumption by two million barrels a day. Meanwhile American cars stream over the border to fill up on Canada's cut rate gasoline.
Sixth, heavy oil wells in the Lloydminster area are shutting down because the National Energy Program does not provide enough money to keep them operating.
Seventh, unemployment stalks Ontario industry which is being deprived of machinery and equipment orders due to the cutback in Alberta conventional oil and gas exploration and the arrest of tar sands development.
June 16, 1981

Eighth, British Columbia and Saskatchewan have defied the federal government and refused to pay the tax it is attempting to levy on natural gas production. Nova Scotia and Newfoundland have announced they will not recognize federal laws leasing oil rights on offshore lands, a situation that could conceivably see both levels of government leasing the same properties. In the meantime, Alberta has set up three gas wells of its own and claimed the right to export gas to the United States without federal interference and the Alberta court of appeal has unanimously upheld the position of the province.
Ninth, the United States government is considering triggering the provisions of the United States mineral lands leasing act against Canadian oil and mining companies operating in the United States as a retaliation against the National Energy Program Canadianization measures, a move which would maim or bankrupt hundreds of Canadian resource companies operating in the United States.
In other words, the National Energy Program after seven months has managed to cripple the Canadian exploration industry and to drive it out of the country, to increase Canadian oil consumption, to disrupt the supply of existing oil, to ship millions upon millions of dollars overseas, to jeopardize relations with the Americans, to expose us far more to dependence on Arab oil, to halt development of the tar sands, to throw federal-provincial relations into chaos bordering on legal civil war, and to find no oil. All that in seven months!
This also means, moreover, that the reassurances of the federal minister of energy that everything would return to normal have turned out to be dead wrong. Apparently he had no idea whatever of the damage he was about to wreak upon his country. It was a case of too much power exercised in both arrogance and ignorance with calamitous consequence to the industry and the nation whose ill fortune it was to have been left in his hands. That is what history will write beneath the name of the present Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member opposite, in raising the matter to which he has referred this evening proposed, as I recall, that the Petro-
Adjournment Debate
Canada team which negotiated the acquisition of Petrofina should additionally be charged with the negotiations with Alberta. Since there is great confusion on the Conservative side of the House with regard to their attitude toward Petro-Canada, I assume that the hon. member from Alberta either meant to make a joke-a very small joke indeed-or else he meant to make a serious proposition.
If we are to take it as a serious proposition that he would have the Petro-Canada team negotiate with the government of Alberta, then that is an interesting proposition and one which I assume he will want to advocate across his native province. On the other hand, if it is a frivolous suggestion, then it seems to me that much of what the hon. member said tonight, in that cacophony of confusion and contradiction, should be treated as equally frivolous and hardly worthy of reply.
I suggest to the hon. member that he look again at some of his so-called facts which he attempted to enumerate and consider that, on the contrary, the progress which is being made in the development of the Canadian petroleum industry, and the new endeavours which are being undertaken in the Canada lands, are indicative of the commitment of the industry and the private sector to ensure yet more rapid development of that very prosperous sector of our economy.
I should suggest, too, that the hon. member take a look at the progress which is being made, and remarkably swift progress it is, in the Canadianization of the industry, a policy which has wide support across our country. The hon. member opposite might also wish to consider that the possibilities of some agreement with Alberta have been enhanced by the willingness on both sides in recent discussions to show a degree of flexibility and mutual forebearance, which to my mind is encouraging and which hardly justifies the doom and gloom in which the hon. member opposite has indulged.
The reference to the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.
At 10.28 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, June 17, 1981