1981-06-15

OFFICIAL REPORT


[Stage Direction]
30 Elizabeth II

[Stage Direction]
Published under authority of the Speaker of the House of Commons by the Queen's Printer for Canada
Available from Canadian Government Publishing Centre, Supply and Services Canada, Hull, Quebec, Canada K1A 0S9.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, June 15, 1981


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I wish to move a motion relating to the wanton act of violence perpetrated against Her Majesty the Queen, during her official birthday ceremonies. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House expresses to Her Majesty its extreme shock at the violence which occurred, that this House expresses its admiration to Her Majesty for her outstanding courage during the ordeal, and that this House condemns all such violent acts, especially those acts against public Figures during the discharging of their duties.


Madam Speaker:: For presentation, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


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. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 as a proxy for the thousands of Canadians who do not have access to adequate mail delivery. The government and the Liberal party have exhibited an exuberance and enthusiasm in communicating with Canadians in ridings they do not hold, by flying Liberal "twins" around the country, mailing greetings and plaques from Liberal "twins", etc. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the Trudeau government and the Liberal party divert the funds expended on their partisan political "twin" program to purchase site mail boxes for Canadians who are deprived of first-class mail delivery service.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY PROGRAM TO MEET SHIPPING NEEDS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter that is truly of national and urgent necessity. Whereas the maximum capacity of the St. Lawrence Seaway will be reached by 1985, just four years from now, all users of the Seaway are agreed that early government decisions are necessary with respect to both facilities and charges, so that they might themselves properly govern their own affairs accordingly. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz):
That the Minister of Transport immediately commence a program of action and improvement to the St. Lawrence Seaway system compatible with the marine and shipping needs of today.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TEXTILES AND CLOTHING
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The report of the Textile and Clothing Board inquiry was tabled on June 30, 1980. In spite of numerous speeches, motions and questions in this House, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) has persistently refused to act in announcing government policy in this important area. In view of the fact that the minister's inaction is causing frustration and alarm within the textile and clothing industry and to the 500,000 Canadians directly or

June 15, 1981
indirectly employed therein, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce announce forthwith the policy of the government pertaining to the clothing and textile industry or, in the alternative, resign, having demonstrated such incredible ineptness in discharging the duties of his ministry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. We note that Treasury Board, under considerable pressure to return to the January 1, 1981, retroactivity RCMP contract date, restored to each member of the force from $750 to $1,600 in back pay, but at the same time cancelled fringe benefits announced two weeks ago. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That since the federal government has again exhibited its inability to deal fairly with the RCMP, the paternalistic divisional representatives system be abolished and that this House urge the government to bring forth a bill to permit the men and women of the RCMP to engage in collective bargaining.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

O)


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Given the acclamation on the weekend of one of our former colleagues, Ralph Goodale, as leader of the Liberal Party in Saskatchewan-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Leslie Evans: -I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis):
That this House extends its best wishes to Mr. Goodale and his party and expresses its desire to see a Liberal government in Saskatchewan.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Today, June 15, being the seven hundred and sixty-sixth anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta at Runnymede, clauses 4 and 5 of which established the basis in British constitutional law, practice and convention, of which we in Canada are fortunate in being able to count ourselves the beneficiaries, for the right to property and the guarantee against its arbitrary seizure by the state, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp):
That this House condemns the government for having rejected a Progressive Conservative amendment to the constitutional proposals which was designed to guarantee to all Canadians the right to the enjoyment of private property and full legal protection against the government's arbitrary seizure or alienation of that property, even 25 per cent of the property of others as provided for, through retroactive application, in their Bill C-48.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY CALL FOR TRIPARTITE DISCUSSIONS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas a recent study by the Ontario government's Great Lakes-Seaway Task Force indicates that tanker traffic in the Welland Canal will grind to a halt by 1985 thereby causing a complete collapse of major commodity shipments through the Seaway, I move, seconded by the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid):
That the government recognize the serious urgency of this problem by taking immediate steps to prevent the possible collapse of commodity traffic in the Seaway and that, as a first step, the government open in-depth discussions with the government of Ontario and Seaway authorities in the United States in order to begin implementing the task force recommendations designed to stop further erosion of the Seaway's capacity.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?
June 15, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Last week the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation indicated to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities that he would do his best to get municipalities "a secure place in the Constitution". Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid):
That the minister issue a position paper as soon as possible to explain to this House how his ministry feels this "secure place in the Constitution" can best be resolved.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE PRIME MINISTER
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, on June 9, 1981, in this House of Commons the Prime Minister said with regard to energy pricing:
We would like the over-all result to be the federal government sharing 23 per cent or 25 per cent of the take, and the provinces and the private sector sharing the rest.
He is telling the Canadian people that the federal government gets only 10 per cent of the action. Out of the $1.66 charge on a gallon of gas in Ontario, the Alberta government gets 22.7 cents, the Ontario government gets 25 cents, the federal government gets 56 cents, or 33.7 per cent of the amount being charged; the producer gets 19.3 cents, the refiner 33 cents, and the dealer 10 cents. It is obvious the Prime Minister is somewhat misleading in his figures. Under Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That the Prime Minister of Canada refrain from giving false information to the Canadian people, designed to pit the east against the west so he can continue to hold power for his own selfish means.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Peter Ittinuar (Nunatsiaq):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas isolated and northern communities are being deprived of English, French and all native language programming due to the NABET strike, thereby creating a situation of almost total isolation in relation to communication links with southern Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House direct the CBC management to move expeditiously toward a fair and just settlement of this strike.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Public Works. Last February the minister announced the establishment of a new corporation, namely the Societe immobiliere du Canada, Mirabel Ltd, and its chairman stated that the mandate of the organization was far from being confused. In fact, he said that their preliminary mandate was to draft a more precise mandate. Can the minister say whether the white elephant has finally come up with a precise mandate?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, I did not catch the name of the corporation the hon. member mentioned.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Madam Speaker, it was the Societe immobiliere du Canada, Mirabel Ltd.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, the first objective of the corporation which was announced last year was to review the history of the project in Mirabel, taking a look at government activity in conjunction with provincial activity in the area, and

June 15, 1981
Oral Questions
to return to cabinet with a request for a mandate for the corporation, and to assit the government in bringing a resolution to some unhappy claimants, for example, people who were originally expropriated in that area. The local communities feel that a long-range plan is needed to revitalize the area and would like assistance in the deregulation of the ownership of some of the outside or peripheral lands.


INQUIRY CONCERNING DETAILS OF SALE OF 80,000 ACRES OF LAND
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Madam Speaker, this file has now been gathering dust for twelve years. Does this corporation intend to take more time still to review once again how to proceed with the sale of the 80,000 acres of land which were needlessly expropriated?


Paul James Cosgrove: On the
contrary, Madam Speaker, the corporation has not been in place for one year. The first task given to the corporation was to return to the government, assist in setting up the mandate for such a corporation, and to recommend to government the procedures that corporation should follow-for example, how would the local community, namely the municipal officials, the provincial government and many private individuals, be engaged? What process would be followed? My understanding is that the new chairman and the officials of the corporation have met with a number of local interested citizens. I further understand that they are in the process of coming forward to government with a design. I expect it will be made available to the government before the end of the summer.


REGULATORY REFORM
Hon. Janies A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the President of the Treasury Board. On Friday last the Prime Minister announced that the President of the Treasury Board would be the coordinator for regulatory reform within the cabinet touching on the recommendations of the report of the Economic Council of Canada. The minister will know that the Economic Council of Canada in its report on the effect and cost of regulation on the consumer touched on three or four departments, including transport, fisheries, and agriculture. Given the importance of that report, its impact on consumers, and the savings that could be effected by consumers, does the minister on behalf of the government intend to involve Parliament in this regulatory reform and either set up a committee on regulatory reform, or refer the report of the Economic Council of Canada to a standing committee of this House?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, first let me point out that the office of the co-ordinator of regulatory reform has been in existence for some time. The mandate for co-ordinating regulatory reform across the government is a mandate which I received shortly after my appointment to my present post as President of the Treasury Board. Clearly we have important work to do in this entire area. We have been waiting with great anticipation the tabling of this report by the Economic Council of Canada. 1 might point out at the same time that we have been moving very rapidly in the area of regulatory reform.
When the hon. member speaks about the involvement of Parliament, I would draw to his attention that we already have the report of a task force which was very well received that dealt primarily with process. In the area of process, the report of the Economic Council also, as you and the House know, Madam Speaker, has moved forward and suggested numerous improvements that can be made, all of which I might say for the most part are already under way. I am frankly delighted with the progress we are making and I can assure hon. members that the report of the Economic Council will receive full consideration by the government.


REQUEST FOR REFERRAL OF ECONOMIC COUNCIL REPORT TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the minister may be very well satisfied with the progress they are making in government on regulatory reform. Parliament has no way of knowing what goes on in cabinet, and only the government can refer a report to a committee. Therefore I would repeat to the minister, given the fact that this report of the Economic Council of Canada, commissioned by the government, touches on three or four departments, including transport and fisheries, and given the fact that this is the only way Parliament can have access to members of the Economic Council of Canada who frame these recommendations, will the minister, on behalf of the government, refer that report to a standing or special committee of the House on regulatory reform so members of this House will at least have the chance of determining whether or not any progress is being made within the cabinet on regulatory reform?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, clearly the involvement of Parliament in this whole area of regulatory reform is of utmost importance, and I will certainly pay great attention to the suggestion of the hon. member.
June 15, 1981


HOUSING
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, last Wednesday we heard the Minister of Finance say he was ready to aid those people facing foreclosure because of abnormally high interest rates. I would ask the minister responsible for housing whether he has considered establishing a debt moratorium board similar to the one set up in the 1930s by the federal government? Such a board could aid bona fide applicants reduce their monthly payments, extend payment periods, and generally help slowdown the unacceptable present day home eviction rate. This legislation would also make banks readjust their loan payment schedules.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, only in a peripheral way have we considered that request. I would think our response should be that under present circumstances, with the housing industry regenerated and very active in addressing supply, with supply eventually affecting affordability, we think that measure is not warranted.


INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, I would address my supplementary question to the Acting Minister of Finance. Has the acting minister or the Minister of Finance given any thought to introducing legislation, as was introduced in the 1930s by the federal and provincial governments, to assist individuals having problems with their mortgages? This legislation would require banks and lending institutions to readjust loan payments due to the 20 per cent interest rate which is causing record business bankruptcies. This readjustment of monthly loan payments could help reduce the business sector's extremely high bankruptcy rate.


Hon. Pierre Bussieres (Minister of State (Finance)):: Madam Speaker, that is a suggestion which the Minister of Finance may want to study closely and which he might consider when preparing the next budget.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister I should like to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister having to do with the meeting of cabinet which took place on the weekend.
Oral Questions
After the meeting the Minister of Finance indicated that there were no new measures being contemplated by the government to deal with the problem of inflation and that any economic measures would have to wait until the fall. How can the minister justify that kind of systematic inactivity when we have so many increasing problems of bankruptcies facing farmers, when we have problems of bankruptcies facing small businessmen, and when we have a crisis in the housing industry across the country? How can the government possibly justify that kind of inactivity?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I understand that the question posed by a distinguished member of the press was whether the Minister of Finance intended to bring in a mini budget in the coming days. Apparently the answer was that there was not such an intention but, of course, the Minister of Finance will continue to make statements on the state of the economy, as he did over the weekend at the convention in Saskatoon which chose such a good, young and dynamic leader for the Liberal party in Saskatchewan.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, the minister may have had an amusing time in Saskatchewan. The minister may have had an amusing time at Meach Lake, but millions of Canadians are not having a very amusing time because of the government's policies and because of the problems inflation and high interest rates are causing the average Canadian.


INQUIRY CONCERNING GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Finance, and quite apart from statements, will the acting minister indicate whether the government intends to bring in any programs which will provide relief to farmers, to small businessmen and to home owners, prior to the summer?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the meeting at Meach Lake yesterday was not an amusing meeting in the sense that few jokes were made. It was a very serious meeting, and the problem of inflation particularly was well reviewed. The Minister of Finance or the Prime Minister will be here later on this afternoon and, if they care to, they will answer in more detail the question raised by the hon. member. Obviously I am not in a position to do that at this time.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, when 30 clowns are put together, I am sure there is bound to be an amusing time.


COST OF LIVING TAX CREDIT
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, my final supplementary question has to do with the fact that on Friday the industrial wage figures for the year were released by Statistics Canada. Those figures showed that the wages of an average worker in Newfoundland fell some $700

June 15, 1981
Oral Questions
behind the rate of inflation in one year. In Ontario wages fell behind by $350; in Saskatchewan, $400; and in British Columbia, $119. The average shortfall in Canada was some $245.
In light of the fact that in this last year wages have fallen well behind the rate of inflation, I would like to ask the minister whether he can now make a commitment that the government will stop its consideration of wage and price controls, which would have the effect only of further reducing the standard of living of the average Canadian faced with inflation, and will the government make a commitment to introduce a cost of living tax credit, which would have the effect of providing some assistance to those Canadians hardest hit by the inflation we are presently going through?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, no economy in the world today of which I am aware is in a perfect situation. If my hon. friend wants to choose statistics to offer, of course he can find some which are not particularly agreeable to contemplate, but there are others which are extremely good. The extent of growth in Canada at this time is substantial. The number of jobs being created is exceptionally good. It all depends what statistics one wants to use, but we all agree that no perfect set is available at this time in Canada, or elsewhere in the world for that matter.

firmed by letter the problem, and made a request for a joint meeting.
My colleague, the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, and I had a meeting last week of officials of the three federal departments involved, in preparation for the meeting we are trying to set up with Quebec and the Cree to review the situation locality by locality, community by community, in terms of help, infrastructure, and every aspect of sanitation relating to health, which I think is the thrust of the committee's recommendation. Now that all of us are prepared for it, I am of course hoping to have the meeting of all the players, as was recommended. I will report of course to the House and make it public as soon as we have the chance.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HON. M'HAMED CHAKER, MINISTER OF JUSTICE OF TUNISIA
Madam Speaker:: It is my pleasure to draw the attention of the members of the House to the presence in our gallery of the hon. M'hamed Chaker, the Minister of Justice of Tunisia.

SITUATION OF JAMES BAY CREE-REQUEST FOR MEETING WITH	[English]


PROVINCIAL AUTHORITIES
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. As the minister knows, a great many members of Parliament, especially those who serve on the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, have been deeply concerned, and still are, about the situation facing the people who live in the James Bay area, following the signing of that historic agreement.
On May 26 a motion was passed in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs asking the minister to set up a meeting with the province of Quebec, with the Cree people and with officials from the Ministry of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the minister's own department. I would like to know from the minister whether she followed up on that motion. Was such a meeting held and, if in fact it was held, what if any progress is the minister able at this time to report to the House of Commons?
Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and
Welfare): Madam Speaker, further to the standing committee meeting on the James Bay Cree health situation, I did speak with the hon. Pierre-Marc Johnson, the minister of health in Quebec, the same afternoon. One or two days later I con-


DANGERS OF USE OF CANNABIS
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: My question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the sobering scientific research that supports earlier evidence that cannabis can cause devastating and irreparable damage to brain cells, as well as genetic damage to first and second generations, and recognizing that this new research is not part of the material being studied and circulated by the government, will the minister assure the House that she will update departmental research and refer the subject matter to a select standing committee of the House before introducing any legislation changing the status or penalties relating to cannabis?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Madam Speaker, with regard to the introduction of legislation by the government to provide a more equitable treatment of Canadians, especially young Canadians, who have a criminal record because they have smoked marijuana, I would like to tell the hon. member that, in my opinion, what he recommends in his question would not exactly be the best solution.
June 15, 1981

Regarding health problems, we always prepare an update of scientific literature on a given matter. This material should be made available to hon. members when considering the bill so that they can make a more in-depth study and have full knowledge of what the government intends to do. I believe that the best way to proceed is to have all tools in hand at the same moment.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: If the minister was in fact aware of the newer research material I doubt she would allow the legislation to be introduced.


CRIMINAL CODE
Robert Lloyd Wenman: My supplementary is directed to the Minister of Justice. The minister's department has just dropped guidelines calling for the laying of a charge of importation if a person brings in 20 kilos of cannabis, the equivalent of 80,000 joints of marijuana, or more into Canada. Surely someone bringing 80,000 joints or more into the country is in fact importing and should be so charged.
Recognizing the contemporary health hazards involved, and the dropped guideline is a de facto dropping of the seven-year prison term, will the minister, in consultation with his colleagues, the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Solicitor General, review and reconsider both the guidelines and the introduction of any legislation prior to further discussion of the health hazard?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, this guideline policy given to the Crown attorneys in marijuana cases has been in place for several years, and the discretion used by the Attorney General was also used by my predecessor two years ago and by the others before him so that the problem could be solved satisfactorily. I do not believe that it would be appropriate to change these guidelines for the moment, but I shall give consideration to the suggestion made by the hon. member.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Privy Council in the absence of the Solicitor General.
The Solicitor General stated in the House on May 28 that he was in receipt of the interim report by Mr. Branscombe on the possible release of the so called Taschereau papers dealing with national security. He also said the complete review by
Oral Questions
Mr. Branscombe would be finished, he used the word "soon", and the government would make its position known "soon". In view of the fact that Mr. Branscombe has now apparently finished the review, is the minister in a position to tell the House the current status of the situation? Can the government's position be made known now, or when will it be made known?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I am not informed that Mr. Branscombe has made his report yet. The hon. member says "apparently". I have no indication that this is correct and accurate. I can verify this with the Solicitor General, but I can confirm to the hon. member that Mr. Branscombe has not made his report to me as yet.


DECISION ON MAKING REPORT PUBLIC
Thomas Charles Cossitt: I am somewhat surprised that the President of the Privy Council apparently does not know what is going on in his office because I am assured that the report has been completed.
As a supplementary I ask the minister is one of the problems the government is facing in making this report public, or in reaching a decision, the fact that certain names are of a delicate nature and it is naturally trying to determine a way that the report can be made public in detail, but using some sort of pseudonym system to protect the human rights of certain persons named therein?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, if I had been given a report, I would know it.
I do not want to speculate, and I am not here to feed the gossip press of the hon. member. However, I shall check with the Solicitor General, and when he confirms that he has the report, he will be able to follow up on the questions of the hon. member.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. The people of Canada have a continuing concern for the terrible health situation of the James Bay Cree and the failure of the government to live up to its obligations. I understand the minister's department has been telling people they have been doing something to correct the contaminated water situation in Paint Hills, a situation which has been documented since January. However, the Cree Housing Corporation has had to borrow money to institute an emergency program in Paint Hills and has not received any

June 15, 1981
Oral Questions
money from the department. We all know the work cannot be done without funding.
When can we expect that the department will move beyond issuing false assurances that it is doing something? When will some money be forthcoming to provide decent water facilities in Paint Hills and other Cree communities?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I met last week with my colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare, at the same time I was meeting with some of my senior officials from the Quebec region to assess the cost of doing something permanent, as well as something immediate in terms of a temporary solution to the matter this year. We are going to get on with what can be considered a quick job this year; it is not adequate in terms of a more permanent water and sewage system at Paint Hills. We are budgeting it for next year and will do as much of the preparation work as we can this year.
We have pretty well identified the cost and we are going to try and find the money this year. If the Cree are spending some of their own money, and my assistant deputy minister was talking to them all last week, then we can look at that from the point of view of possibly reimbursing them at a later stage. I can assure the hon. member we are doing everything possible to try to correct this situation as fast as we can.


REFERRAL OF REPORT TO PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE
James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, the summer season is now here when the health needs of the people are most real. I understand the report the minister requested, to review the spirit and intent of the James Bay agreement, is now finished. Could the minister inform the House as to the major contents of the report? Will he request a special reference to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development so that the committee can study the report in some detail?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact the report is under preparation and we have all co-operated to obtain it, I do not think it should be or will be kept secret in any way. The fact of the matter is that it is not yet completed; it is almost completed. When it is completed we will all have a chance to review it, possibly at the standing committee where most of these discussions regarding the matter have taken place.


IMMIGRATION
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Madam Speaker, over the past six months or so representations were made by many volunteer agencies in Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Vancouver for increased funds to help them provide services to immigrants. Will the Minister of Employment and Immigration inform the House whether he intends to fight for an increase in the allocation to immigrant settlement and adaptation programs?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, as hon. members of the House may know, when the decision was taken to undertake a major refugee program for the Vietnamese, the government authorized an additional sum of money to deal with the problems of immigration adaptation. When the program came to an end last year, the money for immigration settlement reverted to its normal level. Because of the representations mentioned by the hon. member, and the assessments of our officials, it was clear there was still an ongoing need for continued work in the area. As a result, the government authorized an additional $4.3 million to deal with immigration problems, an additional $927,000 million for the ISAP program, and $3.37 million to deal directly with the needs of refugees to supply them with necessities such as housing and other luxuries-


An hon. Member:: Luxuries?


Lloyd Axworthy: -until such time as they become self-sufficient. I think those representations have now been met.


TRADE MARKS AND PATENTS
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, could the Minister of Communications confirm a published report indicating that the Department of Communications attempted to receive a trade mark for the name Telidon but failed because it applied too late and, as a consequence, it had to settle for a certification mark?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: No, Madam Speaker, I cannot confirm it. My understanding is that the advice we received from the Department of Justice, and from an outside expert in this area who was retained by that department, was that the proper manner in which to proceed was the one indicated by the hon. member, that is, through a certification mark.


STATUS OF SOFTWARE
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, is the minister denying the published report indicating that the government tried to obtain a trade mark in the United States and failed? In addition to not having very much security over the use of the name Telidon, could the minister confirm that only a portion of the hardware for Telidon can be protected and, further, that there is no protection for the software which could be copied and possibly enhanced by others who would intend to introduce a similar system?


Francis Fox: Madam Speaker, there are applications pending in both Canada and the United States. In the case of Canada, it is for a registered certification mark. In the United States, an application for trade mark is proceeding. As I understand it, Canadian Patents and Development Limited has filed lengthy patent applications in both countries.
It is not patent protection as such which is the main advantage for Canadian industry. In many cases the Telidon system can be described as being the state of the art. It is a question of know-how. In many cases these questions cannot be protected by patents.
In the case of Telidon the Canadian industry has benefited from an advance of approximately one year over its competitors in other countries. No one really believes that this system cannot be duplicated or that it cannot be processed in other countries. At the moment Canadians have a 12-month lead over their competitors which is due in good part to the policies adopted by the government.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. In a speech last week in Regina to the urban municipalities of Canada, the minister decried the fact that the municipalities were not recognized as legal governmental entities in the new constitutional proposals of the government. Was that proposition discussed in cabinet? Was the minister expressing government policy, namely, that municipal governments should be recognized as a third level of government within the Canadian Constitution?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I indicated at the meeting of the Canadian Federation of Municipalities that hopefully, with the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Constitution soon, the issue of continued negotiations between the provinces and the federal government, which is called for in the resolution passed and forwarded by the House, and the issue of the relationships of all governments, would no doubt be a matter for agenda between the federal government and the provinces in the near future.
In doing so I felt with some confidence that I reflected, in so far as the municipalities are concerned, the view of one in three members of the House of Commons who at one time or another held elective office at the local level. I am sure those members, together with many others in the House, agree that a very significant role is played by local governments in the scheme of governmental activity in Canada and that they should be a part of the discussion on a future governmental scheme for Canada.
Oral Questions


FUTURE STATUS OF MUNICIPALITIES
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Those of us who have held positions in municipal governments feel that there must be ongoing dialogue and a position for municipalities, but obviously this matter must be discussed between the federal government and the provinces. The municipalities are subject to provincial legislation and provincial governments. Is it the policy of the government, as expressed by the minister, that the federal government will advocate at future conferences with the provinces that municipalities should be recognized as legal entities within the Canadian Constitution?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, this question has been raised several times with many of my ministers and myself. We have taken the position generally taken by the hon. minister. We agree that under the present Constitution it is a matter under provincial jurisdiction, and that any change in it would have to be the result of consultation.
We think there is a significant array of arguments for giving the municipalities status under the Constitution. Of course this must be discussed with the provinces. We feel the discussion will come at some time or other when we get to discussing the division of powers. We have no actual plans to begin that discussion now, but I think the municipalities have every right and that the ministers have every occasion to support them when they say they want to be recognized as significant entities.
You will recall, Madam Speaker, that when the House was asking that at the constitutional conference last September we bring in representatives of the Yukon and the Northwest Territories, we pointed out in the House that the municipalities were also elected and that they represented people. Therefore we posed the problem in much the same terms as the minister.


NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. On May 28, 1981, Hon. Bud Olson, the Minister of State for Economic Development, said that the federal government envisaged the need for major investments in a northern transportation system and in hydro power generation. Could the minister indicate to which specific projects in the field of transportation-which roads, railway, harbours and pipelines-was the Minister of State for Economic Development referring and, similarly, to which hydro projects?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member wishes some indication of what priorities there are in terms of

June 15, 1981
Oral Questions
infrastructure of this kind, hydro and roads, I would be pleased to go into it, as I have been willing to at standing committee, in some detail. If the hon. member wants to know exactly what was in the mind of the gentleman from the other place, Mr. Olson, I think that it is best that the hon. member ask him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


QUERY RESPECTING GOVERNMENT ACTION
Dave Nickerson: I would submit, Madam Speaker, that the Minister of State for Economic Development has an over-all view of Canada, and it would be the minister of northern development who should know the specific details in the area which comes under his jurisdiction. Am I correct in thinking, Madam Speaker, that this is another one of these promises, something like the western development fund, the $4 billion fund, which everyone over there refers to, but which never seem to materialize? Are these just promises, or is the minister really going to do something about these questions?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, if the hon. member would like to see the whole history of federal government expenditure in the Northwest Territories which has reached up into the hundreds of millions this year, and in past years, and how it breaks down with respect to infrastructure, I would be more than happy to send it to him. If the hon. member would like to see what commitments there are in terms of what will be necessary in the future for development-when that development takes place-I will be more than happy to show him that. If he thinks that during the question period I can indicate every road which requires construction, the hon. member knows-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Nielsen:: Name one.


John Carr Munro: I could name several in the Yukon on which there has been significant federal government expenditure, which the hon. member for Yukon has never given us any credit for whatsoever.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carr Munro: I would be more than happy to send all that material to the hon. member this afternoon or tomorrow morning.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. While commending the minister on
the appointment of the Hon. David MacDonald as president of the newly established futures secretariat, I cannot understand why, of the 27 directors, eight are from Toronto, six are from Ottawa, and five are from Montreal. In effect 70 per cent are from the Ottawa-Toronto-Montreal axis. Only one director is from British Columbia. Is it the minister's view that British Columbians are incapable of engaging in public education on the problems of the developing world, or is it simply a case, once again, of ignoring British Columbia?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the explanation for both parts of the hon. member's question is the same, namely, that this is an independent, non-governmental organization for which I can only take credit for having inspired. The choice of Mr. MacDonald as the president was made independently, and the choice of directors was made independently. I can tell the hon. member that I did hear from the president, in a report last week, that the secretariat did expect to enlarge the board of directors, and that it had begun with this board to get the operation going as quickly as possible.


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, the figures I gave include the enlargement. I just received word today that those are the figures. If, indeed, this new futures secretariat thinks so little of the rest of the country, it already discourages me. The minister, at least, could have suggested that it have a better representation. However, let me move on to a related question.


CONTRIBUTION TO EDUCATION
Pauline Jewett: would like to ask the minister if he will be saying today whether the government will specifically adopt the recommendation of the North-South task force, namely, the recommendation that one per cent of official development assistance be devoted to development education.


Mark R. MacGuigan: If I could catch Your Honour's eye at the proper time, I will present the government response to the task force.
I can also undertake to pass the hon. member's comments on to the futures secretariat.


ST. LAWRENCE SEAWAY TASK FORCE REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS
Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. One of the most important and far-reaching documents which have been presented to the Canadian public and the government in a number of years is the document entitled "The Great Lakes Seaway Task Force", which deals with setting a course for the 1980s. That document outlines some pretty frightening things, in terms of the St. Lawrence Seaway. I wonder whether the minister, his department or the government has made any
June 15, 1981

decision as to whether they will accept some of the recommendations in that particular document which says that traffic on the St. Lawrence Seaway will be pretty well clogged or jammed by 1985, in just four short years.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I have had discussions on that subject with a number of people, and it is generally held that capacity on the Great Lakes will have to be increased in the coming decade. The year 1985 was not generally accepted. The choice of means is not generally accepted, either. There are a number of possibilities, and discussions are going on regarding this subject. There is also uncertainty about some of the commodities being shipped on the Great Lakes now; just to mention two, iron ore and coal. In view of that uncertainty, the two authorities, the Canadian and the American, are now sponsoring a study on the conjuncture as it exists now. I will report on that when I have it.
All this is to say that capacity is generally accepted as being in need of increase-choice of means, twinning of the Welland Canal, changes in speed of traffic, extension of the season, and so on. I was reading on the subject just a few days ago and was impressed by the gains which can be made by the improvement of the management of the seaway. I remember that the figure for April was 5 per cent on the Welland. Obviously, there is some progress which can be made without the bigger, megaprojects of twinning the Welland, for example.


TIMEFRAME FOR ACTION
Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, the minister seems to be uncertain in terms of the direction that he wants to go in this particular matter. Coming from western Canada, a grain producing area which ships virtually all of its grain down through the St. Lawrence Seaway, we become very alarmed over the kind of inaction which the minister seems to be saying may lie ahead. What kind of time-frame, then, does the minister have in terms of starting to do something concrete, in terms of the added expansion which will have to take place within the St. Lawrence Seaway itself?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I referred to the study being done by both authorities, the Canadian and the American Seaway authorities, as being one on the present conjuncture of traffic on the Great Lakes. I would submit that I should wait to get this one before making further comments on the subject.


THE CONSTITUTION
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, I would like to follow up on the question to the minister of housing regarding his comments to the Federation of Canadian Municipalities. In that speech the minister suggested that the role of local government warrants a more secure place in the Consti-
Oral Questions
tution. I would ask the minister if he could elaborate on those remarks to the House.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, I could probably assist the hon. member by referring to my earlier answers in the House, which is to say that I view the process as being one which is almost as important as any effects altered or any changes made. The process is one which is very important. I said in the speech, and to other hon. members and to the media after the speech, that the process is one which must involve the provinces and the municipalities in discussion before any specific way, any specific method, any specific institution or any specific relationship is altered or proposed for consideration by other governments.


MINISTER'S VIEWPOINT
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, once again, the minister referred specifically to security. I would like to ask the minister, through Your Honour, exactly what point of view is he putting forward as far as the security of municipalities under the Constitution is concerned? Where are the insecurities?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, as I indicated in my last comments, my thought was that from my experience in local politics the thrust should be to have a somewhat more structured relationship between the municipalities, the provincial governments, and the federal government, than that which presently pertains. For example, at the last meeting between myself and ministers of housing from across Canada there was only one province which invited observers from that province to attend such a convention. My feeling is that such a relationship should be strengthened in the sense that it should be more frequent, and there should be some certainty in the type of relationship which would pertain in the future.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In reply to a question that I put in committee two and a half years ago about reciprocal arrangements on pensions between the United Kingdom and Canada, the minister replied as follows:
That is my priority. Italy was a priority, Great Britain was one. Italy is done and I am very proud of it, but I want to unblock the Great Britain dossier. It is very important.
In view of the fact that the minister considers it important and a priority, I wonder why there has been no action in two and a half years?

June 15, 1981
Oral Questions


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, very unfortunately, it is because the government of Her Majesty in Great Britain decided to refuse any agreement with Canada. I met again, I think it was late October, in London with the minister for Great Britain, literally pleading for an agreement with Great Britain to increase the pensions they pay to their former residents now living with us in Canada, and to have reciprocity on pensions. That was rejected without any possibility of compromise by the United Kingdom. 1 regret it very much.
We have since proceeded to signing an agreement with Greece and we have signed with the United States. That will help a lot of Canadians, both here and those having to live and work in these countries. Unfortunately, Great Britain has completely refused any possible assistance to its people living with us in Canada.


INTERNATIONAL TAX AGREEMENTS
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, may I put a supplementary question to the Minister of National Revenue. In December an international taxing agreement was signed whereby nations could tax pensioners from other nations, and exemptions were made up to $10,000 for all countries, except for British pensioners living in Canada. I wonder why there is this discrimination against British pensioners living in Canada as well as the blow they received about reciprocal pensions?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, I think the same situation applies. We have bilateral agreements with various countries. I think the answer to that is, in substance, the same as the answer given by the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


AVIATION INDUSTRY
Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns co-ordination of a manpower training program in the field of aeronautics where there is now a shortage of specialized labour and where a demand for 13,000 workers is expected by 1983. Since the province of Quebec now accounts for 50 per cent of the labour force in this industry, does the minister intend to draw up a planning agreement between both levels of government and the industry to ensure that we can provide a qualified Canadian manpower, not only in Quebec, but throughout Canada, where we will need 13,000 additional workers in the next few years?

Hod. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration): Madam Speaker, the hon. member points to a very important area of skill shortage in this country. We have responded to it with two initiatives. First, we have signed an agreement with the aerospace industry to develop long-term planning for human resource needs and to introduce, right now, a number of new training initiatives. We are also beginning negotiations this summer with the provinces to look at the whole area of training agreements so that we can begin to allocate our resources and target them at those areas where high skills are needed. We understand that the shortage of workers in this area is very critical to the economy of the country. We hope that these initiatives will provide solutions. We look forward to the co-operation of the provinces in this very important achievement.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Jesse P. Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Madam Speaker, my point of order relates to the question period. It refers to the comments made by the hon. member for Broadview-Green-wood (Mr. Rae) when he said that when 30 clowns get together, something funny is bound to happen, or something to that effect.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid that does not constitute a point of order.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Seventh report of Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments-Mr. Beatty.

Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, in order to facilitate members in the debate today and tomorrow, I should like to table at this time the government's response to the report of the Parliamentary Task Force on North-South Relations.
June 15, 1981


RAILWAY ACT
Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-634, to amend the Railway Act (rates on triticale).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


John Mercer Reid: Madam Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to add triticale and triticale flour to the list of cereal grains which have the benefit of the Crow rate. Triticale and triticale flour do not have that status at the present time and are unable to compete with other grains that do have it.


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

Jack Burnett Murta: for leave to introduce Bill C-635, to amend the Railway Act (rates on triticale).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Jack Burnett Murta: Madam Speaker, my bill is virtually identical to the previous one. The purpose is to include triticale, which is a bread and feed grain of a very high yield, in the Crowsnest Pass rate so that it may be sold in our export markets under the same competitive conditions as wheat.


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

[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Government Notices of Motions:
June 11, 1981-The Secretary of State for External Affairs:
That this House take note of the present state and future prospects of Canada's international relations and endorse the broad thrust of the report of the Parliamentary Task Force on North-South Relations.
Madam Speaker:: Pursuant to Section (2) of Standing Order 21, this notice of motion is transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government Orders later this day.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Order Paper Questions
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 70, 2,217, 2,245, 2,312, 2,424, 2,472, 2,555 and 2,557.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	In each of the past five calendar years, what were the amounts of all contracts received from the Post Office Department by RPR Associates Ltd. or by anyone associated therewith and, in each case (a) what was the amount of the contract (b) what was the purpose of the contract (c) what are the names of all persons who signed the contract on behalf of the government?
2.	Was Mr. Gerald McKee a senior employee of the Post Office Department at any time that RPR Associates Ltd. received such contracts?
3.	Did Mr. McKee terminate his services with the department or were his services terminated by the department and, if so (a) on what date (b) for what reason?
4.	To the knowledge of the government, was Mr. McKee an employee of RPR Associates Ltd.?
5.	Was any branch of government approached, directly or indirectly, for business for Gerald McKee Enterprises or for Gerald McKee and, if so, what are all the details?
6.	Is it the intention of the government to appoint Gerald McKee to the Public Service and, if so, to which position and department?
7.	Has Mr. McKee applied for a position in the Public Service?
8.	Will any government decision in regard to Gerald McKee or Gerald McKee Enterprises be in any way based on the fact he was a Liberal Party candidate in Leeds-Grenville in the general elections in 1979 and 1980?


David Michael Collenette: 1. In so far as Canada Post is concerned:
Date of Contract	(a) Expenditure	(b) Purpose	(c) Signed by18/05/79	$ 26,570.64	Departmental advertising Fiscal Year 1979-80*	C. P. Parent09/06/78	568,438.00	Departmental advertising Fiscal Year 1978-79*	R.G. McKee01/07/77	810,602.00	Departmental advertising Fiscal Year 1977-78*	R. G. McKee28/09/76	1,678,336.00	Departmental advertising*	R. G. McKee04/08/76	2,126,940.00	Advertising and sales promotion of Olympic Gold Coin program	Austin Page04/11/76	17,000.00	Consulting services related to the Olympic Metal Stamp program	B. J. Veinot17/05/76 Amended 04/11/75 Amended 30/6/81 Original	1,803,243.00	Departmental advertising* and advertising and sales promotion of Olympic Stamp program	J. E. Uberig
* Advertising of postal products and services, including philatelic advertising, etc.

June 15, 1981
Order Paper Questions
2.	Yes.
3.	Mr. McKee terminated his services with the department.
(a)	March 26, 1979.
(b)	For personal reasons.
4.	Canada Post does not have a record of the subsequent employment of Mr. McKee.
5.	No branch of government was approached and Supplies and Services Canada has not awarded any contract for its customer departments to Gerald McKee Enterprises or Gerald McKee.
6.	No.
7.	In order to respect the intent of Part IV of the Canadian Human Rights Act ("Protection of Personal Information"), it is the Public Service Commission's policy not to disclose this type of information.
8.	Not applicable.


Mr. Cossitt: What was the name and job designation of each CBC radio and television employee assigned to the Progressive Conservative Party's annual meeting recently held in Ottawa?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: it has not been customary to require the CBC to provide such details of its internal management and administration as the names and positions of employees assigned to specific program projects. The background to this custom is explained in detail in the reply to question No. 2,530, November 6, 1975.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	In what locations are CBC and CTV television in direct competition?
2.	In each location, does CBC's viewing audience outdraw CTV's viewing audience over a weekly period and, if not, what steps has CBC taken to improve their share of the audience?
3.	Does CBC's 11.00 p.m. news "The National'' have a higher viewing audience than CTV's 11.00 p.m. news and, if so, in what locations?
4.	Is the CBC taking steps to improve the calibre of its national news coverage and, if so, what are they?


Peter A. Stollery: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. St. John's, Sydney/Glace Bay, Halifax, Montreal, Ottawa/Hull, Toronto, Winnipeg, Regina/Moose Jaw, Saskatoon, Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver.
2.	A. C. Nielsen's preliminary estimates for the 1980/81 season, which reflect the CBC's performance during the complete season in the country as a whole, show that CBC-owned and affiliated stations had a 24 per cent viewing share. The audience is so fragmented in a number of centres that U.S.
stations had a greater total viewing share than either CBC or CTV.
It should be noted, however, that the share of Canadians' viewing time spent watching Canadian programs approximately equals the share of Canadian programs, or choice in Canadian TV programs, available to them-as opposed to the American and other foreign programs available.
Since the information requested on the CTV network is provided by a syndicated ratings firm, statistics required on CTV viewing shares should be requested from that network.
In its over-all schedule, CBC is not in direct competition for audiences with CTV because of the corporation's specific responsibilities under the Broadcasting Act and the resulting variety of program fare. All broadcasters would naturally like to see their audience share increased, and the CBC will continue to make its productions even better as staff and funds permit.
3.	The CBC's share of the audience for the late evening national news is greater than CTV's in Ottawa and Winnipeg. Over the course of the 1980/81 season, the audiences to the two networks' late evening newscasts were equal in absolute terms on a national basis.
4.	The CBC considers that the national is already a superior, world-class newscast. However, in September, 1981, it will move from 11 p.m. to 10 p.m. and will be followed by a daily, satellite-based national affairs program. The total package, shown in prime time, will give Canadians a nightly sense of their country and the world.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What is the number of persons who work in any capacity for the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in the reporting of events on Parliament Hill and in government departments and what number are (a) technicians (b) newsmen or reporters?
2.	What is the number of persons working in the (a) French (b) English (c) foreign section of the Corporation?


Peter A. Stollery: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: it should be noted that the following figures represent staff working for four radio and two television networks in English and French, plus Radio Canada International.
1.	91.
(a)	31.
_____(b) 29.
Note: Those not included in (a) and (b) above are producers, editors, directors, production assistants and clerical support staff.
2.	Of the above:
(a)	39.
(b)	44.
(c)	8.
June 15, 1981


Mr. Cossitt: Did the Minister of Justice receive letters and representations on the subject of a reference to God not being made in the original constitutional resolution and, if so (a) how many, including numbers of names on petitions (b) did the representations have a bearing on the reversal of the government's decision in this regard?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Yes, from many Canadians and many members of Parliament on all sides of the House.
(a)	To April 22, 1981, 8,033 pieces of mail, no figures were kept on the number of names on petitions.
(b)	Yes. It will be recalled that a reference to God was proposed in "A Statement of Principles for A New Constitution" which was submitted by the Prime Minister to provincial ministers at the meeting of June 9, 1980, and tabled in the House of Commons on June 10, 1980.


Mr. McKinnon: 1.	Did the Department of National Defence place a $515,708 contract with CAE Electronique Ltee. for repair and overhaul of the magnetic anomaly detector system for the CP-140 avionics system and, if so, for what period has the detector been in service?
2.	How often does the department expect the system to require repair and overhaul?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. On behalf of the Department of National Defence, the Department of Supply and Services Canada placed a contract with CAE Electronique Ltee, in the amount of $515,707.50 for the repair and overhaul of magnetic anomaly detector (MAD) systems. The first system went into service in June, 1980.
2. Based on previous experience with MAD systems, an estimated 74 sub-systems are forecasted to require third-line maintenance (at contractor's facilities) over the course of the contract, however it is not possible to provide a definite answer to this part of the question. The MAD system is installed in all CP-140 aircraft and in some training simulators; each system is made up of 28 significant sub-systems. The units will be forwarded to the contractor for repair and/or overhaul as the need arises and under the conditions of the contract. The government will only pay for the work actually carried out. The contract includes provisions for some up-front charges to cover the contractor's requirement to set up his facilities; it also includes allowance of $307,400 for CAE to purchase those types of spares only used for third-line maintenance and not carried in the Canadian Forces Supply system. Third-line spare purchases are for multi-year use.


Mr. Stewart: Did the Department of National Defence and the Department of Communications purchase technical service-communications equipment valued at $277,900
Order Paper Questions
from Ian Martin Associates, Ottawa, and, if so, what was the equipment and what technical services were provided?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The Department of Supply and Services on behalf of the Department of Communications purchased technical services valued at $277,900 from Ian Martin Associates, Ottawa. The services of individuals were provided under nine separate contracts. No equipment was purchased.
The services provided involved the operation and maintenance of the David Florida Laboratory at Shirley's Bay on behalf of the Department of Communications. It has been government policy to contract out to industry for the skills required to operate this facility since it was opened in 1974.


Mr. Stewart: Did the Department of National Defence purchase screws valued at $58,790 from Rolls Royce Canada Inc. and, if so, how many and for what purpose will they be used?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: contract in the amount of $58,790 was awarded by the Department of Supply and Services, on behalf of the Department of National Defence, to Rolls Royce Canada Inc., for the supply of 15 items of different types of screws. The total quantity ordered was 11,700. The screws are to serve as lifetime spares for the maintenance of the NENE 10 engine manufactured by Rolls Royce and installed in the T33 trainer aircraft.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I rise on a point of order, madam Speaker. As I have on a number of occasions, I would like to draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary to three questions that have been unanswered for a long time. The last time I raised this matter he promised he would look into it and see if he could facilitate answers.
The first question I refer to is question No. 30, which asks for the number of members of the Canadian Transport Commission and their wives who have passes on Air Canada. The question has been on the Order Paper for about two years. It seems to me a relatively simple thing to answer. The lack of an answer leads, obviously, to one asking what is being hidden.
Question No. 136 is very simple. I was assured by officials of Air Canada that the answer had been prepared for months ago, so I do not know what has happened to it. It is a very simple question and asks when the Liberal party paid Air Canada for the DC-8 it rented in the May 22, 1979 election and points out that it had not paid the bill by the time the February, 1980 election came along. When was the bill paid and how much was it? Apparently there was a dispute between the Liberal party and Air Canada, a Crown corporation. The question has not been answered in over a year.
Finally, question No. 121 asks for the number and names of defeated Liberal candidates and defeated Liberal MPs who have received appointments from the government to various positions in Crown corporations, on boards and so on. That,

June 15, 1981
Business of the House
also, would seem fairly straightforward. We heard a member on the other side today boast about the fact that one of our former colleagues, Ralph Goodale, had placed one foot in the grave by being made leader of the Saskatchewan Liberal party. I would think that if the Liberals are so proud of their former members, they would give us a list of what they have done to all of them.
The theme song of this government is a very old tune; it is called "Roll Out the Barrel". If it comes to rolling out-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has asked this question before and I have assured him that I am getting answers. I would like to point out that of the over 2,000 answers we have provided to date, the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville has been the recipient of the greatest proportion. I am sure he would not want to convey the impression that he is ungrateful because today, out of the eight questions answered, five were in the name of the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point or order. I want to draw question No. 588 on the Order Paper to the attention of the parliamentary secretary. I asked this question on April 18, 1980. It concerns the cost of the Metric Commission and its operating expenses in 1979 and since its inception. That should be an easy matter of public record. I would appreciate the parliamentary secretary directing the officials to give us an answer as soon as possible.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I will undertake to do that.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Knowles:: Madam Speaker, I ask the government House leader's pardon if we are getting up on the same point. There have been some discussions about the length of speeches today. Although I am not completely happy with what we have agreed to, I believe there is an understanding that the speeches for the first part of the debate be under Standing Order 31, which will give the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) unlimited time-that is an awful thought-and would also give the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) unlimited time. It would then give the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) 40 minutes. We understand that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) also wishes to speak. Even though he is the
mover of the motion and is not the lead-off speaker, we would be willing to permit him to speak for 40 minutes. Our hope is that after that all speeches could be reduced to 30 minutes, or even to 20 minutes.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I was wondering whether you would recognize me. It is true that Standing Order 31 notwithstanding, we have agreed that speeches would only last 30 minutes instead of 40 minutes. However, I want to clarify a point following the comments of the House leader of the New Democratic Party. The Secretary of State for External Affairs, even though he is the sponsor of the motion, does not, with due respect, have to speak first. The Chair recognized that last week. He could speak later during the debate for an unlimited period of time. However, we have agreed that he will speak for 40 minutes today.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I wish to confirm the discussion and the agreement.


Madam Speaker:: Order. It will be done as ordered by the House.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mark R. MacGuigan: That this Flouse take note of the present state and future prospects of Canada's international relations and endorse the broad thrust of the report of the Parliamentary Task Force on North-South Relations.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it is obvious to all of us that our world has become unpredictable and unstable. We would also agree that it has become more dangerous. Mankind is living in a state of more or less extended crises. Violence and disorder have become banal. Injustice no longer causes indignation.
This global instability has many causes. There are many more countries in the world community than there used to be, and each is vigorously asserting its own particular needs and ambitions. Economic problems and international disputes have increased in both number and severity. While the superpowers have grown stronger, they often seem to have lost control over events. We have seen international law and economic systems break down more frequently, causing people to believe that things are out of control. There is a generalized condition of crisis expectation.
June 15, 1981

We usually think of crisis as a sudden shock, as a surprise, a burst of violence, an invasion. Obviously, the world needs to prevent such incidents when prevention is possible, and to contain them when they occur.
It must be understood, however, that such incidents usually result from pent-up tension. They are the flash-points of deep-seated problems. If the world hopes to prevent such shocks, we have to deal with the basic conditions which cause them. The only effective way to manage a crisis is to go to its roots.
Unfortunately, a succession of jarring events can so monopolize the attention and energy of governments that they neglect to deal with the persistent, underlying problems in world affairs, thus guaranteeing more shocks in the future. Effective management of crises means getting at the basic causes of the conditions we deplore, and really changing them. The challenge is extremely complex and difficult, but not hopeless. If we can muster the will to do the job, it can be done.
The necessary strength of will and sense of common purpose which is required of the industrialized democracies will not likely be forged out of any perception of immediate physical danger to ourselves, posed by the anger and frustration of the suffering peoples of the world.
The starving refugee lying in the hot dust of the Sahel can scarcely summon the strength to help himself, let alone strike out at us. If his children survive they will remember us, and with fury in their hearts, you can be sure. But that is a threat for another time. It does not frighten us into action today.
If the more powerful countries are to summon the will to respond in a more effective way, and with greater unity, to the problems of a chaotic world, it will be because of two things: first, a decision to give practical application to the human values which we in the West say we hold in common; and second, a better understanding of the less noble-sounding but no less compelling imperative of our own self-interest. ]
What are these values that we hold in common? Surely the most basic is freedom, the freedom of individuals and of nations, the political freedom which distinguishes East from West, the freedom of the market system upon which our economies are based. The freedom of which I speak is not an abstract concept divorced from our daily lives, or reserved for patriotic speeches on national holidays; it is the very foundation and life-giving spirit of the societies which we have built in the various countries of the West.
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
North-South Relations
union? The people dying in Africa for lack of medical care, or clean water, are they my neighbours? What about those who are dying in the spirit in the villages of India for lack of a job, or an education, or hope? Are my neighbours the 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.
The urgency of those problems constitutes one of the major reasons why this government has been eager, as has the New Democratic Party, in arranging time for this important debate on Canada's foreign policy.
I began, Madam Speaker, by saying that we live in an unstable world where we no longer enjoy the comfort of being able to predict future events with a fair degree of certainty. Though political and economic instability may be most visible in the Third World, we must remember that all the great problems of the world are interrelated. The problems of East-West and North-South relations, of energy, nuclear proliferation, the Atlantic alliance, the law of the sea, the environment, refugees and sporadic outbursts of violence and war-all of these form a complex of cause and effect.
There will continue to be shocks and confrontation between cultures and technology, between rich and poor, between generations, even between neighbours, as the world community attempts to live more successfully with the one predictable factor on our planet, the inevitability of constant and rapid change. That is the theme of my remarks today: the management of change, the management of the crises which change can represent.
These are troubled times for the world. Economically, the eighties and nineties will not have much in common with the fifties and sixties, when we became convinced that rapid growth was as certain as the sunrise. Now, after having been psychologically conditioned to expect constant expansion, countries have to learn to manage the experience of economic compression.
That is another example of the instability which we must learn to manage. It will surely be one of the major preoccupations of the summit meeting here in Canada next month. In that perspective, the Ottawa summit could be more crucially important than any of its predecessors.
The impact of a summit on world problems is not immediate, largely because it is not meant to be a policy-making occasion. Its great value is that it permits the leaders of the principal industrialized democracies to share their analyses of problems, to strengthen their sense of common purpose, to assess where they can come closer together or move forward together.
Originally, the subject matter, as we know, was limited to economic issues. More recent summits have turned also to international political issues. The Ottawa summit will undoubtedly continue this trend, if only because of the preoc-

June 15, 1981
North-South Relations
cupations of the leaders themselves. Our meeting will derive added importance from the fact that most of the participants will be gathering together for the first time.
The international press will probably place a lot of emphasis on the ideological differences of leaders who stand on the right, or the left, or in the centre. It is true that the electorates of various countries have been sending very different signals to their respective governments. But I do not expect that we will be overly preoccupied at the summit by our differences; I think that we will be trying to chart a common course, whether on North-South questions, on approaches to East-West relations, or on international trade, for example. We shall be trying to identify the broad areas where our countries can proceed together toward shared goals, transcending the differences among our national policies.
All of the summit participants know that the world looks to them for leadership. From the Third World, the look will be skeptical. But I believe leadership is emerging, and that it will be sensitive to the priorities of our times. The test of the summit, therefore, should not be whether we come out of the meeting with specific decisions. The true test will be whether all summit participants believe that we are defining together the best approaches to the great issues of the day, based on the objectives and values which we share in common.
This summit will be not only of the most difficult ever held, but will also be intentionally different. It is designed to be relatively unstructured, so as to give leaders the maximum opportunity to discuss the broad themes of crisis and opportunity, and how both can be effectively managed.
At Venice last year we agreed that we had to get back to these basic issues of international life, so as to strengthen our sense of common purpose. We are attempting, therefore, to free ourselves from a set agenda this year. It is for the same reason that the meetings are being held in the relative seclusion of Montebello.

The most fundamental problems we are up against at the international level are tied up with the instability of our economic and political environment. And the management of the various economies of the industrialized world is not the least of those problems.
Right now, the western industrialized nations must cope with slow rates of growth, high levels of unemployment and rampant inflation. On top of that, due to the variation in the exchange markets, in recent weeks the European currencies suffered unprecedented devaluations as compared with the American dollar.
That devaluation of European currencies, coupled with the over-all increase in interest rates, adversely affects the economic growth of several countries which will take part in the summit. It is now feared that the expected economic upturn may be delayed at least until early 1982.
Certain participants in the summit, including Canada, are worried about the negative international spin-offs of the
American domestic policy and about its consequences on interest rates for instance. The role of the summit is to ensure that the various national policies aimed at common objectives are not incompatible and counterproductive. Any action by a country must be undertaken while keeping in mind its impact on other nations. That implies first an awareness of the economic and political situation of the partners and then a decision to co-ordinate the efforts so as to minimize the conflicts and the negative spin-offs.

Another source of great instability is the state of East-West relations. Here there is no denying some basic facts. The Soviet Union has invaded Afghanistan, implicitly threatening all of the countries of western Asia and ignoring the call of the Third World to get out. In addition, there is no denying that the Soviet Union has both expanded its military presence in the oceans of the world and increased dramatically the weaponry which is arrayed against the West.
These challenges constitute another more traditional form of crisis to be managed. Western countries must develop the means to take a united stand, so that in the event of a direct threat, there will be a swift and concerted response, in the defence of our own interest and the interests of those countries which look to us for strength and support.
Personally, I believe that the good sense of Soviet leaders will prevail. I believe they will not feel themselves so threatened by events that they have to respond to the challenge of change by the force of arms. We all watch the crisis in Poland. The Soviet Union should know that recourse to arms is a losing game, for them and for all the world.
That being said, unfortunately we must act in the full knowledge that we are living in a dangerous world. Our security and that of the western alliance must rest on reality and be credible in our own eyes and in those of others. Experience over the past Five years has shown the fragility of the "detente" as a basis for East-West relations. But I believe that the events in the coming months and years will determine what will be the next phase of the East-West relations. I think that all the countries involved recognize that we all have a stake in stabilizing those relations, particularly the southern nations which ought to be kept clear of the tensions between the eastern and the western worlds. But the U.S.S.R. is a superpower which claims the right to be heard on the same terms as its rival on the problems which affect any region of the world. The Russians claim that right for reasons of national interest but also, obviously, for reasons of an ideological nature. Consequently there is a potential element of rivalry among the superpowers in every troubled area of the developing nations.
One of the shortcomings of detente is, paradoxically, that it was conceived in a relatively balanced and stable European
June 15, 1981

context. Even though this concept was firmly implanted in Europe, its value had never been fully tested outside the continent. Now it has become obvious that this concept is even harder to implement outside Europe. More serious still, the tensions arising from the failure of detente in Third World countries have had an impact on the main scene of the action between East and West, namely Europe. It has become clear that East-West relations cannot follow certain rules in some areas of the world and totally different rules elsewhere.
Is there no way out? There are some conditions more conducive to improved East-West relations that come to mind. The role of superpowers cannot be denied, but it must not be exclusive. To survive, detente must be recognized as indivisible, yet it is a fact that it is interpreted differently in the western and in the eastern allied countries, as well as the developing and non-aligned countries, which, of course, has been a constant source of misunderstanding. The policy to be followed is to refuse to involve developing countries in the military rivalry between East and West, as this would only aggravate tensions in this no-win situation in which neither North nor South would win.
It is in the best interests of the Third World that developing countries not become involved in the competition between East and West. That is exactly what Tito and Nehru were trying to achieve through non-alignment, and we can only hope that the movement of non-aligned countries will return to its basic philosophy. Western countries must re-examine their relations with the U.S.S.R. in order to promote stability throughout the world. A strong military alliance is essential to the achievement of this goal.
We must also recognize that a good sine qua non condition of stability would be a basic agreement between the superpowers. In this respect, the superpowers must reactivate the best arrangements between the United States and the U.S.S.R. in the early seventies, when the "red phones" were installed and when the world could rely on a basic compatibility of interests between the two countries.
We will also witness an increased number of crises which, should the worst come to the worst, could degenerate into an all-out confrontation between the superpowers. Moreover it seems that a large proportion of these crises will arise in the undeveloped areas of the world, where the West has provided no set of arrangements to protect its own interests such are those between North America and Japan or Western Europe. We would be well advised, therefore, to ascertain what are the means at our disposal to meet crises everywhere and especially in Third World countries, where the interest of the Western world would be at stake.
As far as Europe, the principal theatre of confrontation between East and West, is concerned, we are in a position today to reply to this question with more confidence than we were a year ago. This is not due so much to a lack of tension in Europe, but rather to the fact that at least the political
North-South Relations
consultation process within the NATO allies has greatly improved to meet the challenges of the future. The willingness of the allies to develop a concerted strategy to deal with East-West relations in Europe has increased. The policy of reinforcing NATO defence preparedness, while proposing again to the Soviet Union to negotiate the arms limitation agreements, is supported by the whole organization, as confirmed by a recent meeting of NATO ministers. Thus, NATO remains an indispensable instrument to the maintenance of cohesion and strength which ensure stability and balance in Europe, which is clearly in the interest of the West. And the Soviet Union, in spite of its open criticism of the organization, would undoubtedly concede that stability and balance in Europe rank among its higher priorities.
It is more difficult, Madam Speaker, to feel confident about emergency arrangements made for situations that arise outside Europe. Neither East nor West is on its own territory there. The rules of the game have not been established. While a few firm lines have been drawn, such as in the Gulf area, the situation remains ambiguous, and this ambiguity can be dangerous. Western leaders must continue to ask themselves what is the best way to protect western interests in these areas while respecting the sovereignty of the countries involved. East and West must try to redefine a mutually acceptable code of behaviour for international relationships, but before this can be done, an answer must be found to the crisis in Afghanistan, whose invasion goes against everything that the western world as well as the Third World consider acceptable.
The Ottawa Summit should provide the opportunity for western leaders to bring into line their general views on this matter. This is undeniably a concern which should come foremost on the agenda of any meeting on international affairs. The prospect of a new arms race when billions of people are starving to death is truly shocking. If we decided to use for peaceful purposes the amounts we spend in two weeks for military purposes, we could provide drinking water and basic health care to the population of the entire world. However, people feel the need for even more protection, and an increase in our military spending to offset the increased amounts allocated to armament by the U.S.S.R. seems inevitable for the moment. It is up to the western world to find an answer to this serious problem, if possible in consultation with the Soviet Union.
Moreover, SALT negotiations should resume as soon as both parties have enough confidence in each other to conduct such talks effectively, and I must say that the sooner, the better. Putting an end to the nuclear arms race involves tremendous difficulties. However, the Government of Canada still believes that as discouraging as these difficulties might be and as small as any immediate chance of progress might seem, the superpowers must be urged to reflect with all due gravity on the consequences of a resumption of nuclear escalation. The government still firmly believes that the nuclear arms race

June 15, 1981
North-South Relations
must be stopped and reversed, and that a new balance must be sought to increasingly lower arms levels. The stifling strategy which I suggested at the first special session of the UN on disarmament in 1978 remains valid in this regard. Nothing has occurred in the meantime to weaken my convictions on this point.
The Canadian nuclear safety policy, revised in 1974 and 1976, sets high standards. However, we apply it pragmatically in a spirit of respect for the sovereignty and sensibilities of our partners in the nuclear field. We shall continue to refine this policy so as to develop an effective national system of nonproliferation and guarantee as much as possible that Canadian nuclear exports do not contribute to nuclear proliferation.
I have spoken about the global macro-economic situation, which affects all our lives, and about the decline in the state of East-West relations, which also affects us all. Less understood is the potential impact of North-South tensions on Canada and other industrialized countries and the need to give priority to the management of that latent crisis.
The first step should be to understand what we mean when we refer to the North and to the South. One can legitimately question whether there is a distinct North and a distinct South in every sense. Within the Third World there are as many differences as in the world itself. From the outset it needs to be emphasized that the South is not a homogeneous group of countries. It contains countries with the highest per capita income in the world and those with the lowest, countries with the fastest growth and those suffering negative growth, countries with the world's biggest financial surpluses and those with the greatest deficits, countries with abundant natural resources and those with none and countries with sophisticated, modern industrial economies and those with rudimentary, tribal, agricultural societies.
Yet the South is not a myth. It is a group of countries, most of them former colonies, held together by a shared perception of their status in relation to the rest of tjie world. In their view, solidarity among themselves is the way to exert countervailing power against the weight of the industrial North. Their vision of a new international economic order proceeds from their common view that the old rules have nor permitted equal opportunity or an equitable sharing of the fruits of effort.
They are right. Justice is on their side. But even if we were not moved by justice, common sense and self-interest should tell us that if we want growing markets for our products, an orderly global economy and peace in the world, we should support reform. We should enhance the growth of opportunities of the South, selecting the best bilateral and multilateral techniques to do the job. That effort should include a process of global negotiations.
The picture today is not one of unremitting gloom. Since World War II living standards in many Third World countries have improved dramatically. New economic power centres are
emerging. The newly industrialized countries must find the markets and the means to permit them to develop.
Some countries of the South are growing stronger every day. Let us help them grow. But there are other countries, the poorest of the poor, which are struggling just to survive. Their situation will be critical for as far ahead as the eye can see. Eight hundred million people live on the margin of human existence. They live with overwhelming deprivation, with despair and in a state of perpetual crisis. The management of this crisis is a test of both the humanity and the credibility of governments in both North and South.
The best tool with which to help the poorest is outright aid. We have to assist them to develop the potential to feed themselves and provide for other fundamental needs like health and shelter. It is a ghastly cynicism which pretends that international co-operation cannot bring these lives closer to minimum standards of human dignity.
The overwhelming fact which governments must face is that international aid efforts are inadequate. The gap between rich and poor is not closing but opening wider, in spite of everything that has been done.
The Canadian aid record can be improved and is being improved. My government is committed to that. But I do point out that we have made a lot of progress since the sixties. Our efforts have done a lot of good, and we have won ourselves solid friends in the world. In Canada and throughout the developed world there is a need for even greater public involvement-not just through round table discussions among the knowledgeable and already involved, but in communities and schools-so that growing public support will encourage governments to do more and to do it better.
I firmly believe that the world can and must grow enough food, provide clean water, decent housing, health care and real hope for all its people. It can be done, but it will require a gigantic effort. That is the message of the Brandt commission, reflected eloquently in the report of our parliamentary task force on North-South relations. I congratulate the chairman of that task force, the hon. member for Gloucester (Mr. Breau)-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and the members of all the parties in this House who contributed to that most compelling report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Its message is one which the government can endorse and support.
I believe that despite bleak political prospects for greatly increased aid flows from the recession-prone North, reason will prevail and a major assault on world poverty can still be launched in earnest.
The need to assist the poorest is one emphasis of Canada's efforts in international co-operation. But the primary need of those countries with growing export potential is, as the slogan says, "trade, not aid". These are the countries which are
June 15, 1981

arguing that the world's economic structures work inherently to their perpetual disadvantage. The process which is required to redress their grievances involves the sharing of power, not power in the classical sense of armies and empires but in the sense of access to the means of development. Gaining that kind of power means gaining access to the international institutions where the decision-making process should take greater account of developing countries' specific difficulties: access to international capital markets, greater security in commodity prices and access to technological skills and to markets for manufactured products.
Other specific and urgent needs will require the concentrated attention of governments as well. Energy and agriculture are priorities because of the severity of the impact of energy costs on oil-importing developing countries and because of the danger of food production not being able to keep up with population growth.
I do not expect a sudden breakthrough toward solutions in the series of important international meetings scheduled for the coming months, but I do expect a better political focus on the major priorities. I do not expect that the world's sense of crisis will be entirely eased by whatever collective response we make to the problems of development; but I do think that the basic economic causes of instability in the Third World can be successfully attacked through a co-operative international management effort.
I have spoken of Canada's role and purposes in world affairs. I have spoken particularly of the compelling need for progress in North-South relations. I have placed the issues involved in the context of the need for the international community to mobilize itself to manage crises more effectively. The summit meeting in Ottawa in July will have a particular importance in determining our collective ability to deal with the problems I have described.
Those are the issues that I wanted to discuss in the consultations I have undertaken in the last several months with the leaders of some key developing countries. I considered it important that the views of major nations such as Brazil, Mexico, Saudi Arabia, Algeria, Nigeria and others I have visited, be taken into account by the summit leaders. I am very conscious of the Canadian role and interest in these matters. Canada alone cannot come up with viable solutions. But we can contribute to them. Moreover, we need to strengthen relationships with a variety of countries whose interests in economic development correspond to our own. These include the countries I have visited.
For Canadians, the state of the world is of deep importance, and not least because a healthy international environment is vital to Canadian economic growth. We need stronger economic links not only with developing countries but also with our summit partners. Fundamentally, it is these economic partnerships which will stimulate the pace of development, both here and abroad.
North-South Relations
I have not covered all aspects of our foreign policy, Madam Speaker. Many other vital Canadian concerns will be addressed by my colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. McGuigan), later in this debate and by other members sitting on this side of the chamber. I have sought to focus the attention of the House on those areas of crisis and of opportunity where the most basic interests of our people, as human beings and as Canadians, are at stake. I have done so with confidence that Canada will rise to the challenge of our times, and in so doing will contribute to justice, stability and peace in this still wonderful world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Miss Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I am very pleased today to be able to take part in this critical and important debate, and I say to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) at the outset that I appreciate his sharing with us the plans and preparations for the summit meeting to be held next month. I listened with care to his discussion of the management of crises and the management of change and how they apply to both East-West and North-South relations. I had hoped, however, that perhaps he would have been more specific in dealing with the responses that Canada would offer to certain of those crises which now confront us, and as a result I shall be raising questions which I feel have not been adequately dealt with.
As we try, Mr. Speaker, to grapple with the broad sweep of Canada's relations with other states, it is striking that this government has provided no comprehensive statement of policy to give direction to or to increase the understanding of Canadians. As welcome as this debate, no single speech or series of speeches can substitute for the evaluation in a comprehensive way of what our foreign policy is.
The last white paper on defence was exactly ten years ago. Indeed, the last comprehensive review of foreign policy was more than ten years ago and it is now entirely irrelevant to the conditions of international politics. The last aid strategy paper was for the years 1975 to 1980, and in the absence of any successor document must we assume that there is no strategy for aid for 1980 to 1985?
I am therefore delighted, Sir, to see that one of the recommendations of the North-South task force is that the government carry out, and I quote:
-comprehensive evaluations of the impact of its policies on developing countries.
Now, I would say, Sir, that we should go further than that and suggest that we also require a comprehensive evaluation of the over-all direction of our foreign policy, the kind of evaluation we have not had in the past ten years. That evaluation, when completed, should be submitted for debate to the Canadian Parliament.
Let us be clear what the central issue before us is. We have entered into a decade which will be marked by great transformations in international politics and in our foreign policy. I would like to think that, with the decade of the 1970s behind

June 15, 1981
North-South Relations
us, the inward-looking defensive attitudes that characterized Canadian foreign policy in that period are also behind us. [Translation]
How unfortunate it would be if we do not have new ideas or new policies to meet the challenges facing us in matters of international policy, and if we always have the consensus of the western countries before acting to solve international problems. In some cases, we should try to act as a responsible member of the western alliance, that is, as a member who can be depended upon. In other cases, we must be willing to act on our own initiative and, as the task force indicated, in keeping with our well-established tradition of contribution and leadership in world affairs.

Let me turn first, Mr. Speaker, to some basic considerations about our role in NATO, although this will be dealt with in more detail by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon). It is clearly true, Sir, that at the heart of our foreign policy is the commitment to the collective defence of the western industrialized democracies. During the past decade, after a rather shaky start Canada has reconfirmed its commitment to NATO and bilateral defence arrangements with the United States. After considerable political and diplomatic effort, we have also found our place in the highest council of the West, the economic summit of the leading international states. These are vitally important undertakings. I accept without reservation that we must play an appropriate part in collective defence, and that we cannot influence our friends if they believe that we are failing to do our fair share.
The government of which I was a part made it clear to our NATO partners that Canada could be counted on to re-equip and strengthen Canadian forces in Europe and to make our contribution to joint endeavours such as the airborne early warning system. While I accept the importance of these obligations, I wonder now to what use we are putting our membership in the alliance. Surely it is not enough to lie low and always wait for consensus of the other nations to emerge. Yet that seems to be the policy of the present government. Where do we stand, for example, on questions of arms negotiations with the Soviet Union? The Prime Minister dealt with this in part but not in specific detail.
I would like to know what suggestions Canada has to offer which might further the success of that enterprise. What is our response to the Soviet build-up of forces in central Europe; and, I ask how do we intend to play our part in the western commitment announced at the recent NATO meeting to require restraint and reciprocity on the part of the Soviet Union?
Imposing some restraint on the Soviet Union has never been more necessary than at present in regard to Poland. The ominous Soviet moves in the last week have once again underlined the gravity of the situation. Nothing is more threatening to the process and future of detente. It is therefore incumbent upon us to persuade the Soviet Union, in every way open to us, to refrain from an attack upon Poland.
Poland is a signatory to the Helsinki declaration on which we have placed so much emphasis in our foreign policy toward eastern European countries. It will not be enough to condemn mildly a Soviet invasion after it occurs, as happened in the case of Afghanistan. The NATO allies must individually and collectively use every instrument and every channel of diplomacy to induce restraint on the part of the Soviet Union. Our wish is that the Poles be allowed the possibility of determining their own political future.
Unhappily, the post-war history of Europe has seen the acceptance of a Soviet sphere of influence in eastern Europe. But this cannot mean that we are indifferent to the fate of Poland; nor is it the case that we are without influence on the Soviet Union.
What we require is a collective allied determination to exert that influence to the utmost, so that we help preserve the limited freedom of action which the Poles have struggled so hard to achieve. We should not believe we can achieve that only through quiet diplomacy. It requires the expression of open public concern, and that has been in short supply from this government.
While we do our part to help the people of central Europe, we should also remember that we have an overriding interest in the pursuit of arms control and disarmament. What has happened to the government's initiative on disarmament announced in the Speech from the Throne? Yes, we have an ambassador for disarmament, but what opportunities has he been given to advance new policies or to publicize the issues?
Over the years I have been impressed by the number of committed, serious analysts of foreign policy who have come to the belief that dramatic steps must be taken to curb the growth of the arms race. Most recently, in an article in the Wall Steet Journal, George Kennan, the most distinguished of American analysts, pleaded for a new approach to the problem of controlling nuclear weapons. He asked us to put aside the fine points and technical arguments which invariably lead to the demand for more weapons. He suggested that the United States should approach the Soviet Union and, in all sanity, seek out the common interest in reducing the destructive power of nuclear arsenals.
Where once, in the 1950s, several hundred nuclear weapons were thought to constitute a massive deterrent, it is now the case that thousands of warheads are deployed by both superpowers. Thousands more are being built, and still both superpowers are apparently insecure and uncertain about their own capabilities and, indeed, the capabilities and intentions of the other side.
It is clear that some within the Reagan administration in Washington would like to see arms control policies delayed, but that is no reason for us to abandon the task as well. Indeed, it places a greater obligation upon us to seek out new policies and to keep interest alive in what is ultimately the most fundamental task ahead of us.
June 15, 1981

What I look for, then, is not the weary observation that arms control measures will be unfashionable for the next four years, but rather some greater commitment of resources and interest by the Canadian government which will focus attention on this politically catastrophic situation. It is not an issue which can be ignored. If the superpowers want to ignore it, then our task may well be to insist, through the strength of our ideas, that they return to it.
Let me now turn to the related problem of regional instability. At the recent NATO council meeting it was agreed that the NATO members would co-operate and consult in regard to matters of regional instability outside the NATO area, but there would not be a formal extension of NATO's area of responsibility. This leaves us squarely with the decision as to how we Canadians intend to respond to problems of regional instability. Canadians should be aware how directly important to Canada is this question.
We are now seen by others as a country with an energy exporting potential-that is, if the National Energy Program does not fritter away our potential. Since crucial problems of regional instability involve the disruption of energy supplies, it is clearly the case that no serious international conflict will be without repercussions in the country.
The prospect of such international conflicts are great. It goes without saying that they exist in the Persian Gulf and the Middle East; they exist in Africa, where there could be increased military intervention by regional and outside powers. As recent experience has indicated, we know that they exist in the Caribbean and Central America, where the issues come a good deal closer to home for Canadians. How are we to contribute to the stability of such regions? In regard to the Middle East, it is surely important that we do not follow the American lead without carefully considering alternative strategies.
What is the government's position-and it has not been spelled out-in regard to the American-sponsored force in the Sinai? it is time to recognize that our distinguished long service with United Nations peacekeeping missions earned us enormous good will around the world. Before we ignore that tradition and participate in an American selected force for the Sinai, we should ensure that every means to bring the force under the auspices of the United Nations has been exhausted. Has the government done that? If so, let it explain what it has done and what is the present position. And let us in the process reaffirm a fundamental commitment to the peace and security responsibilities of the United Nations.
In other regions we must recognize that there may be a serious conflict between the security interests of the United States and the economic and social development of the region.
For example, in the Caribbean, in Central America and in Africa, the United States has served notice that it sees the Soviet Union as an interventionist power and intends to oppose populist movements on the grounds that they are sponsored by the Soviet Union or other outside powers. Here is yet another case where it will be vital for Canada to determine its own interests and its own interpretation of events. If we have the
North-South Relations
capabilities to help stabilize a region or a friendly country, then on what grounds will we choose to exercise those capabilities? We have not even begun to debate that question in Canada.
At a recent meeting with President Reagan, President Lopez Portillo of Mexico indicated that on a range of issues Mexico was anxious to co-operate with the United States, but that in respect to other matters, particularly those involving the interpretation of political and social developments in Central America, Mexico disagreed with Washington and intended to pursue its own policies. Canada should be no less determined to pursue its own foreign policy in that region.
Why is it so difficult for us to indicate our areas of disagreement and to take appropriate action in pursuit of our own views and interests? The recent and continuing case of El Salvador is surely to the point. We see an ongoing story of violence, assassination, and the all too familiar flow of political refugees into neighbouring states.
Are we really without the means to judge the causes of this problem? When this question was debated in the House earlier this year, members on this side impressed on the government that the basic problem was not one of intervention by the Soviet Union, but rather a class conflict rooted in the extreme inequalities of the El Salvadorean society, inequalities which the military junta is only too willing to accept and protect. In the past we have been involved in helping to absorb and relocate large numbers of refugees from societies fraught with conflict similar to that found in Central America today. Can we really then say that the situation in El Salvador is irrelevant to us? I regret to say that the response of this government to the plight of the El Salvadoreans, and to the situation in Central America, has been timid and grossly inadequate.
Regional instability has yet another aspect which has been brought home to us in the last week in a truly historic and startling manner. The Israeli attack upon the nuclear reactor in Iraq is the clearest evidence yet that nuclear proliferation is a potentially catastrophic development on this planet. We do not need to determine the rights and wrongs of that particular situation to understand that, for the first time, one state has judged that its security requires a military attack upon the nuclear installations of another. Other states will now surely follow suit. Without a doubt, we have crossed a threshold in nuclear proliferation. The spectre that the spread of nuclear technology hastens the incidence of nuclear war is clear for all to see. I want to repeat and underline that the spectre that the spread of nuclear technology hastens the incidence of nuclear war is now clear for all to see.
As a nuclear exporting state, Canada has an overwhelming responsibility to take whatever steps are necessary and possible to control the spread of nuclear weapons technology. For many years I have been a strong advocate of stringent safeguards on the sale of nuclear technology. Nothing short of a dramatic effort by the United States involved in the sale of nuclear processes will now bring this problem under control.

June 15, 1981
North-South Relations
The two states that sold nuclear technology to Iraq, France and Italy, are participating members of the summit in Ottawa next month. That summit will bring together the leading exporters of nuclear technology. Could there be any more appropriate subject for discussion at the summit than the problem of nuclear proliferation? We must assume collective responsibility for this problem. If we cannot use summit meetings to stress the urgency of a response to this potential disaster, then it is hard to know what the utility of these meetings can be.
There is a stark choice before us, and it is this: Are commercial interests and competition to win the day, or will we co-operate in an effort to control nuclear proliferation? Indeed, we shall watch with a sense of concern and urgency to see if the summiteers confront this situation.
In discussing international conflict I have not so far raised the question of human rights. But the plight of political refugees in Central America and elsewhere in the world raises this next area of concern about our foreign policy.

Less than two years ago, we had to face the massive arrival of Indo-Chinese refugees. They became an enormous challenge for Canada which had to live up to its international reputation of a country sympathetic to the refugee problems. I am pleased to say that all levels of government acted with generosity and openness. However, it should be acknowledged that such events put our resources and organizations to the test. Consequently, we should entirely review our policy on human rights as well as our capacity to respond to emergencies involving refugees.

For example, at the national level we should now be considering ways to monitor more closely situations of instability and of human rights violations, having in mind, among other things, their potential for generating massive refugee movements. We should also consider whether our resettlement plans are sufficiently flexible to allow the forward planning necessary to deal with the nature and scope of the problems likely to arise. And as we consider our capability in this regard, we should also be examining the co-operation of governmental and private groups, for it is clear from the experience that we have had, that the support of private groups is essential to the successful relocation of refugees. Those are things we can do at the national level.
At the international level we should recognize that the United Nations covenant on human rights, drawn up in 1951, is now quite inadequate. Indeed, the very definition of a refugee is no longer pertinent when it does not apply to the displaced Thais or fear-ridden Cambodians who are internal refugees in their own countries. As I argued in my speech to the 34th session of the General Assembly, the United Nations must find better, more certain ways to deal with gross violations of human rights, no matter where they happen.
We must be able to take effective action immediately, not years after the abuses occur. And to achieve this, it must be
recognized that wholesale abuses are not now the unfortunate byproduct of a war situation, but, with disturbing frequency, are used as a deliberate instrument of government policy, as in Kampuchea, Viet Nam and Uganda.
A corollary need, Mr. Speaker, is to establish both national and international agencies to monitor the distressingly large number of disappearances of individuals in the world. A knowledge of these disappearances is the essential prerequisite if the governments responsible are to be held accountable. Only a major collaborative effort will permit pressure to be brought to bear to prevent these large-scale assassinations.
Moreover, as we examine the role of human rights in our foreign policy, it will again be necessary for us to understand that our policy may not be compatible with that of the United States. Surely no one can have missed the thrust of President Reagan's policy on human rights. As we have seen in the last few days, there was an attempt to obtain Senate approval for the appointment of Ernest Lafever as assistant state secretary for human rights, a man who is on record as favouring a two-side approach to human rights. His idea is to criticize and condemn publicly all Soviet left-wing violations of human rights, but to use quiet diplomacy with those right-wing governments which are guilty of violations.
We must reinforce and let it be known that a cornerstone of Canadian foreign policy, declared and open, is that human rights are human rights. Let us monitor the violations and raise our voice in protest against them with scrupulous fairness and with total indifference to the political nature of the government which practices the violations.
The resolution before us today also asks us to endorse the broad thrust of the North-South task force. I do not intend to dwell at length on this important question, for my colleague, the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche), who was a member of the task force, and, indeed, its co-chairman, will take it up at greater length later in the debate. But in light of the comments that I have made on the need for clear initiatives in foreign policy, I think it is important to note that what we need is not simply agreement with the broad thrust of the task force report, but commitment to those recommendations the government has accepted and which will be elaborated upon later in this debate.
We all understand the severe difficulties that are involved in any partial restructuring of our national economy and of the international economy to meet the needs of Third World countries. But it is also clear that in the decade to come we have an absolute obligation to make this effort.
For the very poorest countries, who are becoming progressively poorer, we need to make greater efforts to provide them with minimal economic security and with the capital transfers that are a prerequisite to their economic development.
To those Third World countries who are successfully developing, the newly industrialized countries, we in the North need to show imagination and courage in finding the trade relationships which will be to our mutual advantage. For this
June 15, 1981

will lead not only to mutual economic improvement but to the enrichment of our social and cultural life.
I am pleased the government intends to place North-South issues on the agenda of the summit. But I must also register my dismay that it has taken it so long to express its concern for this issue. After all, it has been on the international agenda, at least on the agenda of those countries of the South, during the whole of the tenure of the present Prime Minister. His recognition of this issue, though belated, is welcome.
However, it is not sufficient-and I say this is all seriousness-that the travel to Lagos, Brasilia, and Algiers to address this question, important though those visits are. When has he explained it to the steelworker in Hamilton, or the housewife in Regina, or the textile worker in Shawinigan? The greatest selling job needs to be done here at home, a task largely ignored to date.
By choosing to make North-South issues one of the focal points of our foreign policy in the decade to come, we will be taking a large step to define the areas in which we intend to concentrate our efforts. In my comments today I have sought to point to some of those areas. It should be clear that our foreign policy cannot simply be a series of well-intentioned, high-minded actions. We must protect our economic and security interests by close co-operation with our like-minded allies in western Europe and North America. We must be sure that we take the appropriate steps to play our part in those allied activities which establish the common purpose and common interests of the West.
On the other hand, each state, however much committed to the alliance, must be free to analyse and respond to the great issues of international politics which lie ahead. Each member of the alliance must be free to choose the areas in which it will take the lead and implement fresh ideas.
Today I have tried to suggest the directions Canada should take. We must ensure that a clear and persistent voice is heard in support of the ultimate objective of arms control in reducing the prospect of the resort to nuclear weapons. We should be willing to lead the way in order to achieve a more effective control over the spread of nuclear weapons through the exploitation of civilian nuclear technology.
I have suggested that we have a traditional interest in human rights that we must apply without favour to all states- yes, including ourselves. And with others, I am enthusiastically in favour of initiatives and long-term policies which will reduce the gap between the rich and poor nations of the world. In emphasizing these initiatives, I do not ignore or disregard the importance of our military contributions to western European and North American defence, or to the protection of our own national interests.
But if we also allow ourselves the opportunity to pursue internationalist policies, then we will not only be returning to an honourable tradition in Canadian foreign policy but will be creating the grounds for popular support of foreign policy, even, perhaps, evoking the admiration of other states.
North-South Relations
I want to quote from the task force report, Mr. Speaker, as follows:
Leadership cannot come from governments alone. It must flow from, must involve all Canadians. The challenge of international co-operation must enter our every-day concerns.
I fully support that view and the parallel recommendation that Parliament be given a continuing mandate to play an active role in overseeing and evaluating foreign policy. The time when foreign policy could be left to the dictates of anonymous bureaucrats is long since past. The success of policy now depends on the co-operation and support of many individuals and private groups. That was the approach I tried to take as minister when I initiated the review of foreign policy through the parliamentary process.
As the task force has so well shown, Canadians, as individuals and groups, have found a forum for their views in presenting evidence to the committees of Parliament. As with the sub-committee on Latin America, Mr. Speaker, I hope to see that process continue and become as an essential element in the renewal of our foreign policy.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I was indeed glad that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) opened the debate today, the second debate we have had in the past decade in this House on foreign policy. It is only the second. I was very sorry indeed that he did not give to the subject matter the same kind of rigorous thought and attention that he clearly gave to an earlier speech in this House on the Constitution. I do not think that is because the Prime Minister is not interested in foreign policy; I think he is. It is probably because he has not yet decided, nor has the government decided, what route they would like Canada to go. I am sure everyone in the Department of External Affairs would have been as grateful as I had we had something more than vague generalities from the Prime Minister today, whether he was talking about the East-West, the North-South, or a combination of the two, in Canadian foreign policy.
I was particularly distressed, as I was when listening to the hon. member for Kingston and the Island (Miss MacDonald), by the tendency of both the governing party and the official opposition to talk a good line but to do nothing in practice, whether talking about the arms race and our complicity in it, or about the North-South and the absence of any improvement in our own aid policies and assistance policies generally, over the past decade.
I want to say a further word or two about this lest the public be under the impression that both the government and the Conservative party, when it was the government, have policies that are concretely addressed, not to trying to find some agreement in some major council but, to what Canada should be doing explicitly.
I will start with the arms race. It is all very well to say that we do not allow nuclear arms on our territory, although there are still some available at Comox. The Prime Minister reiterates this. Every time we ask a question on the neutron bomb, first strike capacities or the Cruise or Pershing II missiles, he

June 15, 1981
North-South Relations
says, "We don't allow them on Canadian soil." That is very true. We do not export nuclear technology unless it falls within very rigid safeguards.
But fact is that we are up to our ears in arms weapons technology and in arms sales. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) excuses this by saying that most of it goes to the United States. As if that made the difference. It is as if the nuclear weapons technology produced by Litton Industries in Toronto, for example, for the guidance system of the Cruise missile is okay because it is going to the United States. Indeed, I expect that some of our uranium and other sales are going to the Soviet Union as well.
In committee I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether or not he was concerned about the horrendous increases in the U.S. military budget. His answer to my question was no. If we turn to page 36:37 for April 2, the secretary of state is reported as saying:
With respect to American increases in their arms budget, I do not really think that is any affair of ours-
Except as it might affect their development assistance. We, and by we I mean the government-and the Conservatives when they were in power-have allowed Canada to be totally involved in the nuclear arms race. They say we are not, but we are, whether it is in the development of the new theatre nuclear weapons in Europe, which they condone, whether it is in the possible development and deployment of a neutron bomb, which they condone, or whether it is selling parts for the new Cruise missile system, which they encourage. In fact, the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is anxious to get us even more deeply involved in arms production and arms sales. Yet we have the nerve to say that we are a non-nuclear power.
I do not take the Prime Minister very seriously when he talks about the initiatives he will take to try to bring about arms control talks, arms limitation and arms reduction, when we ourselves are so very deeply involved. Furthermore, I do not think the rest of the world, and I include many democratic-socialist parties in the Third World and elsewhere, is going to take Canada very seriously or does take Canada very seriously when the Prime Minister goes on, as he did today, about the arms race continuing while billions are suffering, while we are so involved and so complicit in that very arms race. The hyprocrisy of the Canadian government's position is unbelievable.
At least the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) did suggest in her speech that we should be paying more attention to restraints on nuclear weapons development. I know the Conservatives were in power for only a short time, but I saw no evidence of restraint during that period. I remember asking the hon. member when she was minister whether Canada, in the councils of NATO, would join other smaller countries in Europe and protest the possible deployment of the Cruise and Persking II missiles. She answered no, that Canada would not be joining other smaller
nations in protesting those first strike weapons going into the nuclear arsenal in Europe. We have watched and we have stood by while the nuclearization of western Europe has been going on all these years. We talk a good fight, but our actions are entirely different.
What might we do? I thought about this many times during the hearings of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. First, we could try to have some influence in those military alliances to which we belong, namely NATO and NORAD. As far as I can see, we have not tried. We do not want to try because we are so deeply involved in the nuclear strategies that we are supposed to deplore. We could, lacking any wish or ability to influence those councils, be honest with the people of this country and with other people who look to us and believe, or want to believe, what we say. We could be honest and unalign ourselves from great power dominated military alliances if we really wanted to behave as we say we want to. We could do that.
Every now and again the Prime Minister has suggested that perhaps we could contribute less to NATO. He has, with a sort of small effort, said that if we give a little less, then we will not be so involved or we will not be seen to be so involved. That is a sort of back-door approach. That does not seem to be the case any more. Perhaps it is time for Canada and the other parties to look seriously at whether or not the nuclear holocaust, which we all know perfectly well may be upon us, will be prevented if we as Canadians dissociate ourselves from the great powers that are going to take us into this nuclear holocaust. We should join other like-minded nations and peoples in a genuine peace race. We should get out of the arms race.


Walter David Baker: Is it your policy to withdraw from NATO?


Pauline Jewett: Yes, it is. If the other parties, the government and the opposition, are not prepared to take the kind of action which would give meaning to their words, then I wish and hope they would stop spouting the words.
The same is true in many respects when we turn to other aspects of the government's foreign policy. The government talks a good deal about the importance of human rights and political freedoms in the Third World as well as in the industrialized world. The government, and particularly the Secretary of State for External Affairs, seems to have swallowed completely the argument that the conflict in El Salvador is part of a Russian conspiracy. Without any question, he has followed the U.S. white paper. I am sure he will be interested to know that the Wall Street Journal for Monday, June 8, has pretty well demolished the so-called white paper on reds in El Salvador. He literally pulled his forelock over whatever General Haig said about El Salvador when he was here. He persuaded the Americans we could be taken for granted about their particular approach to Central America. So much so that the other day the U.S. Secretary of State announced that an alliance of Mexico, Canada and the United States had been formed on Latin American affairs, focusing on the communist
June 15, 1981

and Cuban influence in El Salvador and the Caribbean, without our Secretary of State for External Affairs even knowing that there was an alliance.
We have shown quite properly the government's approach to El Salvador. I believe "quiet acquiescence" was the minister's description of his attitude toward U.S. arms shipments there. That once again belies the words of the government on other occasions when it was concerned, as the Prime Minister was again today, with human rights and political freedoms everywhere.
We have seen the government again talk a good talk about North-South. It may well be that the Prime Minister will take some initiatives at the summit on this matter. However, in his speech today he did not address any of the tough questions that Canada will have to face if we are going to do more than pay lip service in helping to resolve some of the problems of the developing world.
The Prime Minister did not suggest that if Third, Fourth and Fifth World nations are going to participate more in the new international economic order, this will involve a fundamental restructuring of the Canadian economy. Maybe he is waiting for some other country to suggest that there will have to be some restructuring. I am sure he knows that if we are actually going to have a new world economic order this will require substantial change in our own industrial structure. Very important measures will have to be taken and thought through now to offset the disruptions that they involve. He never mentioned them at all. If you do not realize what the implications are, talk about them and plan for them, you are giving lip service and nothing more to the restructuring of the world economy, to providing greater benefits and opportunities to the have-nots.
Nor did he say anything about the role of the multinationals in the Third World, a role even worse in many respects than their role here, which is bad enough. Multinationals operate in their own self-interest, moving capital from country to country where they think it would be most advantageous to do so, leaving communities and labour forces abandoned. An unfettered right to operate is what they ask for and what they get. They export what they think the western economies need from the Third World, not focusing on the food and agricultural needs of the Third World countries but on what they think the export markets need and want in the industrialized world.
The great power of the multinationals in the Third World, which I am sure some hon. members have read about, particularly in the book "Global Reach", was never addressed. I doubt very much if it will be at the summit either, unless Franfois Mitterrand has something to say about it. However, our Prime Minister has not. In my view, it is a key to our making something more than rhetoric out of the North-South dialogue, to start thinking now of home-based and international controls on the operations of the multinationals in the Third World.
North-South Relations
Did the Prime Minister say anything about another incredibly important and urgent matter in the Third World, the position of women? Perhaps I should not be surprised. He has not said very much about the position of women in Canada.


Mr. Dupras:: Oh, come on!


Pauline Jewett: Well, he is getting better.


An hon. Member:: He has been overgenerous.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bob Rae: You have just said that he has been overgenerous. That will be on the record.


Pauline Jewett: He has not said a word about the role of women in the rural economy of developing countries. When the Prime Minister was talking about human rights, he mentioned in addition to political freedom the freedom of the market. If he has the view that the North-South relationship can be developed, improved, and made meaningful by relying on the freedom of the market, it just will not happen. It will not happen for the rural woman, it will not happen for any of the Third World, particularly the poor in the Third World.
I believe it is important not only for Canadians but our government officials, particularly those in external affairs, to know what direction the government is going in foreign policy, and above all in matters of war and peace, poverty or wellbeing, human freedom or despotism.
Canada must have a consistent policy and it must apply it consistently. That means it does not fool around trading with Chile, providing export development credits there. It does not fool around by saying that the Nicaraguan government may not be quite as good as the Somozan government. It does not fool around by wondering if there is going to be a better buck or deal in one part of the Third World than another. If Canada is going to have a clear, coherent and consistent policy, it must stop just talking peace and war, human liberty, the developing world, and start putting its policies and approaches in those directions. As my colleague says, it should put its actions where its mouth is.
I want to emphasize, although it has been mentioned once this afternoon, an initiative that the Government of Canada might take. There are many I have suggested it could do on its own to become a more independent, respected, powerful and influential nation, but the initiative that was proposed by George Kennan in his acceptance speech on receiving the Albert Einstein peace prize in Washington on May 19 bears repeating. I read of this in the Manchester Guardian Weekly of May 31. The article was entitled "The only way out of the nuclear nightmare".
I would like to quote from this article at some length because it might not otherwise appear on the record and because it comes from a most distinguished American and may have an influence with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who has been influenced out of all proportion by another American, General Haig.

June 15, 1981
North-South Relations
George Kennan talks about the stockpile of nuclear weapons, how it has proceeded steadily, relentlessly, without the faintest regard for all of the warning voices, with the result today that we have achieved in the creation of these devices- and by "we" he means the Russians and the Americans-and their means of delivery, "levels of redundancy of such grotesque dimensions as to defy rational understanding". He continued:
I say redundancy, I know of no better way to describe it. But actually, the word is too mild. It implies that there could be levels of these weapons that would not be redundant. Personally, I doubt that there could. I question whether these devices are really weapons at all.
Later he states:
To my mind, the nuclear bomb is the most useless weapon ever invented. It can be employed to no rational purpose. It is not even an effective defence against itself. It is only something with which, in a moment of petulance or panic, you commit such fearful acts of destruction as no sane person would ever wish to have upon his conscience.
Then he goes on:
There are those who will agree, with a sigh, to much of what I have just said, but will point to the need for something called deterrence. This is, of course, a concept which attibutes to others ... the most fiendish and inhuman of tendencies. But all right: accepting for the sake of argument the profound iniquity of these adversaries, no one could deny, I think, that the present Soviet and American arsenals, presenting over a million times the destructive power of the Hiroshima bomb, are simply fantastically redundant to the purpose in question.
He goes on:
How have we got ourselves into this dangerous mess? Let us not confuse the question by blaming it all on our Soviet adversaries. They have, of course, their share of the blame... But we must remember that it has been we Americans who, at almost every step of the road, have taken the lead in the development of this sort of weaponry. It was we who first produced and tested such a device; we who were the first to raise its destructiveness to a new level with the hydrogen bomb; we who introduced the multiple warhead; we who have declined every proposal for the renunciation of the principle of "first use"; and we alone... who have used the weapon in anger against others, and against tens of thousands of helpless non-combatants at that.
That quotation from George Kennan I do believe is worthy of our serious consideration when we look to the possibility of Canada, and like-minded peoples and nations who want to see an end to the nuclear nightmare, operating much more independently of the great powers than we do now, powers that are so intimately involved in the nuclear nightmare. This might give us much greater leverage in promoting the really radical answer that Kennan is proposing. Kennan does not propose, by the way, just a continuation of SALT II and III. He sees them, indeed, as very limited. Indeed, SALT II is almost part of the problem. He says:
-I have ... no illusion that negotiations of the SALT pattern ... could ever be adequate to get us out of this hole. They are not a way of escape from the weapons race, they are an integral part of it.
He goes on to state:
I can see no way out of this dilemma other than by a bold and sweeping departure-a departure that would cut surgically through the exaggerated anxieties, the self-engendered nightmares, and the sophisticated mathematics of destruction, in which we have all been entangled over these recent years, and would permit us to move, with courage and decision, to the heart of the problem.
What he proposes is that:
-the President... with the Congress ... propose to the Soviet government an immediate across-the-boards reduction by fifty per cent of the nuclear arsenals now being maintained by the two superpowers-a reduction affecting in equal measure all forms of the weapon, strategic, medium range and tactical, as well as all means of their delivery-all this to be implemented at once and without further wrangling among the experts-
He says:
Whether the balance of reduction would be precisely even-whether it could be construed to favour statistically one side or the other-would not be the question. Once we start thinking that way, we would be back on the same old fateful track that has brought us where we are today. Whatever the precise results of such a reduction, there would still be plenty of overkill left-so much so that if this first operation were successful, I would then like to see a second one put in hand to rid us of at least two thirds of what would be left.
I would like to see the Government of Canada proposing that kind of initiative, saying to the people of Canada that we are going to try more seriously, more rigorously and with fewer contradictions in our public statements, to pursue peace, security and justice, not only for ourselves, not only for other industrialized nations but, above all, since without peace there can be no life at all, for the developing world, for all other parts of the world which we want to share a larger place in the world.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. 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 Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn)- Finance-a) Price paid for treasury bills, b) Reasons for price paid; the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid)- Employment-a) Adult academic upgrading at Niagara College. b) Reason for departmental decision; the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly)-Housing- Request for introduction of program with reasonable interest rates.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacGuigan:
June 15, 1981
[Stage Direction]
That this House take note of the present state and future prospects of Canada's international relations and endorse the broad thrust of the report of the Parliamentary Task Force on North-South Relations.
Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has dealt eloquently with the question of instability and poverty in the world; of the need for nations to find ways to improve the conditions of the nearly one billion people on this planet who live on the margin of human existence. At the same time, he has underlined Canada's growing interdependencies with the world.
All Canadians have a huge and growing stake in what happens outside our borders. There is hardly a community in Canada which is not in some way or in some manner affected by developments outside this country. The same could not be said only a few years ago. Our economy and that of the world are now firmly intertwined. Our destiny and that of the world have become inseparable as never before.
The quest for world stability and order takes on an added sense of urgency under the circumstances. It is no longer an abstract concept. We are not simply a fortunate and remote country surrounded by three oceans and occupying one end of an isolated northern land mass. We are a country which is vitally dependent on the world. The ripples resulting from events elsewhere do not stop at our borders. They carry on past and have an impact on all parts of our country.
The world presents a mixture of constraints and opportunities for Canada, as it does for all countries. The realization of our national goals is enhanced or diminished by what happens outside our borders. Growing global interdependence alters the balance of these constraints and opportunities. How world problems are dealt with becomes of vital importance to a country like Canada whose links with and dependency on the rest of the world are great.
Foreign policy can be said to begin in national interests and to end in international action. It is the extension abroad of national policies, as the government stated in its "Foreign Policy for Canadians" in 1970. Even more, it is the expression in the world of our fundamental national values-values such as freedom, democracy, civil liberties, peace, justice and economic and social progress.
To be sure, we have to pursue our national objectives in an international perspective. National aims can no longer be realized in isolation but require international consensus and united action through the principal associations to which we belong-the United Nations and its agencies, NATO, NORAD, the Commonwealth and la francophonie.
This is not the occasion to address conflicts between the national interest and the international good, except to note that the ultimate safeguard is the intrinsic appeal of the common good of all mankind. But Canada has less reason than most countries to anticipate conflicts between its national aims and those of the international community. In fact, from the time of our full emergence as an independent state with the Second World War and well before our present economic interdependence with the rest of the world, internationalism
North-South Relations
has been a trademark of our foreign policy. I believe that almost all Canadans accept it as one of our foremost national values.
The foreign policy review of 1970 divided Canadian values, as applied to foreign policy, into six categories which could thus be treated as the main themes. The events of the 1970s required the review and adjustment of many of the policy directions within that over-all framework. But as a framework for our aspirations, I believe these themes remain valid.
In my view, these themes-fostering economic growth, safeguarding sovereignty and independence, working for peace and security, promoting social justice, enhancing the quality of life and ensuring a harmonious national environment-continue to reflect the aspirations of Canadians and indicate a continuity in Canada's foreign policy goals. The strategies required to realize these goals today are different from the strategies of the seventies. The relative priority of the goals may also differ, but the goals themselves remain.
What sort of world were we facing at the outset of the seventies when that review took place? It was a different world, a world which was, frankly, more hopeful. There was more confidence then about our economies. We believed that money and technology transfers could overcome a number of global problems and advance the development of developing countries. Social programs could easily be expanded both at home and abroad; the disfavoured people in our own societies and the disfavoured countries of the world could be helped simultaneously. The term "oil shock" would have brought a blank stare. We were entering a period of economic expansion on a global scale. The fruits of this expansion would allow progress to be made on a number of fronts. Meaningful disarmament initiatives appeared possible. The Soviet Union appeared to be moving toward greater co-operation with the West.
I do not have to go through a litany of things which altered our views during the seventies. It is not necessary to describe the incredible global impact of two oil shocks and two recessions as well as other developments which diminished the early hopes of the seventies.
However, much was accomplished internationally in the seventies on which we can build in the eighties. The seventies saw a vast increase in international co-operation and the establishment of new frameworks to facilitate international transactions. Increases in trade and human contacts developed on a wider scale than ever before. There were attempts to develop crisis management mechanisms which could lessen threats to the international system in a wide variety of areas.
And the seventies saw a greater degree of stability returned to relations between the European states, particularly between the two Germanys. China joined the community of nations. The states of ASEAN formed a new nucleus for mutual co-operation.
A significant foreign policy challenge for the global community and for Canada will be to use those positive elements of
10606

June 15, 1981
North-South Relations
international co-operation which were built in the seventies to help deal with the uncertainties of the eighties to which the Prime Minister referred. Canada cannot-nor can other responsible states-turn inward when faced with the difficulties of the eighties. The seventies would have been far more difficult internationally without the safety net of institutions and procedures which have been built up with such difficulty and in which we have invested so much. We cannot now turn away from these institutions and frameworks. We need them to a greater extent than ever before.
I should like to look ahead at the eighties through the prism of the six principal Canadian values to which I have already referred. The eighties will require more emphasis on some of these themes than on others in order to deal with new realities. All these values are important. Any one from time to time can require the highest priority from the government.
The goal of Canadian foreign policy is to create a just and peaceful world in which all nations can achieve greater wellbeing and prosperity. In order to attain this goal, particular priority has to be given at the present time to promoting social justice and fostering economic growth.
There are two themes-working for peace and security and safeguarding sovereignty and independence-which are fundamental to everything else. There can be little hope for economic growth or social justice if one's security or sovereignty is threatened. Themes interlink.
Canada defends its sovereignty and independence through a variety of means-through boundary and territorial negotiations, for example-but working for peace and security represents the most important way for Canada to defend its sovereignty.
Canadian security policy in the past 30 years has been based on three foundations of peace: first, deterrence of war through collective defence represented by participation in NATO and NORAD; second, verifiable arms control and disarmament agreements; and third, mechanisms and arrangements for the peaceful settlement of disputes.
When it was clear that the collective arrangements for peace provided for under the United Nations charter were not going to be allowed to work, it became imperative to make other security arrangements. Canada joined with others in creating the North Atlantic Alliance in 1949 and has since contributed to the collective deterrence and defence capacity of NATO.
I remarked a few moments ago that the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) commented extensively on our participation in the nuclear strategies of our alliance. I know hon. members in the House generally will realize that this has to be set against the background of rejection in her party-again, I understand, being reiterated, to the great embarrassment of its leader-of the NATO alliance. I hope the hon. member is prepared to make the same points she has made here to the New Democratic Premier of Saskatchewan, Premier Blakeney, and I hope others here from that province will carry the message to her, since she has left the House.


Pauline Jewett: I am right here.


Mark R. MacGuigan: She is just now returning. I hope the hon. member will carry the same kind of message to Premier Blakeney of Saskatchewan, that good New Democrat who is sending Saskatchewan uranium all over the world for the purposes which she says she so frankly detests.


Pauline Jewett: Are you still reading, Mark?


Mark R. MacGuigan: For the Canadian government, along with defence capacity, security also requires the search for arms control. If the armaments spiral is ever to be broken, verifiable arms control and disarmament agreements must be concluded. Arms control and disarmament is the pursuit of undiminished security at lower levels of armaments and expenditure. The step by step approach takes time, beginning with the mutual perception of security which can lead to agreements to limit arms and to control their development and deployment. Once arms competition is contained, efforts can be focused on reductions, which would continue to reflect that same approximate security balance.
The prospects for concluding arms control and disarmament agreements continue to be limited. The postponement of consideration of ratification of SALT II by the U.S. Senate followed the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in December,
1979.	The review of arms control and disarmament policies by the new U.S. administration should result in a new start in the SALT process. At the last NATO foreign minister's meeting in Rome, which I attended, the United States reaffirmed the intention of the previous administration to go forward with discussions on the limitation of theatre nuclear forces. Negotiations on a comprehensive test ban treaty and on a ban on chemical weapons have continued to be protracted.
It is, indeed, in the process of peacemaking that real disarmament progress is likely to be registered. Many of the crisis spots in the world are not cast in ideological and imperial terms as is the current case between the East and the West. The vast majority of disputes, particularly in the Third World, are regional in scope and often reflect deep-seated and historical quarrels in relation to local and ill-defined issues. Canada has been active in seeking solutions to international conflicts.
A major focus of Canada's recent arms control activities was the Prime Minister's proposal at the first United Nations special session devoted to disarmament in 1978 in the context of restraining the technological momentum behind the strategic nuclear arms race. The elements of the "strategy of suffocation"-a comprehensive test ban treaty, a ban on the flight testing of all new strategic delivery vehicles, a ban on production of fissionable material for nuclear weapons purposes and an agreement to limit and then progessively to reduce military spending on a new strategic nuclear weapons systems-were not new to the arms control discussions. What was new was the concept of their interaction in combination to prevent proliferation of nuclear weapons among heretofore non-nuclear weapon states or the nuclear weapons states themselves.
June 15, 1981

Three years later the concept of the strategy of suffocation remains valid. The government takes every opportunity to reaffirm the importance it attaches to the continuation of the SALT process and to the realization of a verifiable comprehensive test ban treaty. These priorities, together with assisting in the preparation of a convention ban on chemical weapons and the promotion of the evolution of an effective non-proliferation regime, will guide Canadian preparations for the second United Nations special session on disarmament next year in which Canada intends to take an active part.
As the Prime Minister has indicated, in the 1980s we must look for new ways of dealing with tension and threats to peace through new forms of consultation and crisis management, including ways of dealing with regional crisis. Peacekeeping has been an important Canadian contribution to the search for international stability in the 1970s. We are hopeful that the wide range of multilateral machinery built in the 1970s will provide us with a good basis for developing these new ways of approaching security-related issues. It is particularly important to recall that the instability of our world, which we expect to deepen in the 1980s, is of a different, less predictable character, centred to some extend in the growing interdependence between industrialized and Third World nations.
The peace and security of Canada thus is becoming increasingly linked to regional tensions and crises. Regional crises are rarely contained in one particular region. There is a growing spillover effect. There are wide-ranging repercussions that have a multidimensional impact far from their points of origin. A regional crisis of a military or a political nature in one region can have an economic impact on the other side of the globe; witness the economic impact of the Arab-Israeli war and the Iran-Iraqi war on the West. On the other hand, the shock waves from an economic crisis in one region can trigger a military or political crisis elsewhere.

Closer interdependence means that Canada cannot remain isolated from the crises which erupt elsewhere in the world. We are particularly concerned about certain unstable areas. The crisis which threatens the stability of the Asiatic subcontinent has got us greatly concerned. I have already mentioned the mounting East-West tensions and the right hon. the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) dwelled on that subject. I am convinced that Canadians would find it unacceptable if their government were to maintain a policy of detente towards the U.S.S.R. while closing its eyes on Soviet activities in foreign lands. The invasion of Afghanistan had a very negative impact on the interests of the world community. The Russians' refusal to change their position on that question has seriously jeopardized the situation. For all practical purposes, the Soviet Union ignored world opinion as expressed in two resolutions which gained very wide support in the General Assembly. The peace and stability of that area and of the community of nations will be endangered for as long as Afghanistan has not regained its
North-South Relations
sovereignty, its independence and its status of non-aligned
nation.
The situation in Southern Africa enables us to entertain hopes and fear deceptions. Hopes because there seems to be a possibility that Zimbabwe might evolve towards a democratic and multiracial society, but deceptions as well because the policies of South Africa remain unchanged. Last fall at the United Nations I spoke of the permanent affront to humankind which the apartheid policy represents. The government feels it is despicable.
We also maintain that South Africa must loosen its grip on Namibia. The mere fact that the Namibian issue remains on the list of critical problems in foreign policy proves it. The intransigence of the South African government is the only obstacle to a negotiated settlement, one which would allow the Namibian people to gain independence through a free and fair election in which all Namibians could take part. Such an election under the supervision of the United Nations is the focal point of Resolution 435 of the UN Security Council and Settlement Plan. Our support in this regard is unconditional. However, new elements may have to be added to Resolution 435 to win over all the parties involved to its provisions and the terms of the UN Plan. But I must point out that any addition must be in complete agreement with the basic principles of the resolution. In our view, there is therefore no question of amending the resolution, but rather of ensuring its implementation. The addition of new elements with the agreement of all parties involved should aim not at weakening it, but at giving it full effect.
I want to point out to our African friends that Canada has only one purpose in this matter, that is independence for Namibia. We have nothing to gain and, indeed, much to lose as long as Namibia is occupied illegally by South Africa. We have indicated to the latter that only an international solution can be a lasting one and that only an international solution will bring stability and security to the region. The resolution of the Namibian issue is as much in the interest of South Africa as of the other parties involved. Canada will continue to work for a negotiated solution, but in the final analysis, South Africa will have to make the decision. It was not ready to proceed last January at the Geneva conference. I hope that on reflection it will agree to a direction and a plan which has the approval of the entire world community.
The Middle East is an area of the Third World which is of vital and direct interest the West as a whole. It is the focus of the convergent interests of North-South and East-West relationships. The economic development of a large part of the world is intimately linked to the Middle East and the issues of concern to this area should be given priority by all international organizations. This government's policy is, whenever possible, to facilitate understanding and promote dialogue. Tension in the Middle-East is multidimensional and its most important aspect is the Arab-Israeli crisis for which a long-term solution

June 15, 1981
North-South Relations
has to be found. Israelis and Palestinians have legitimate rights and concerns which must be taken into account. Among other things there is the security of Israel and its right to be readily accepted by its neighbours. But the world must also recognize the rights of the Palestinians and these include their right to a homeland, within a clearly defined territory, and by that I mean the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.
Madam Speaker, there are other regions of the world where tension and instability prevail, like Central America, the Car-ribean, and South-East Asia. Canada must recognize that development in those areas and elsewhere is getting even harder to control especially if East-West confrontations spill over into the Third World. We ask that Third World countries be sheltered from these rivalries and we support their legitimate desire to return to a true spirit of non-alignment. We also ask that the Soviet Union respect such non-alignment.

I have mentioned the link between peace and security on the one hand, and sovereignty and independence on the other. But our relationship with the United States could be considered a special case of the exercise of the latter value. Indeed, this relationship is perhaps Canada's greatest foreign policy challenge. The reasons go beyond the sheer magnitude of the relationship, with the $90 billion in trade last year and its enormously complex network of personal and business links. The more profound reason why Canada-U.S. relations are so important has much to do with how we as Canadians want to shape our destiny.
In many ways, Canada and the U.S. are similar societies. We are both liberal democracies of the new world, lands of almost unlimited opportunity and personal freedom, whose people hold in common a range of cultural and ethical values. Yet in vital respects-and this is the crucial point for Canadians-we are very different nations with our own approaches to nation-building and some clearly distinguishable economic interests and social features.
For Canadians, the art of conducting relations with the United States is to co-operate in the development of what is in most ways a fruitful and mutually beneficial relationship while safeguarding Canada's paramount national interests. A vital, economically strong and unified Canada is in the economic and security interests of both countries.
This is the purpose of Canadian government measures to promote the Canadianization of the national economy, including the several steps in this direction which have already been taken, such as the establishment of Petro-Canada and most recently the framing of the National Energy Program.
An irony of the relationship is that the very similarities which exist between Canadians and Americans can make the inevitable problems which arise more difficult to resolve. There is a difficulty sometimes in the United States to grasp that different policy methods are used in Canada, despite the similarities which exist, because our respective experiences and
structures are in some other ways different. In order to minimize the friction in the relationship, therefore, a premium must be placed on explaining policy approaches to one another as effectively as possible.
Some observers believe that at the moment Canada and the United States seem to be headed in different philosophical directions. I would rather suggest that in fact the two countries are developing national policies suitable to their own particular circumstances. In the case of Canada we all believe this to be an entirely healthy and understandable phenomenon which can in no way affect the foundation of good will and common interest which form the bedrock of Canada-U.S. relations.
Inevitably, we will have to be prepared to face opposition from some American quarters on some issues. No independence worth having is completely costless. Broadly speaking, however, I am confident that Canada and the United States will continue both to co-operate on questions of primary interest to the two of us and to work together to support peace, security and human dignity abroad.
One issue requiring co-operation between our two countries relates to a principal Canadian foreign policy theme, namely, working to ensure a harmonious natural environment. Since 1970 there have been important developments in this sphere, both positive and negative in character. Modern technological development has had environmental consequences of a magnitude and complexity which were unforeseen ten years ago. Today, phenomena scarcely recognized in 1970, such as acid rain, ozone depletion and the accumulation of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, have become issues of both domestic and international concern. Hazardous waste disposal and the health effects of new chemicals have acquired increasing international significance. Traditional, although no less significant, concerns such as air and water pollution, urban growth, deforestation, and soil degradation are becoming more internationalized; these phenomena do not recognize international boundaries.
On the positive side, both the Canadian government and the international community have recognized the seriousness of these issues and are planning various measures to deal with them. Progress at both the domestic and international levels has been encouraging. Two examples come to mind in which this country has been particularly active. Canada played a major role at the Stockholm conference on the human environment in 1972 which established the United Nations environment program. It also hosted an international conference on human settlements, "Habitat", in Vancouver in 1976 which led to the creation of the United Nations Commission on Human Settlements. There were a number of other successes, including the 1979 Convention on Long Range Transboundary Air Pollution.
Closer to home, the Canadian government has to work out environmental protection agreements with our neighbours. Negotiations are commencing this month with the United States for the formulation of an agreement on transboundary air pollution. A successful outcome is literally vital to Canadi-

an s. This is another issue on which the government will be vij >ilant in the Canadian interest.
Solutions to the problems we confront in the environmental sphere must be found although they are not easy to come by. Y et there is no question that Canada and other nations of the w orld have to focus now on the sort of planet we need to live in a decade or two or three away. We cannot ignore the active f lotential for ecological disaster that is building. We cannot, to c :oin a phrase, deregulate our responsibilities.
It is significant that this House recognized those responsibilities when we recently voted unanimously to provide the authority, through amendments to the Clean Air Act, to meet our obligations to the United States vis-a-vis transboundary air pollution. We are hopeful the United States will take the same step.
As "Foreign Policy for Canadians" pointed out, there is a close link between environmental ills and the quality of life in Canada and abroad. This theme covers the promotion of a sane and livable social environment as well as that of the ecology. Terrorism is a contemporary phenomenon which only determined international co-operation will control.
International drug trafficking is another area where the concentrated effort of all countries is necessary. But Canada can also promote the quality of the lives of Canadians through expanding and enriching our cultural links abroad, through human contact in science and education, as well as in the arts, binding and reflecting the bilingual and multicultural character of Canadian society.
Canada's economic development is inextricably linked to the overall international environment. External factors and how we deal with them will be of central importance to our economic growth. Every economic goal which we have in this country is subject to the influence of external factors. Whether we are talking about regional development in Canada, industrial adjustment, skill upgrading, finding markets for our goods, all are influenced by what takes place outside our borders. Canada must pursue policies which defend, support and promote our domestic economic growth.
Canada is increasingly dependent on the world economic system. Canadian exports as a percentage of GNP are greater than at any time in the past. We have a network of economic links with the world which are central to our economic well-being.
Canada is vitally dependent on an open and stable multilateral trade and payments system. We must work with our major trading partners and others to strengthen this system. The system at present is under considerable protectionist pressures from many directions. No member of the trading community can claim to be blemish-free in this regard. Who would have foreseen at the outset of the 1970s, for example, that in the 1980s there would be demands and pressures in the international trading system for restraints and adjustments forced on major industries which are too successful? This is an unfortunate sign of the times and a challenge facing the trading world.
North-South Relations
A greater diversification of Canada's economic partnerships has been a principal cornerstone of Canadian foreign policy for a number of years. These efforts have been directed in particular at our industrialized partners, but the 1970s have seen the considerable economic growth of the so-called newly industrializing countries. These countries offer the possibilities for mutually rewarding economic partnerships for Canada in the 1980s. And they themselves are actively seeking such diversified trade relationships.
For Canada, not a member of any trading bloc, it is necessary to build a global network of trading partners. As Canada does not have traditional relationships with many of these countries, efforts must be made to build long-term and stable relationships with them from the ground up. Stable and long-term relationships will be particularly necessary for Canada in a world which threatens increased instability. A strong policy of strengthening bilateral relationships with key countries is necessary.
The improved technique of concentrating our bilateral relations which I announced on behalf of the government in January is in effect an updating and extension of the third option policy of 1972 by projecting our economic links beyond our traditional trading partners-the United States, Europe and Japan-to the Third World.
To illustrate how important the Third World has already become to Canada in trade terms, the following figures will be of interest to the House. Canadian exports to the developing countries constituted 9.7 per cent of total domestic exports in
1979.	This figure rose to 11.6 per cent in 1980. From 1979 to
1980,	while the value of total Canadian exports increased by 16 per cent, the rate of increase to the developing countries was 37 per cent. Particularly dynamic markets are China, Algeria, Brazil, Mexico and Saudi Arabia. Our exports to Brazil in 1980 rose by 111 per cent; those to Mexico by 104 per cent.
Furthermore, for several years our manufactured exports to developing countries have been of greater value than our manufactured exports to Europe. The Third World now also is the recipient of roughly 25 per cent of Canadian investment abroad. At the same time the rate of growth of imports to Canada from developing countries between 1979 and 1980 is greater than the average rate for all countries. This statement is true even if the export figures for the oil-exporting OPEC countries are eliminated from the statistics.
Specifically, where in the Third World does Canada look for new partnerships of mutual benefit? The countries of the Pacific Rim, and more specifically those of ASEAN, offer many potentially new partners. The annual growth rate of the ASEAN economies of some 7 per cent over the last ten years has been twice that of North America and the EEC countries. The economic prospects of these countries remain particularly bright. There are growing links between Canada and ASEAN which, in particular, are stimulating the Pacific dimension of Canada's foreign policy.

June 15, 15 81
North-South Relations
Latin America offers another region of potential partnerships. Geopolitically, Canada has been screened from Latin America by the bulk of the United States. Our relationships with Latin American nations have tended to be one-dimensional, based largely on trade. We intend to broaden our relationships, in particular, with Mexico, Brazil and Venezuela, with an accent on a mutually beneficial relationship of the widest possible scope.
Canada has two regional relationships which are integrally linked to our interests in both the Commonwealth and la francophonie. If I had more time, I would speak about both the commonwealth Caribbean and francophone West Africa.
Canada's growing economic links with developing countries are not Canada's only interests in seeking the economic prosperity of the Third World. This would be a betrayal of how Canadians see our responsibilities towards the developing world. Promoting social justice is an important domestic objective of this government. It has a clear international dimension which finds its reflection in Canada's foreign policy. It is central to our approach to the North-South dialogue, to Canadian development assistance, to human rights issues and to humanitarian questions. It is a major theme of emphasis in Canada's foreign policy. The government is, indeed, pleased to endorse the broad thrust of the report of the parliamentary task force on North-South relations.
A few moments ago, I heard what I can only call the politically motivated attack of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) on the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) leadership on North-South issues over the years. I think the world would find such criticisms laughable. At Commonwealth meetings and in his Mansion House address, which is considered a classic throughout the world in the statement of the responsibilities of northern countries, in the development and implementation of policies which are among the most favourable in the world to Third World countries, the world has recognized the leadership which the Prime Minister has brought to this field.
Because of time limitations, I shall leave the full range of my comments on North-South issues and the Breau report for tomorrow's debate. At the moment I would note only that the theme of social justice in Canada's foreign policy is clearly apparent in questions touching the rights of the individual. The rights of the individual are at the basis of our political system. It is therefore essential that the promotion of human rights be part of the framework of Canadian foreign policy.
In general, our approach to the Third World is to insulate it as much as possible from East-West confrontations; in other words, to treat Third World countries on their own merits. Of course, when a developing country applies a foreign policy approach which actively aims at subverting the independence of other countries, our policy has been to terminate aid relations and to restrict economic relations to non-strategic commodities. However, for countries like Angola, our policy is to maintain open relations and to avoid punitive measures.
May I say in conclusion that I think it is important for Canadians to realize that foreign policy is not something secret
or esoteric. It represents, internationally, what Canadians ai -e and what they value. If fairly presented, it can be understoo d by all Canadians. I must say it is one of my personal goals t o so open our foreign policy to the public as to make it generall, y understood. If the public can be persuaded to participate in thi; formation or carrying out of our foreign policy, so much tht: better. The businessman who fosters our commerce abroad and1 the aid administrator or field worker who spends part of his or her life helping the poor in developing countries are participating in our foreign policy, just as are the overworked and underpraised veterans of our foreign service.
Foreign policy is shaped by the value judgments of the government, based on the values generally shared by Canadians. In this way, Canadian foreign policy not only promotes democracy but also expresses the democracy that constitutes our national life.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: This debate on Canada's foreign policy in the international community is held at a momentous time in history, for mankind is in trouble. There has been a ceaseless buildup of nuclear arsenals and conventional weapons. We are experiencing chaotic imbalances of food and population, violations of human rights, depletion of resources, economic disorders and an upsurge in violence and terrorism. All these problems make the 1980s the most dangerous decade that the human community has ever faced.
No indicator more graphically shows the incredible destructive power that is loose in the world than the existence of 50,000 nuclear weapons and the ever-rising flood of arms trade through the developing world.
The whole world is painfully off balance, opulently rich in arms, poor in providing for the needs of human lives. Behind the statistical shadows of income disparities, inflation and retarded growth, are millions and millions of individuals trapped by shocking neglect. They suffer from hunger, the darkness of illiteracy, illness and desperate poverty.
This social deficit is itself a threat to world security because the festering problems of today, neglected in favour of armed might, promise rising public anger and social upheaval, against which no national military fortress can be made impregnable for long.
The U.S. presidential commission on the year 2000 predicted that if present trends continue, the world of 2000 will be far more crowded, more polluted, less stable ecologically and more vulnerable to economic, social and environmental disruption than the world we live in at present.
But this future chaos is not inevitable. Although the balance sheet of the human condition today is heavily weighted on the negative side, there is also a powerful positive theme characterizing modern civilization. The fantastic advances in science and technology could, if we had the political will, ensure a life of human dignity for everyone, and not just the privileged few. We are entering a totally new period in our planet's history.
June 15, 1981

For the first time, there is the opportunity to bring about a better life in greater freedom for all the world's people. We are now a dynamic world community, capable of sustaining life on a global level.
The situation, then, is tragically ironic: never have people possessed the potential to free the world from the ageless threats of hunger and war, but never was the world so hungry or the threat of war more monstrous.
A few moments ago, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) said that the goal for Canadian foreign policy now, in the 1980s, is a promotional adjustment in a stable world. I support that enunciation, and add that the establishment of global institutions capable of preventing war and of confronting global problems is today's practical need and ought to be a primary object of Canadian foreign policy.
I am not arguing that Canada, a country of 24 million people, could or should remake the world in our image. But it is in our own interests, as the second largest country in the world possessing enormous resources, land and technology, to play a leading role in building the planetary conditions for peace.
Some say that we cannot focus on foreign policy until we get our own house in order and until our national unity and domestic economy problems are solved. This is short-sighted. The world is changing rapidly and will not wait for Canada. Moreover, a new understanding of Canada's role in a world seeking more security, trade and development would itself be an important contribution to our internal struggle over national understanding of ourselves. In short, planning and explaining to the public a constructive role for Canada in the world community in the next decade can help us find a renewed sense of purpose and direction in this country.
That sense of purpose is found in John Holmes' phrase, "enlightened internationalism." By this I mean that we stop separating the traditional issues of war and peace from the new global questions of justice, equity and human rights. The new issues of foreign policy include the escalating arms race, nuclear proliferation, food and energy shortages, the problems of international development and world-wide inflation and unemployment.
Mr. Speaker, it is commonly said that Canada's "golden age" in foreign policy is over. This is because we have become sluggish and uncaring in the past decade. We have lost our vision. We have failed to realize that in the new North-South dialogue, Canada has an influence out of all proportion to its size on the world community and can play a bridge-building role because we are trusted. If today we ask where are the Pearsons, Wrongs, Ignatieffs, Legers, Reids and that other band of distinguished Canadians in foreign policy, let us point to the MacGuigans, Gotliebs, Masse's, Smiths and McWhin-neys and say to them: produce policies that will enable Canada to take its rightful place-centre stage-in North-South negotiations. I say to these government officials, to all members of this House, to the development community throughout
North-South Relations
the country that we must combine the idealism of the past with the pragmatism of today and lift up Canada so that this nation becomes a driving force for peace and development and justice. Is war necessary in order for a nation to have its finest hour? Let us make of this pursuit of development and peace in the North-South Dialogue Canada's finest hour.
The place to focus our attention is the first world summit of leaders from the North and South to be held in Mexico in October.
The report of the parliamentary task force on North-South relations has provided a basis for Canada's policy for the North-South summit. I was proud to represent, along with the Hon. Member for Erie (Mr. Fretz), the Progressive Conservative Party on that task force. We worked hard-with lots of compromises-to achieve a unanimous report. And the fact that the government has today endorsed the broad thrust of that report is at least a hopeful sign that a Canadian policy on the North-South dialogue will be projected along the lines I have indicated.
Before offering some criticism of the government's response to the North-South report tabled in othe House today, let me summarize what the essential issue is: despite significant development efforts in the past two decades, the problem is growing faster than the solution. The problem is the world economy. The world economy is now functioning so badly that it damages both the immediate and the long-run interests of all nations. The problems of poverty and hunger are becoming more serious; there are already 800 million living in extreme poverty and their numbers are rising. Shortages of grain and other foods are increasing the prospect of hunger and starvation. The addition of two billion people to the world's population in the next two decades will cause much greater strains on the world's resources. Meanwhile, the industrial capacity of the North is underused, causing high unemployment, while the South is in urgent need of goods that the North could provide. Rapid inflation, high interest rates, and unpredictable interventions by governments are seriously disrupting international trade and investment.
I recently saw in Africa one of the direct results of this abstract subject of balance of payments. More children are dying of malnutrition and water-borne disease than a few years ago because development budgets have been cut as a consequence of the balance of payments crisis. In Kenya, one of the better-off countries, the five-year development plan, though only in its second year, has been cut in half. Unemployment in Africa is soaring, subsistence farmers are migrating in search of fertile soil and access to firewood.
These conditions are robbing the rising generation of prospects for future employment, robbing those who survive. Of the 122 million children born in 1979-the International Year of the Child-a year later one in every ten was dead. During that same year, up to another 5 million small children, one to four, also died. The great majority of these children died from quite readily preventable diseases caused by gross undervelop-ment.

June 15, 1981
North-South Relations
The challenge, as I see it, is to build the political will necessary to promote advances in energy, agriculture, technology and communications throughout the developing countries while protecting the ecology, culture, religion and family structure inherited from the past. In all of this, new thinking is required to turn mutual interests into creative partnerships. Barbara Ward spent her life trying to infuse this new thinking into political leaders. I would test Canadian policy coming out of the North-South Task Force Report against the five principles that follow.
First, international food security through increased food production, increased food reserves, and the ability to respond effectively to emergency situations.
Second, international energy security, highlighting conservation, investment in energy development, particularly in the developing countries, and stabilization of prices.
Third, economic stability to address the deficits of the oil-importing countries, ensure smooth recycling of oil surpluses and to correct current imbalances.
Fourth, self reliance through trade. Freer trade would encourage industrial and agricultural development in the developing countries, but adequate adjustment measures for certain sectors in the industrialized countries must be worked out.
Fifth reduction of the disparity between arms spending and development spending.
We do not need to cry out in frustration about what to do. The international development strategy for the 1980s, adopted by the United Nations, conceives of development as an integral process and has accorded the objectives of social and human development a major new emphasis. Even the World Bank is now using this line of argument.
Arguing whether our motivation should be humanitarian or self-interest is a waste of time. Both concepts are valid and they are intermingled in the North-South dialogue. It ought to be clear by now that the evolution of developing countries, some of which are industrializing rapidly, has important implications for the future of the Canadian economy. Although there is still much human suffering in the developing countries, the continuing image of the Third World as poverty-stricken has obscured the dramastic economic improvements that have occurred in the middle-income countries. The "Harvard Business Review" recently reported that 34 of the 500 largest international companies are now based in developing countries.
So far, Canada's economic links with developing countries are weak. We heard that 11 per cent of Canadian exports go to the Third World, a figure that is still low, compared to that of our main industrial partners, yet more than 37 per cent of U.S. exports go to developing countries, 45 per cent of Japan's and 18 per cent of the European community's.
The same story applies in the field of investment. We are lagging behind our industrial partners in our relations with
developing countries. We were warned by the Economic Council of Canada as far back as 1978 in a study entitled "For a Common Future: A Study of Canada's Relations With the Developing Countries" that the mere fact many foreign corporations were investing in the developing world made it likely Canada would suffer a loss of markets and, consequently, of employment and profits if its firms did not do likewise.
As John F. Bulloch, President of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, has recommended, the Canadian business community should probe the new opportunities for trade links and joint ventures in the developing countries, especially those that are rapidly industrializing. Without a doubt, more trade links with the developing countries means more jobs for Canada. Canadian exporters will be able to pick up major contracts for infrastructural work in areas such as communications, transportation and resource development. Already 2,500 Canadian businesses both large and small, have won CIDA contracts in the past few years. That is only a beginning.
CIDA's industrial co-operation program encourages Canadian firms, with funding for starter and feasibility studies, to establish or expand operations in developing countries. Recently that program has been expanded, and I support that expansion.
Canada is well placed to assist developing nations with the following: in utilizing computers; in satellite monitoring; in breeding techniques to improve the world's food supply; in adapting microelectronic technology to decentralize production so that new manufacturing techniques can be integrated into rural societies; and in dividing limited resources between tele-communications and transport, enabling villages and small industries to derive more benefits from new developments in communications technology. The future for Canadian business in developing countries is not only imaginative, it is exciting. I believe that we have to do much more in our country to acquaint Canadian businesses, not just the large businesses but the small businesses, to the vast potential involved here. Our business should be stimulated to that end.
For all these reasons, the Progressive Conservative party has adopted a policy on Canada's role in international development.
I shall now put on the record the core of that policy for which our party stands. First, we believe that Canada, in its own and general interest, should respond constructively to the need to reduce trade barriers to the common progress of developing nations. Second, with respect to Canada's aid program, the program should be raised to at least the agreed target level of 0.7 per cent of our GNP by 1990. Third, this program should be concentrated in fewer countries and consideration for aid should be based on greater need. In other words, the greatest opportunity of benefit should go to the people of a country based on effective use of aid tools, proper application of programs in co-operation with government agencies operating in the particular country and political, economic and human rights conditions. Moreover, opportunities for economic benefits to Canada and the need and opportunity for
June 15, 1981

Canada's political influence in the country or region are also affirmed as important principles in Canadian foreign policy. Fourth, Canada's aid program should include readiness to respond to the survival needs of peoples facing famine or disaster. Fifth, the aid program should be continuously assessed and modified to ensure a meaningful contribution to the long run well-being of those people in the recipient countries.
That is what our party stands for, and these are the broad criteria we will use to establish how far the government will move in implementing its own response which was tabled today.
I will take a moment to mention what I consider to be the main recommendations in the report of the parliamentary task force on North-South relations, to which the government has responded today. There are 38 recommendations. Time does not permit me to go through them all. I shall just mention what I consider to be the six principal recommendations in what the government has said. The following are what I consider to be the most important recommendations.
The first is a commitment that Canada's official development assistance be raised to 0.7 per cent of the gross national product by the year 1990. The government responded today that it will take that recommendation into account, but it has not made a commitment. I remind hon. members that our party has made such a commitment.
The second is that the World Bank double its gearing ratio in incremental stages. That is a mechanism now being planned within the World Bank. The new president of the World Bank has given approval to steps to move in that direction. The North-South task force report stated that it would enable the World Bank to double its gearing ratio yet again. The World Bank has doubled its capitalization in recent months from $40 billion to $80 billion by doubling the gearing ratio under which it lends money to developing nations. This would mean a quadrupling from where the World Bank has been operating presently, that is to say, from $40 billion to $160 billion. The government said that would be inferior, but it recognized the need for further exploration. I believe the government should have moved on that recommendation.
The third recommendation I would mention is that the International Monetary Fund show greater responsiveness to the externally caused debt situation in the least developed countries. I have mentioned the African experience of the oil importing countries which are running up horrendous deficits as a result of conditions over which they have no control. The government responded today that the current IMF measures indicate a willingness to respond and that Canada would support further evolution. I believe that is not a sufficiently strong enough recommendation for Canada to give some leadership in the North-South dialogue. I say to you, sir, that the North-South summit in Mexico will succeed or fail on the single issue of whether or not a mechanism is found to repair the horrendous debt of the least developed countries as a result of oil importation.
North-South Relations
Fourth, we recommended that a greater voting strength be given to OPEC in the international financial institutions. How can you expect OPEC to recycle huge surpluses of money if they do not have a stronger share in the voting of the World Bank and the IMF? The government said it agreed with this recommendationm and encouraged a higher profile in the World Bank affiliate for the OPEC nations. That is a good response. I wish it were stronger, but at least the government has responded affirmatively.
Fifth, we recommended that Canada support the World Bank energy affiliate by which under a new concept a new mechanism would be established making it possible to go into developing countries to find oil and gas for them so as to reduce the importation of energy. The government's response to that recommendation is the strongest of any response it has given to any recommendation. The government said it would continue to support the concept and do whatever it could to persuade OPEC and the north of the advantages of the World Bank affiliate. I commend the government for that strong response. I wish the rest of the responses today had been as strong as the one enunciated in that paragraph.
Sixth, we recommended that the government instigate a major public inquiry of the industrial sectors likely to be at long-range disadvantage. The government has rejected that inquiry saying that the information about industrial adjustments, for instance in the textile industry, is already known to the government. I say it is not known to the Canadian people, and we need a sense of direction.
If I had to summarize the direction of the North-South task force report, it would be to plead that the Canadian people become much more knowledgeable and involved-


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


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I could finish my speech if I were granted two minutes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member may finish his speech only if there is unanimous consent.
Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Douglas Roche: Mr. Speaker, I thank hon. members for their courtesy.
I believe the government has made a mistake in rejecting the recommendation for 1 per cent of official development assistance to be focused on development education in Canada. I believe that if, as we heard earlier today, we are going to influence the Hamilton steel worker, the Regina housewife and millions of Canadians about what this whole multi-dimensional complex North-South issue is all about, we must do a better educational job.
I am sorry that the government did not give a commitment to a new five-year strategy for international development. I

June 15, 1981
North-South Relations
believe that it should have. The last one, 1975 to 1980, had 21 points. It is unfortunate that, as the North-South Institute said, 13 of the 21 points were given a failing or unsatisfactory grade. Nonetheless, it would be better to at least have a strategy by which we could then measure the government's progress.
Finally, the proof of the government's response to the North-South report will be in how successful Canada is in persuading our industrial partners, particularly the United States, the United Kingdom and Germany, in the forthcoming summit that new economic partnerships with the South must be established. The proof will be in what kind of instructions the government gives its negotiators for the round of economic global negotiations that must follow the North-South summit.
The proof will be in how well the government follows the admonition of Lester B. Pearson in his Nobel Peace Prize acceptance speech that economic and social progress is a political imperative in every quarter of the Globe. Mr. Pearson said:
If we ignore this, there will be no peace.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: At six o'clock the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) had finished his remarks. [Translation]
I recognize the hon. Minister of Economic and Regional Expansion.


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to outline in this House the policy that the Canadian government has followed for many years to promote the progress and development in all its national and international elements of what I could describe as the community of fully or partially francophone countries and peoples. In short, I should like to assess the present situation and future direction of the francophone community.
Mr. Speaker, Canada has played a basic role and continues to be at the forefront of the creation, support and implementation of this cooperation and dialogue among the peoples and nations which make up the international francophone community. Canada has acted and continues to act jointly and simultaneously both multilaterally and bilaterally with all
these countries which share the French language as a means of communication.
This expression of closer ties, co-operation and mutual assistance required in a world of complex and interdependent relationships in all its human and technical aspects has led to the creation on the international level of many intergovernmental institutions, of which the most important is the Agency for Cultural and Technical Co-operation, without forgetting the annual conference of ministers of education and that of the ministers of youth and sports, as well as to the creation of non-governmental organizations and associations which are also very active in the international francophone movement.
The Canadian government has been very active within the francophone community from its very beginnings. It has played a major role in the creation and development of its many institutions since the 1960s. The development of the French fact in Canada and its extension externally has been a profound motivation for Canadian involvement. The extension of Canadian bilingualism on an international level and the participation of Canada in the international French-speaking community are a fundamental and permanent element of its foreign policy. The existence and vitality of French language Canadians provide a means and an opportunity to develop relationships and bonds of solidarity and co-operation with many countries in Europe, Africa, the Near East, Oceania, North America and Asia, which for a diversity of historical reasons and to various degrees, use French as their language of communication. The same can be said about the opportunities for fruitful contacts and exchanges with a great many countries throughout these same continents which, like the Englishspeaking community of Canada, speak the language of Shakespeare. It seems to me that for a young and dynamic country, Canada is placed in an exceptional situation by having what could be described as natural bonds of understanding with more than half the countries of the world.
In this context, we have established a network of bilateral diplomatic representation with all French-speaking countries. We have developed with them an important program of cooperation for development purposes. We have initiated a political dialogue on major international issues and we have finally become members of all multilateral French-speaking organizations.
In fact, the central government is not solely responsible for this effort at creating closer ties. This concers all Canadians and indeed benefits all Canadians, since the Commonwealth implies the Canadian population as a whole. While Quebec naturally became interested in the French-speaking community very early, the federal government on the other hand has tried to urge the governments of the other provinces with large French-speaking populations to also play an active role in this regard. For instance, representatives from the four provinces,
June 1 5, 1981

June 1:5, 1981
North-South Relations
Ottawa in September of this year, or CIRTEF, the International Council of francophone radio and television stations, which was created in 1978 at the suggestion of the Canadian government. CIRTEF regroups most of the francophone radio and television stations in the world.
The government of Canada of course provides financial assistance to a large number of these organizations which are either Canada-inspired or include a major Canada participation. At a time when co-operation among the people and cultures of the world is ever increasing, the importance of nongovernment international organizations is also increasing, and our financial contributions are a tangible encouragement to various Canadian groups actively involved in international activities.
While this new form of multilateral co-operation was developing, Canada was therefore establishing diplomatic relations with all the francophone countries, and slowly but surely we have set in motion a program of co-operation which, I hope, will be in full swing very soon. So will it be with all exchanges at every level, whether commercial, economic, social or cultural, and to crown this effort at rapprochement based on a better knowledge of and co-operation with these various countries, it will surely be possible eventually to consider jointly with these countries means of bringing about a rapprochement in the world and ensure peace on earth.
What are in fact the goals we are pursuing in our bilateral relations with these countries, especially African countries to which I feel particularly attracted? Our first goal is obvious: Canada seeks to affirm and show its French personality as well as its sincere interest in the cutural development and enrichment which we are likely to get from contacts with others. Needless to say, Canada as a whole should be involved in this undertaking. Our second goal is also clear: to help these countries which are among the neediest in the world. It is both our duty and our responsibility within the world community.
The third objective is to promote Canada's interests in major areas tied up with political, social economic and commercial elements. Therefore we must establish with these countries relationships that will be as extensive and varied as possible. As advisor to the Prime Minister and to the Secretary of State for External Affairs for relations with French-speaking countries it is a pleasure for me to give you some detailed information regarding the state of our relations with these francophone countries and prospects for the future.
In behalf of the Secretary of State, I have already been on official business to France, Belgium and above all to a great many countries of Africa. Last January, for instance, I went on official business as Canada's representative to express our goodwill and intentions of co-operation to four countries in the Sahel, namely Mali, Upper-Volta, Niger and the Ivory Coast.
I just returned last week from an official visit to Guii tea and Gabon.
I can tell you all the admiration and esteem that these countries feel for Canada and the Canadian people. Everywhere no matter in which countries I had the honour to represent my fellow citizens, there was a tremendous expression of sympathy for Canada because all these i countries acknowledged that neither by tradition nor by inclination we were interested in a sphere of influence but simply t o express in a concrete manner our feeling of solidarity towards mankind. Canadian aid which amounts presently to a'oout $150 million per year just for francophone Africa is a ppreciated because as I just stated it is given with no ulterior rr rotives and it meets needs and priorities as defined by the governments with which we enjoy close relationships. Canadian aid, which is administered by highly capable Canadian representatives and experts, is considered to be very effective in all those countries. Besides this bilateral aid, Canada con tributes substantially to multilateral and regional organizatk ms operating in Africa. For instance, for a long time Can ada was the greatest contributor to African development fi inding and I think that today we rank second or third with regard to our contributions to the entire African continent.
I must also add that our relations with those countries have been open and friendly. Everywhere I have been, like my predecessors, I have had open and constructive discussions with local officials. Canada's advice and sup port are sought and solicited everywhere. The meetings that T have had with each head of state of those friendly nations, ar id only last week 1 spoke with President Ahmed Sekou Tourei of Guinea and President Albert-Bernard Bongo of Gabon, show that our relations are diversified and that we are awar e of all the latest problems. Guinea is reaching out for Canada while at the same time Canada, through this African sta te, is widening its audience in Africa. My meeting with the P: resident of Guinea marked the first official visit by a Canadiar i minister since the country became independent in 1958. I saw - that the president of Guinea is considered, not only in his ow m country but also throughout the continent and the islamic world as a great leader who was able to forge a nation in his country, where private Canadians interests have been rei presented for many years. He was kind enough to grant me fou r meetings with him and we discussed various current issues. I also met with the President of Gabon, and of course all tb s signs of friendship which were expressed were not directed t to me personally but to the Canadian people as a whole.
There exists between Canada and fine French speaking countries, both at the bilateral and the multilateral levels, common grounds for co-operation and understanding. In this world which is divided in rich and poor nations, industrialized and developing countries, along a Ncirth-South or an East-West axis, Canada is a in a good p< jsition to effect a rapprochement between both sides, and to define, with those
June 15, 1981

countries, the means to help achieve harmony and make development a success. The trips of the Prime Minister as well as my own trips have convinced me that we stand to gain in every way from building closer ties with french speaking countries like Canada. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to emphasize that many Canadians, missionaries, volunteers, businessmen, have worked and invested everywhere throughout the francophone world. Whether they come from Quebec, Western or Eastern Canada or Ontario, all those Canadians have made a significant contribution to the co-operative efforts made by the Canadian government. In addition, I am proud to note that the Canadian government policy with regard to the international francophone world is non partisan and involves all parties in this House. Indeed, I want to congratulate the former secretary of State for external affairs and his government who, in this regard, were as active as the preceding government and also, in this field, performed in exemplary fashion.
I intend to pursue my work especially in Africa, I urge my hon. friends, ministers and hon. members to go there and concretely foster ties that are not only dear to us but let us admit it, useful in every way. I have had the opportunity to discuss topics which are of common interest to ourselves and our African hosts in a very positive way, such as the United Nations, the law of the sea, disarmement, trade, peace in the world, first and foremost on African soil, because Canada is implementing a policy of co-operation, mutual aid, assistance and friendship with those countries, in short, one of concrete political presence. Mr. Speaker, we must strengthen our role in support for and contribution to the international francophone world and our co-operation with all the countries involved. Every part of Canada will be the richer for it.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to congratulate the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane) who has just spoken. I assure him that as puzzled as we might be as to how it falls under his responsibilities in the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to tour Africa, most of us on this side are glad he did because his interests are well-known and his sincerity is unquestioned in this area.
I listened with interest to all the speeches thus far today. I think the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was perhaps very thoughtful. I will read it carefully tomorrow. I rather think his coach, Senator Davey, perhaps told him to give a fiat speech today, not to hit any high points. I was surprised by the number of absentees on the other side. That party usually has a very, very good turnout for the Prime Minister's remarks, yet today I counted only 42 members, which means that there were over 100 missing. Considering he only speaks perhaps once a year in the House, I would have thought they could have done better for him.
North-South Relations
As usual I was pleased with the remarks of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). She and I have been working together in the closely allied areas of external affairs and defence for several years without a single difference. We both seem to know exactly where the fine line is which divides the two departments. Of course the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) is much like the Minister for Regional Economic Expansion, his credentials are such that everyone listens to him with a great deal of attention on this subject.
The hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) gave a very interesting speech. Her answer to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) was particularly apt when she said that it was the policy of the NDP to withdraw from NATO. I hope the leader of the NDP will be here tomorrow to give his version of it. I understand that the hon. member was speaking this time for the party, not the way she spoke a year and a half ago when she and her leader were speaking out of opposite sides of their mouths about the same party. I had the foolish notion that the NDP settled these matters at its annual conferences, but it is nice to have it settled already.
Of course the policy of withdrawing from NATO would upset some of their party's colleagues in Norway, Belgium, Denmark, West Germany and France. I would have thought the NDP would have a link with international socialism, but perhaps not. In any case, I look forward to hearing the hon. leader of the NDP tomorrow. The last time he spoke in the House he came out four square for closure; I think the House leader of that party has been somewhat pale ever since. He gave a rousing speech in support of the Prime Minister's use of closure in the Constitution debate. Perhaps tomorrow will be as interesting as today.
The Canadian defence policy is tied inextricably to the foreign policy. Because of our geographic location, economic interests and cultural ties with the western world, we have a foreign policy which has as its cornerstone the maintenance of a defence force and a military alliance with 14 other nations of the western world.
The North Atlantic Treaty Organization provides us with increased security and economic benefits. Also it provides us with a voice in international decision-making, if we care to use it, sometimes we appear not to care to use our voice. These benefits do not come to us very cheaply. Membership in the NATO alliance carries responsibilities with it. Unfortunately, while we have been only to eager to accept the advantages of our alliance, we have been lax in shouldering our share of the burden. In 1978, the members of the NATO alliance agreed to increase defence spending in real terms to 3 per cent annually over a five-year period, ending in 1984.
Canada currently spends 1.7 per cent of its GNP on defence. The only country in the NATO alliance which spends less on defence is Luxembourg. Even Portugal, with all its economic problems, manages to devote 3.4 per cent of its GNP to defence. In terms of per capita spending, in United States funds Canada spends only $166 compared with the United

June 15, 1981
North-South Relations
States which spends $527 and the United Kingdom which spends $276. In 1978 when the 3 per cent decision was taken, Canada was already low man on the totem pole in terms of defence spending. It is interesting to see how we have done since then.
In 1978-79 Canada increased its defence budget in real terms by 2.79 per cent. In 1979-80 the defence budget decreased in real terms by .23 per cent. That was the year the Conservative government was in power and spending Liberal estimates. The final figures have not yet been made available for 1980-81, but it is estimated that the budget increased by 3.5 per cent. That was last year when the Liberals were spending Conservative estimates. It appears as if we might be pulling up our socks, but let us look closely at 1981-82.
When the estimates were tabled in March of this year, the minister appeared before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence and explained that the increased budget contained provisions for a 3.1 per cent increase in real terms, plus an increase due to inflation of 11.7 per cent. This was based on the November, 1980 economic model, as it is called in the Department of National Defence. The May, 1981 economic model revises the inflation figure upward to 13.4 per cent. The extra 1.6 per cent to cover inflation can only come from the funds allocated to the 3.1 per cent real growth.
Since we are operating under the envelope system and that no further funds except to cover higher than anticipated pay raises can be allocated to the department, the real growth for 1981-82 can only be a maximum of 1.5 per cent and in all likelihood will be much less. This funding problem is exacerbated by a minister who at times does not seem to know what funds he needs to meet his commitments.
I should like to say at the outset that the Senate committee on defence has done a much better job this spring than the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence in the way it has heard witnesses, gathered information and formed opinions. Frankly, I read the minutes of the Senate committee to get much of the evidence we seem unable to obtain in front of the standing committee of the House of Commons. At a Senate committee meeting in December,
1980,	the minister listed what equipment the Department of National Defence will need to purchase between now and the year 2000. It was a long, expensive list but when questioned about the costs, the minister said:
If we had 3 per cent till the year 2000,1 think you can say we can cover that.
However, at a meeting of the standing committee in May,
1981,	the minister appeared to change his mind because he said:
Obviously, I do not think that with a 3 per cent growth for the next 19 or 20 years that we could have all that-
He was speaking of the list of equipment he had mentioned before. When figures are published showing how little Canada contributes to defence, the standard government story is that money does not tell the whole story. We are upgrading the quality of the forces commitment to NATO, and that is just as important.
Well, it behooves us to have a look at what we do contribute in manpower and equipment to the defence of the free world. At first glance it may appear that we have an 80,000 strong fighting force to contribute to the defence of Canada and the West; but that is not entirely accurate. According to the 1980-81 military balance which is published by the International Institute of Strategic Studies, our forces, at the time of compilation, had a total strength of just over 78,000. However, 45,317 of that total are support staff. While these people are vital to the effective operation of the forces, they do not make up the fighting arms of the forces. The other 33,000 in forces personnel are divided into army, 12,675; navy, 5,327; and air force, 15,327. That is an interesting figure in itself. Canada is the only country which has more manpower in its air force than in its army. Despite this fact, our air force has a very serious shortage of pilots.
The army, our mobile command, is comprised of three brigade groups and the special service force. One of the three brigade groups, 4 Canadian Mechanized Brigade, is stationed in Germany and has a peacetime strength of approximately 3,400. In times of crisis, that group will be brought up to a strength of 5,600. The 4 CMBG, the Canadian Mechanized Brigade group, operates with only two infantry battalions instead of three; so, while it is called a brigade group, it is actually incomplete.
Mobile command also has committed 4,000 troops to Norway. Part of that commitment is formed by the special service force which, Your Honour may remember, is currently serving in Cyprus on peacekeeping duties. In times of tension, these 4,000 troops will be carried over by airlift to northern Norway; their equipment will arrive by ship three weeks later. One does not have to be a tactician or strategist or genius to see that there is something that does not quite balance in these figures. The fact is that we do not have sufficient numbers in mobile command to carry on peacekeeping duties and at the same time to send the 4,000 troops to Norway, which we might be asked to do.
Adding these figures up, in times of tension, Canada will have 10,000 troops overseas, including those on peacekeeping duties, out of a total of 12,600. Therefore, in Canada, we are left with 2,600 troops to provide reinforcements for our bri-gage in Europe, to protect our borders and to cope with any problems, such as an apprehended insurrection in Canada. Your Honour may recall that this government, at times, declares apprehended insurrections with very little evidence.
Obviously, mobile command needs more troops if it is to handle all the tasks which are assigned to it. General Paradis, the former commander of mobile command, estimated that he needed 5,000 more men in the army alone to achieve a balanced organization and realism in our tasks.
In the event of war, our troops in Europe will have to be reinforced. Our reinforcement plan is based on various statistics. Admiral Allan, now deputy chief of the defence staff, told the Senate committee:
June 15, 1981

If you are asking whether I think those factors are realistic, I have to put on my operational commander's hat and say that I have some doubts about the veracity of some of those statistics.
The important point to remember here is that any future war will be fought with the forces in being. There simply will not be time to recruit and train the additional hundreds of thousands that we did in World War II.
Reinforcements to Europe will be ferried over by ship. Canada's maritime commitment to NATO involves, by the use of our destroyers and long range patrol aircraft, keeping the Atlantic sea lanes free of enemy ships and submarines so that allied ships carrying reinforcements and supplies can reach Europe.
According to Admiral Timbrell, retired commander of maritime command, in order to fulfil our maritime role adequately, we need 36 destroyers, of which we currently have 23, with only 20 operational; we need 12 minesweepers, of which we have none; 10 submarines, of which we have three; four supply ships, of which we have three; 36 long range patrol aircraft, of which we have just purchased 18, and four of them will be on the west coast; 40 short range patrol aircraft with an antisubmarine warfare capability, of which we have none; and 40 helicopters, of which we have 33 for military tasks. These figures indicate that we should be doing more. The government protests that it is doing more, so let us have a look at what it is doing.
We are supposed to be buying six new patrol frigates to replace our six oldest destroyers, but we are already two years behind schedule on that purchase. Beyond that initial six, the government has no plans as yet to replace the rest of the fleet. Even with the destroyer life extension plan now under way, unless there are new orders placed, by 1992 we will be down to 15 destroyers and in 1996 we will have a 10-ship navy, the four DDH-280s and the six frigates.
In addition to this downgrading of our destroyer force, the government has no plans to buy any minesweepers and no plans to increase the size of our submarine force. Our LRPA or long-range patrol aircraft purchase is at an end, and there are no plans for additional purchases. New short range patrol aircraft are on the books for a future purchase, but no definite arrangements have been made. I would heartily recommend that some reading be done of the danger, in a high technology field with a small force, of purchasing planes as technologically advanced as the LRPA or the F-18, as the costs soon run away with the entire budget for a service, if one is not careful. That is what has happened with the LRPA and will happen with the F-18.
This brings me to the last aspect of our NATO commitment which concerns 1 Canadian Air Group based in West Germany. Currently it operates with three squadrons of CF-104s which will be replaced by the new F-18A. What is interesting about this commitment is that we have repeatedly used the NFA purchase to impress our NATO allies with our qualitative upgrading. However, at the moment, there are no definite plans to replace our low level air defence equipment, which currently consists of vintage 1940s Bofors anti-aircraft guns
North-South Relations
and blowpipe missiles. This equipment is so inadequate that Financial Post writer, Robert English, was forced to conclude:
-our bases can only be defended if the enemy gives us lots of warning, picks a sunny day and promises to fly slowly.
The ridiculous part of this is that while we are committing an expensive and technologically advanced aircraft to the front line defence in Europe, we have no way of protecting those aircraft. Chances are, in the event of war, our F-18 As would have a rather basic difficulty: their own airfields would be untenable and unusable.
Therefore, while the listing of our manpower and equipment commitment to western Europe may look respectable on paper, what it actually comes down to is that we have insufficient manpower, inadequate and outdated equipment, and are spreading ourselves too thinly. While this may appear to be a Canadian problem, it actually is more far-reaching than that. Because we are a member of an alliance, other nations are depending on us. If we are unable to perform our roles adequately, we become a liability to the NATO alliance. I do not believe for a minute that we can carry out the commitments we have made.
The tasking of our military with several roles is not based on any military appreciation of the situation. Military men know that we have a ludicrous scenario in front of us. Rather, this whole plan is the result of political and economic factors. Whether or not we are making a solid contribution to the alliance is not important to this government; rather, we must make a good showing. In order to show our faces in international circles, we must at least look as if we were doing something to protect the western world's interests.
But there is another side to this as well, and that is, we are not fooling anyone. As Nicholas Stethem told the Senate committee:
The nature of the international diplomatic beast is such that no one will say Canadians have let the side down. They are going to say nice things if we make any effort at all.
A fine example of this was the comment made by Sir Jack Harman, DSACEUR, at this year's conference of defence associations. He was talking about our 4 CMBG in Europe when he said:
Indeed, our senior officers in ACE are unstinting in their praise and consider it to be the best formation of its size in Europe.
Notice that he said, "of its size". You can read this as meaning "Why isn't it bigger?".
In the final communique issued after the May, 1981, Defence Planning Council ministerial session, recognition was given to "situations outside NATO's boundaries" which may "threaten the vital interests of the west". While extending NATO's boundaries was not considered to be the answer, the NATO ministers decided that individual countries may decide, in order to protect their vital interests, to deploy forces outside the NATO area. The U.S. rapid deployment force (RDF) was given as an example of such a force.

June 15, 1981
North-South Relations
This raises at least two questions to my mind. We are continually being treated to philosophical statements in matters of defence, but we get very little of substance. In this instance, what does Canada consider a threat to its vital interests? In the absence of any definite statement from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) or the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne), are we to assume that if any one NATO nation considers its vital interests threatened by, for example, an insurrection in one of the oil-producing countries of the Middle East, then we too would consider our vital interests threatened by virtue of our alliance, and thus deploy forces to the area?
This question is especially in need of an answer since the minister told reporters that Canada was willing, in principle, to contribute to a U.S. rapid deployment force in the Middle East. Why would we contribute to the RDF, and is this actual government policy? I have never received an answer to this.
The final communique of that NATO meeting also noted as follows:
National Defence planning should make provision towards compensating for changes in the availability of forces committed to NATO because of diversion or tasking on a national basis to carry out operations outside NATO's boundaries in support of the vital interests of allied countries.
Again, the question arises in light of this broad, insubstantial statement: What plans does Canada have? Will we increase our NATO commitment if European or U.S. forces are deployed elsewhere? Will we buy more tanks, increase the size of mobile command's forces in Europe or send more F-18s over? Will any increase in our European commitment come from our forces in being, or will the government allocate more resources to our overtasked, undermanned defence department? This is a very good question and no one seems to have an answer that they want to share with the House of Commons.
I would now like to turn to another one of our international commitments-peacekeeping. Canada has a good record in this area and, as has often been noted, Canada heads the list whenever a new peacekeeping force is being considered; as it should, because of the fine quality of the troops we have sent almost everywhere in the world on peacekeeping missions.
Mobile command is the service arm that provides the peacekeeping troops. Hon. members will remember that that is the command I spoke of earlier as being strained by manpower shortages. Currently, we have approximately 750 troops out on peacekeeping duties, and it appears we may be asked to contribute up to 1,000 more for duties in the Sinai.
The government's present policy is to have no more than
2,000	men out on peacekeeping duties at one time, so participating in the Sinai force appears to be within our means. But let us not forget that in the event of increased tension, it is Mobile Command's troops that have to be sent to Norway and central Europe.
Even when all is "quiet on the western front", to use an old phrase, Mobile Command feels the strain of deploying troops
around the world. Here is how Brigadier General Beattie explains the problem:
When one picks an infantry battalion, it goes as a unit... But, when one starts providing support troops, one has to denude a whole formation of all its support in order to provide a service battalion, for instance; and yet, if one takes a service battalion as such from one of the brigades, that deprives the brigade of all its support services. Thus, one should try to take elements from various brigades across the country in order to spread the strain rather than concentrating it in one or two areas.
I may be jumping the gun, worrying about our involvement in Sinai peacekeeping. The ministers to whom we look for direction in this area, the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, cannot seem to agree between themselves. The Minister of National Defence has stated that any request for troops will be listened to sympathetically because he does not think "Canada wants to refuse to keep the peace in any way we can in any part of the world." The Secretary of State for External Affairs, however, is not so co-operative. He told reporters that he did not want to become involved in a process over which we have no control and which may not be going anywhere.
A former secretary of state for external affairs, Hon. Mitchell Sharp, set out eight precepts that he wanted to be followed before our troops went overseas on any peacekeeping duties. The first was that it should always be under the UN auspices. The one that is now the subject of discussion comes under the agreement reached among the United States, Israel and Egypt as a result of the Camp David talks.
If this keeps up, we will have 1,000 troops on peacekeeping duties in the Sinai before the Minister of National Defence and the Secretary of State for External Affairs know they have gone.
Canada has chosen not to stand alone in an armed world but has chosen to ally itself with like-minded nations. In return for increased national security, Canada must pay its dues. As our Prime Minister once said in his elegant style, "put up or shut up".
The men and women of our Armed Forces are doing the best they can with the resources available to them. As many witnesses before the Senate committee hearings have noted, it is a "can do" attitude. But that is not enough. These professionals need support-support from the government, and support from the people.
Changes need to be made within the Department of National Defence, structural changes and functional changes. More funds need to be allocated to the defence of this country. If we were unable to protect ourselves, we would be unable to follow a separate foreign policy, which means even our domestic policies would be under the control of foreign nations.
Too often, when constructive criticism is levelled at the defence policy of this country, the Minister of National Defence and his department close ranks as if under seige. Rather than look closely at the problems facing them, they adopt a "kitty bar the door" attitude for maintaining the status quo, as witness their recent decision to brief the senators on their personnel deficiencies but only if the meeting was held
June 15, 1981

in camera. I was shocked a week ago today when defence officials would only give evidence on personnel strategies to the committee if the meeting was in camera.
Having some experience in this area, it is my opinion that if the minister and the Department of National Defence do not develop an ability to become self-analytical and stop being so self-protective, then sometime, sooner rather than later, there will need to be a royal commission of inquiry into the administration and structure of that department. This country is not getting $6 billion worth of defence this year. When I say that,
I am thinking particularly of the troops that are up front, the number of ships we have and the number of sailors to man the ships; the number of aircraft we have and the number of people we have to fly the aircraft; the number of tanks and other army weapons we have and how many men we have to man them. It does not seem to me that we are getting $6 billion worth of defence. The Canadian people are willing to pay, but they want to, and have a right to, know that their money is being spent wisely.
To become an equal partner instead of a reluctant ally in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, Canada must review its defence policy. It must bring the defence policy to the people for approval and support.
Our way of life depends on the western world being able to protect itself. If we are not willing to defend what we consider to be right in this world, then we could well lose it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Chas L. Caccia (Davenport):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my support for the motion before us and to congratulate the government and the NDP for making time available for this two day debate on foreign affairs issues. It is unfortunate that members of the official opposition played the role of Scrooge in this respect, by refusing to donate one day for this purpose despite their great declaration this afternoon in favour of making Canadians more aware of foreign affairs issues. It is typical of the Conservative party to preach in one way and to act in another.


Walter David Baker: What a distortion.


Charles L. Caccia: I realize from the silence into which the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche) has sunk, that he is inclined to agree with me.
What I have to say this evening is this, in summary, Mr. Speaker. It is a three-way plea to the government in connection with the July summit and the United Nations, starting from the premise that can there can be no successful North-South dialogue and policy without East-West relations in good shape and without peace in the world. I will also make an up to date, brief report on the CSCE in Madrid. Finally, I will put on record some passages from the United Nations report on nuclear weapons and conclude with some brief questions flowing from it.
North-South Relations
Let me start with my first plea to the government which has to do with the July summit. The monetary policy pursued these days by Washington is putting the economic health of the western nations in serious danger because of the effect that monetary policy is having on Canada and on western European nations. As hon. members know, the tight money policy has driven interest rates to an all-time high. In addition, the policy pursued by Washington is coupled with a tax cut, which really puts more consumer money into circulation. The combination of the two has created a situation whereby capitals in neighbouring countries find it very attractive to take advantage of the interest rates which prevail at present in the United States. This has put quite a strain on our currency and on the currencies of western European nations. I plead with the government to put this issue on the July summit agenda for an airing and to establish what will happen if this policy is not reconsidered.
At present, there is nothing wrong with the economic situation in Canada except one thing, namely, the monetary policy being pursued by Washington.
My second plea has to do with the summit and with the question of political will in East-West relations. This afternoon we had several interventions. All of them helped to cast some light on this problem and different approaches were taken concerning this rather complex issue. Hon. members should look at what is happening in Madrid and in Vienna at the disarmament conference, and as well at what the committee on disarmament is doing in Geneva. They will notice one common trend, namely, that in all three places where East meets West everyone is stalling. In other words, no progress is being made. What is going on in these three places is a highly organized and very interesting form of a modern minuet whereby alternative delegations make highly sophisticated interventions on a number of complex subjects motivated, I am sure, by good will, but when it comes to the crunch, no progress is made.
Why is progress not being made? It seems to me there is no political will. Where is the political will? Political will is an important aspect which ought to be explored and established.
Because of what happened in Afghanistan two years ago, the Western nations, Washington among them, have to make a decision as to what should be done in the light of the Afghanistan situation. Two years later it still seems to be the major bone of contention standing in the way of modest progress in relations between East and West. I agree with those who say that the invasion of Afghanistan was a reprehensible act; it was condemned by Canada and the west, and rightly so, and in Geneva, Vienna and Madrid at every forum and at every meeting which has taken place since that invasion it has been condemned. That invasion has damaged the Afghan people. It has also seriously damaged East-West relations. Serious damage has been done to detente; otherwise we would not be talking about it even in this House of Commons today.
The question that comes to mind in June, 1981 is how long should the world suffer the damage flowing from this action? That question leads to a number of different conclusions. I can

June 15, 1981
North-South Relations
put forward only those at which I have arrived after serious thought. I can submit them only for your consideration, Mr. Speaker, and for the consideration of the House, not claiming, of course, that they are the ultimate or the correct ones. In all frankness, I cannot help but come to the conclusion that whether we like it or not, the Soviet Union saw a certain danger along its border. As a result, the Soviets decided to move in, probably taking an enormous risk and hoping that they could get away with it, or hoping that the invasion would not be related to the Helsinki Act or other major understandings between East and West. That was a very serious miscalculation. With the the Soviets there, the probability is that eventually Afghanistan will become another Soviet republic. It is a reality in the historical evolution of the Soviet Union. Once the Soviets move in, they are unlikely to move out unless circumstances change dramatically, and circumstances have not changed in that part of the world. As a result of that action, we saw the Soviet Union losing ground in detente vis-a-vis the west. The Soviets lost ground in the United Nations and they lost ground in relation to the Third World Nations.
But is there a point where the west should take advantage of a situation when the U.S.S.R. seems to be in a position of wanting to regain lost ground? Here we can do two things. We can continue on the road we have followed so far, develop a hard line position and tell them that we will not deal with them until they move out of Afghanistan. Or we can, at a certain point, take advantage of a situation of weakness in which the Soviets find themselves now, in a sense, because they wish to regain lost ground. This can be turned into an opportunity in favour of establishing a better understanding in that part of the world. Alternatively, perhaps we can achieve a certain kind of neutrality which is badly needed, particularly in that part of the world. This could lead to a resumption of detente negotiations.
1 am inclined to believe that a point has to come when we must move onward, just as the world does. It is a question of timing. It is extremely difficult to decide when to move ahead. I do not think we will achieve much more by maintaining this element of stagnation and this prevailing lack of political will on the part of the West by not taking an initiative in relations between East and West on which the North-South dialogue hinges, in good part, by continuing too far along this road.
I said I would make a few pleas. My last one concerns the next conference of the United Nations in the spring of 1982, which is the special session on disarmament. In 1978 we came forward with an outstanding policy proposal which has become known under the name of policy of gradual suffocation of nuclear armaments. This, in part, has been put into practice. A number of aspects have become evident that need to be re-examined. We still have a good year ahead of us. I urge the government to look at the position we took in 1978 to see how we can put forward a renewed, typically Canadian innovative position that will win the respect of all the nations at the United Nations, as we have done since 1978 and in light of the experience in the intervening three years.
I will move on to give a quick report on where the Madrid conference stands at the present time. The fact that the Madrid conference is still on, having started under the most difficult circumstances, is a measure of the difficulty of reaching agreement between East and West. Nevertheless, the conference has served a very good purpose, that is of reviewing the obligations that nations undertook in signing the Helsinki Final Act. Canada placed great importance in 1975 on this review of the implementation of the Helsinki act for it makes little sense to go on formulating new agreements and new promises when old ones are broken, unkept or ignored.
We have taken a look at our own record and at those of other states. Together with other western nations we have been forthright in our criticism of the Soviet Union for its actions in Afghanistan which violated virtually every one of the principles set out in the Final Act: non-use of force, non-intervention in internal affairs, self-determination of peoples, human rights and fundamental freedoms.
We have also taken a firm stand on the importance of the respect for human rights by all participating states, and have protested at the Madrid meeting the denial of the right to leave one's country, harassment for applying to do so, the denial of religious and intellectual freedom and the persecution of individuals, such as that of the members of the Helsinki monitoring groups who have been imprisoned simply for seeking to know and act upon their rights. In so doing, we have attempted to reflect the deep concern which exists among Canadians, particularly those whose roots lie in eastern Europe, for the human rights' situation in the Soviet Union and certain other of the participating states.
There have been improvements since 1975. Although the record is mixed, the reunification of families divided by frontiers between East and West has benefited from the impetus provided by the CSCE process. Negotiators at Madrid are attempting to build upon those benefits which detente has produced and which still remain. They are also attempting to rectify the shortcomings in the fulfilment of the Final Act.
Among the principal preoccupations of the Madrid meeting is the question of security in Europe, and specifically the holding of a conference on disarmament. The western approach is that this conference should take place in stages. The first would develop certain measures to build confidence between East and West. In order to create confidence, these measures must be militarily significant, verifiable, binding and extend throughout Europe from the Atlantic to the Urals. While some progress has been made in bringing the Warsaw Pact position favouring a more declaratory and general approach to a disarmament conference closer to our own, differences still remain.
Seeking agreement to hold a disarmament conference has dominated the Soviet approach to the Madrid meeting. The West has sought to widen co-operation in the other areas. We have sought to improve contacts between western businessmen and their eastern counterparts; to better the conditions under which they may set up business offices in east European
June 15, 1981

countries and gain access to financial and commercial information; to improve further the record on family reunification and travel for family meetings; to improve working conditions for journalists; and generally to try to achieve a freer flow of people, information and ideas across frontiers between East and West. Many of these ideas came up in the presentations made last autumn to the parliamentary subcommittee of this House on the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe in preparation for the Madrid conference, and appeared in the recommendations that were tabled in this House.
The Canadian position at Madrid is that progress should be made in developing co-operation and restoring confidence across the whole range of provisions of the Helsinki Final Act. To do so we must also make progress in a further area where confidence between East and West is woefully lacking and which directly affects Canadians' perception of detente, and that is in human rights.
The western nations have put forward proposals.at Madrid for the protection of Helsinki monitors, for the right to practise religion, individually or in a community, and this is Canada's idea, for holding a meeting of experts of all participating states to discuss the approaches to human rights and the role that individuals and governments play in the exercise and protection of those rights.
After months of discussion and negotiations, eastern and western approaches to the key issues of security and human rights have not yet been reconciled at Madrid. We believe, however, that the negotiations must continue as long as there are some prospects of substantive results. Here the question of the political issue comes into the picture. With those words, 1 will move on to my last topic.
This has to do with the report that was published last fall by the United Nations entitled "A Comprehensive Study on Nuclear Weapons". That report, among other things which time does not permit me to put on record, notes that from 1968 to 1979 the total number of strategic nuclear warheads increased from 4,500 to at least 9,200 in the United States and from 1,000 to at least 6,000 in the U.S.S.R. These figures are probably outdated by a year and a half if not two years.
The report further points out that the exact number of nuclear warheads in the world today is probably not known by any single person or institution. Estimates cannot be verified officially. Published figures indicate, however, that the total may be in excess of 40,000. In terms of explosive power, these warheads are reported to range from about 100 tons up to more than 20 million tons equivalent of chemical high explosive.
The largest weapon ever tested released an energy of approximately 4,000 times that of the atomic bomb that levelled Hiroshima. There is in principle no upper limit to the explosive limit that may be obtained. The present total strength of arsenals may be equivalent to about one million Hiroshima bombs, some 13 billion tons of TNT.
North-South Relations
I will stop there because enough has been quoted to raise the following question that came to my mind when reading parts of this report which was made public last fall. Against this nuclear background, the question that comes to mind is how can a claim be made that we will resume negotiations, or that any side can resume negotiations once it no longer perceives itself to be in a position of weakness? How do you measure and achieve a perfect degree of balance in this kind of business?
Let me put it a different way. Who is to assure us that the other side is prepared to negotiate with us when they are in the position of weakness when we are superior, when we are not willing to negotiate with them when they are superior to us in strength? If we are not prepared to negotiate out of a position of weakness, what makes us assume that the other side would, or, to put it in another form-and I will conclude with this-if each side is prepared to negotiate with the other side only when in a position of superiority, when, if ever, will both sides perceive to be superior to the other side at the same time? Here, in conclusion, I say to you, are the elements of a modern Greek drama entitled "The Nuclear Spiral". Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express my appreciation at this time for the opportunity of taking part in a debate on a government motion on the matter of external affairs. This really is almost unique. It is not unique to the extent that it is the second opportunity we have had in my lifetime in Parliament, which is almost eight and a half years-I repeat, the second time within eight and a half years-to debate external affairs in this House on a government motion. We note the condescension and hypocrisy oozing from that side this afternoon because of what they perceived to be their magnanimity in having brought forward a motion of this sort to be debated in the House on this occasion. No one to my knowledge, and I have sat through all the speeches, has read this motion into the record with all the inflaming words used in it. It is really earth shaking. Let me read it. It states:
That this House take note of the present state and future prospects of Canada's international relations and endorse the broad thrust of the report of the Parliamentary Task Force on North-South Relations.
I might add that there is no vote on this motion but we are to take note and endorse.
When the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) rose to speak today, he did endorse the broad thrust of the report. Without going much further than that, he endorsed it. It was also notable that it was the first time in this House, to my knowledge, and I stand to be corrected on this, that this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has taken part in a debate on foreign affairs.
Let us recognize as well that this government demolished an opportunity for this House to make an inquiry into foreign policy, as drawn up by the government of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). Not only did this

June 15, 1981
North-South Relations
government demolish that opportunity, it destroyed by fire thousands of documents and studies from the Privy Council office that were destined to be distributed across the country and for study by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.


Charles L. Caccia: I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has just made a very serious allegation. I challenge him to prove it.


Donald W. Munro: That is not a point of order, but it is true. Where are the documents now, I might ask that interloper who has just stepped into the debate? He has just had his time, said he concluded his remarks, but he is back on his feet. What has this government done now? Instead of permitting a thorough review of Canada's foreign policy, it has condescended to allow us one day's debate. We have had two days' debate in eight and a half years. This is the second day of debate during that time.
There was a foreign policy study in which I participated in 1969-70. The foreign policy review which was to have been undertaken by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, or possibly a special subcommittee of that standing committee, was to have examined foreign policy and updated it in light of all the developments in foreign policy thrusts since the 1970s, for the 1980s, and on into the 1990s.
As I say, I find it difficult to accept this hypocritical washing and wringing of hands about the plight of the Third World by members on the other side, and I will come to that in a moment.
In view of the decision to give us one day's debate, the fact that the Prime Minister has taken part in it, and the fact that members of this government have demolished and destroyed those documents intended for a serious review in depth, I cannot help but ask myself, and I have been asking myself this question for about 48 hours, why the government has chosen this particular time for this particular debate. I ask myself this, particularly in view of other matters which are before us at this time such as legislation at the second reading stage, policy matters affecting Canadians, including interest rates, energy and inflation policy. They have all been put aside for this one day's debate. Why did the Prime Minister get involved in this debate? Is he setting himself up as the great manitou for the summit meetings which are to take place in July and, I think, in September in Ottawa and Mexico? Is he setting himself up as the great spokesman? If this is the way his spokesman's qualities are to be displayed, I cannot believe that those who will participate next month will be thrilled.
Having regard to energy policies which we might have been discussing, there is one incidental comment I should like to make at this time. When the Secretary of State for External Affairs was on his feet this afternoon he was chiding the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett). He said he hoped "the hon. member would carry the same kind of message to Premier Blakeney of Saskatchewan, that good New Democrat who is sending Saskatchewan uranium all over the world for purposes which she says she so frankly detests". I would think a comment of that sort would be beneath the
dignity of a minister. He knows perfectly well, and if he does not I will tell him now, not one milligram of uranium in any form leaves this country without federal permission. He knows that, or I am ashamed for him that he does not.


An hon. Member:: Hypocrisy again.


Donald W. Munro: Hypocrisy, yes, that is what it is. I say this not to defend Mr. Blakeney. It is directed particularly toward the Secretary of State for External Affairs, just in case he did not know there is no export of uranium from this country without federal permission.
I feel called upon at this stage to make another comment about energy. Further along in his remarks the minister spoke about the incredible impact of two global oil shocks on the Third World. No one argues that the Third World has suffered more than any part of this globe. It has suffered more than any population as a result of the sudden increase in the price of crude. We all regret that, but here is where the hypocrisy of this government comes in. This government could easily alter that situation by making Canada self-sufficient so that we would not have to draw down offshore resources, so that we could increase the global supply of offshore resources and thereby cause prices to go down and reduce the impact of high prices on the countries of the Third World. If what the government is doing is not hypocrisy, 1 do not know what is. I have a funny notion in the back of my head that this government had not even thought of that. However, instead of doing that, what does the government do? It indulges in demeaning internecine strife in this country. It exacerbated federal-provincial relations as never before, and I hope as never again.
I find these two comments of the Secretary of State for External Affairs this afternoon unworthy of him because I know his record. He has a good academic record, but somehow that integrity which typifies the academic seems to have been tarnished somewhat in recent days. With all these thoughts in mind I wonder, whether this particular debate we are having today is not something of a smokescreen or a treading of water while the government waits for something. What could this government be waiting for? I do not know, but I suspect it might be the Supreme Court ruling on the Constitution.
In this connection I am constrained to think about Canada's relations with Britain. This government has set itself up as the great defender of Canadian independence as a sovereign country, and yet it is asking Britain to do a demeaning job which this government does not want to do and which, within constitutional convention, Britain should not be asked to do.
There are parts of the constitutional package on which, of course, Britain is required to act. In 1931 Britain was requested by Canada to do certain things. However, Britain was not requested at that time or at any time, until now, to establish in Canada-by a British statute-a Canadian charter of rights, which will be a British statute. I do not know whether members of this government thought of that either.
June 15, 1981

In the course of doing what it is doing, this government is embittering the relations between this country and Britain, and for no good Canadian purpose I can see. Perhaps it is to meet the whim of an overzealous government which claims to be the great deliverer of Canada out of the bonds of colonialism. However, in the course of its action this government is turning on one of its principal friends and allies and destroying relations which have been built up over centuries with a country in whose traditions we live.
My motion under Standing Order 43 today, for example, referred to one of those traditions. Today is the 766th anniversary of the signing of the Magna Carta. We are among the beneficiaries of the provisions of that charter, and here we are having this debate today in order to mark time until the ruling of the Supreme Court and the ensuing debate here so that we can pass the resolution to Britain and thereby foul up the good relations which exist.
I feel I ought to make another not very pleasant reflection on the manner in which this resolution has been presented today. The proposal to have this debate came out during the exchange between House leaders on Thursday in the usual question. The proposal was that there would be a debate today. No mention was made at the time of a report on the government's reaction to the North-South report, yet today after having given the appropriate notice on the Order Paper-it must have been entered on Friday-that we would have this debate, there was no mention of the government's commentary on the North-South report. At two o'clock that commentary was tabled by the Secretary of State for External Affairs in a most cavalier fashion, as if it were of no importance. Just out of courtesy the minister might have passed that commentary around to spokesmen in the other parties so that they might have prepared their comments in the light of the comments of the government. The hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) was able, by missing part of the earlier session, to look at the report and make some comments on it, but I can only describe this behaviour as sleazy. It has been a sleazy and devious method of dealing with a matter of such importance.
The prospects for Canada's relations with Britain do not appear to be good. The motion before us refers to the future prospects of Canada's international relations. One aspect of those relations is our relations with Britain. I do not think our relations with Britain will be anything of which we will be proud. Our ties with Britain date far back. Those ties relate to the family, to social organizations, to constitutional matters and even to our ethical values. Many of our ethical values are derived from our British connection, and now we are prepared to throw that connection aside.
However, there is another country-a close neighbour- with which we have ties which are somewhat different. They are simplified, and yet complicated, by the nearness of that neighbour. They are also vital to the well-being of Canada. I speak, of course, about the United States.
North-South Relations
There are two areas at least in which this government has been neglectful, negligent and deserving of a round of adverse criticism. One affects the conclusion of bilateral treaties, and the other deals with the failure of this government to co-ordinate its economic relations with the United States. I would like to comment briefly on these two matters in connection with the Canada-U.S. relationship. We have a very good organization in the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary group. I think it is one of the most valuable interparliamentary groups in existence. I am very pleased that as secretary to that group I was present at the inaugural meeting and some of the succeeding meetings, and I now have the honour to be a member from time to time. I missed the Halifax meeting but I was at the meeting in San Diego about a year ago. I do believe that meetings of this sort deserve more time in the House and time ought to be found, if only at six o'clock, to make the reports of those meetings-I am talking about our relations with other countries and one way of pursuing those relations, and it was not because of a government with a Liberal stripe that that institution came into being. It was the result of the action of one John G. Diefenbaker whose name may be recalled by some members of this House.
One of the matters to which they have not done justice is to deal on bilateral issues on the basis of equality in the economic field. Everything is ad hoc. If a problem arises, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) or the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) will rush down to Washington. That is not dealing on the basis of equality, because the shoe is pinching us. If we were to do something, would there be a minister from the Reagan administration, or its predecessor the Carter administration, rushing up to Canada?
There are courtesy visits, certainly, but on the basis of equality I think these matters should be dealt with in a much more organized way. For example, there ought to be regular annual meetings of ministers, or first ministers depending on the gravity of the situation, to resolve disputes that were not resolvable in the course of regular meetings. I would suggest that those meetings at the ambassadorial level with the assistance of officials ought to be held at quarterly intervals. Acid rain is certainly one of those matters, but there are a number of others. There are the fishing agreements on the east and west coasts and boundary agreements and the Law of the Sea. The Law of the Sea issue has recently been raised in a very critical way, and we have the advantage of an outstanding negotiator in Geneva, New York and Caracas in the person of Mr. Alan Beasley. He led our delegation and had brought matters almost to the point of fruition when the U.S. administration backed away from some of the clauses, thereby threatening the future of that operation.
These are matters, Mr. Speaker, that ought to have been dealt with on a regular basis by a Canada-U.S. economic commission. As I suggested, they should be held possibly at quarterly intervals, at the ambassadorial level with officials. When matters cannot be resolved there, then they should be taken to a first ministers' meeting.

June 15, 1981
North-South Relations
Another matter, which will require a considerable shift in attitude of this government toward the whole nature of government, has to do with the manner in which treaties are negotiated, ratified and implemented. Negotiations, I think, are pretty well standard around the world. Ratification differs, however, from parliament to congress, parliament to assembly, and parliament to parliament. The ratification of the east coast fisheries agreement, let us say, ought to have been approved by debate in this House and there should be provision for this within the Standing Orders of this House. The government has not called on the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to examine such matters. There could have been a Standing Order which permitted the discussion and regulated its length depending on the seriousness of the matter. The east coast fisheries agreement ought to be debatable and discussible in this House, not just ratifiable by executive edict.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Donald W. Munro: Ratification is an executive act under the parliamentary system of government, no question about that. Implementation, if any, of treaties will be done by government legislation, and that is fine. However, there is that ratification procedure which is lacking in our general bilateral relations with the United States and, I might add, with other countries. Multilateral agreements might, as well, be debatable before ratification. There should be a vote if it is important enough, and if the government does not secure a majority, then I think it might very well have to decide what it is going to do. Is it going to renege on its commitment or is it going to resign? These matters, I think, deserve careful study in the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization with respect to our international relations, which my friend sniggering on the other side obviously does not consider to be within the ambit of this particular debate.
The next matter that I wanted to talk about, Mr. Speaker, had to do with-I just heard some sort of muttering over there about having something new. This new notion probably hit him so hard between the eyes that he is still reeling. It never occurred to someone who follows so slavishly the pronouncements of his government that there might be another view.


Charles L. Caccia: Take a drink of water.


Donald W. Munro: The other area of foreign policy noted in the wording of the motion but not commented on is that of the refusal to come clean and reassure the Canadian people that everything that needs to be done has been done to ensure that the threat represented by Soviet communism and its attempts to infiltrate our system of government have been met adequately. Combined with this, of course, is the threat from the same source to the nations of the Third World, a threat we have recognized only partially if at all.
You are becoming uneasy in your chair, Mr. Speaker. Does this suggest my time is about to expire or has expired?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member has one minute left.


Donald W. Munro: In this connection I commend to all those present or listening two books which outline the matters in clear detail, a matter which causes me some concern, namely, the disappearance of certain documentation from the files of the government. The first book is by V. Sakharov and Tosi entitled "High Treason"; the other book is entitled "The Terror Network" by Claire Sterling. Those two books reveal, in the most lucid and frightening terms, the possibilities of infiltration that we in the country somehow or other choose to neglect.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to comment on the remarks of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro). He should have known that, according to the Votes and Proceedings of December 6, 1968:
A total of 25 allotted days spaced throughout the session would be placed at the disposal of the opposition ... On these allotted days the opposition would be free to select for debate any matter coming within the jurisdiction of Parliament-
If the hon. member had been serious, he would have convinced his party or Parliament to choose one of these 25 days. If the opposition really wanted to discuss external affairs matters, it had the last 13 years at its disposal.
I am the chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. If we have not discussed some of the subjects the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) would have liked to discuss, it is up to him to have told us so. He is a member of the steering committee. I have never turned down any of his requests. All he had to do was to ask for the witnesses he wanted, and I would have been only too happy to accommodate him. Perhaps he now finds a lot of virtues in the Senate; perhaps he aspires to some nomination to that place. I would recommend him with great pleasure.
I am surprised the hon. member took all of 30 minutes and only touched upon the subjects which should have been debated today, such as the Law of the Sea. He only referred to it. I would have liked to hear about it because it is very important from the Canadian point of view and for the security of the West, but what is more, it would have provided a more equitable sharing of the world's wealth and resources with the Third World. It is too bad that the United States withdrew at the last moment. But we are hopeful, as is the hon. member, that after reassessing its views about the Law of the Sea, the U.S. will participate.
The hon. member could have spoken about Canada-U.S. relations because it is also a very important matter. We know that there is an exchange of 60 million persons per year between our two countries; he did not touch upon that subject. He could have talked about Canada.


Donald W. Munro: Why don't you?
June 15, 1981


Marcel Prud'homme: He only left me three minutes, I am very sorry to say. He could have talked about our trade with Europe. In 1980 it went up to $9.4 billion from $7.2 billion in 1979. From 1962 to 1980, it went up from $1.3 billion to $9.4 billion. He could have talked about-

-Canada and Western Europe. We could also have mentioned Japan and our extraordinary trade relationship with that country which accounted for $1 billion in the past and has now reached the level of $7 billion. Unfortunately, time does not permit us to do everything in the same day. On the other hand, I wish to thank the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. McGuigan) who asked our Committee of External Affairs and National Defence to study relationships between Canada and Latin America. We immediately undertook this review, which was urgently needed in my opinion because Latin America is a new territory for us in Canada, and I am very happy that my colleague, the hon. member for Labelle (Mr. Dupras) was chosen as chairman. First of all, I had suggested it to him. He agreed to act as chairman for this committee, and I believe this is very important because we have overlooked Latin America for years. We now have a committee. I know that the former Secretary of State sits on this committee, and I hope that the department will develop a new approach concerning relationships between Canada and Latin America.
I would have liked to speak about something else, and I shall do so in the last two minutes of my speech, if the House grants me two or three minutes more as it did in the case of the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche), but first, I would like to say a few words about the Department of External Affairs. The minister is here, and I appreciate it. I want to tell him-and this is something that he knows about and I know that he makes constant efforts with this in mind-that if one department should reflect bilingualism in the great federal machine, it is the Department of External Affairs. This department must reflect cultural duality, as I have always emphasized. We must spare no effort in this regard, concerning both recruitment and promotions. And speaking about promotions, I would like to see a great many more women in the higher echelons of the department.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the minister that we must see to it that departmental officials can adjust to a changing world. This is a very important issue in my opinion. Our universe is changing constantly, and the United Nations in 1981 are not what they were in 1945. They are no longer an exclusive club. They now have hundreds of new members. I hope that the Department of External Affairs can be sensitive to such changes, which go against what used to be the way in the old Commonwealth club, and adapt to such concepts as the French-speaking community and this whole new attitude, and I know that the minister is very aware of this issue. I would also like to take a few moments, since the House did not show
North-South Relations
enough generosity as far as I am concerned, to emphasize what I have pointed out every time I went to the United Nations, namely the importance of the Canadian mission.
Again in a changing global environment, we owe it to ourselves to have at the Canadian delegation to the United Nations people that have the understanding, awareness and knowledge of the friendship and an extended hand to these new nations that over these last few years applied with much difficulty, that might irritate older members by proclaiming their misery, their poverty, but it is the only forum in the world where they can be heard. I say we must be patient and understanding, we must know how to welcome them, how to understand them. In this year 1981, the United Nations is the number one priority of the Department of External Affairs. I would have liked of course to refer to our relations with the United States, however in conclusion 1 will deal with a subject that has been driving me for over 15 years, although I have been a member of Parliament for 18 years, namely the Middle East issue.

I am absolutely astounded that no member of the official opposition thought it wise to refer to one of the most remarkable pieces of work carried out by one of their own. I am talking about the report of the special representative of the Government of Canada and ambassador-at-large, Mr. Stanfield, the Stanfield report on the Middle East. I have read it six times, in French and in English, to ensure that I understood all the nuances Mr. Stanfield was trying to put intelligently to the Conservative government at that time.
I would not like to be cut off at this point because shooting from the hip when talking about the Middle East is always very dangerous. I have known that in the past. If I might have the indulgence of Mr. Speaker and the consent of the House to continue for five more minutes, I should like briefly to put my views on record on the question of the Middle East.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent of the House for the hon. member to have an extension of five minutes' time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Marcel Prud'homme: My views are very simple. I do not understand people who have never understood me or the position of my party.
Anyone who has been to the Middle East, anyone who has visited Jordan, Syria, Iraq, Egypt, Lebanon, Israel and the other coutries, knows that unless you solve the Palestinian question, you cannot solve the problems of the Middle East. I have not been able to understand, for the last 13 years of my life, how people do not understand that. Is it asking too much to expect people to understand that there is a group of people called Palestinians who live, breathe, multiply and who also have a right to an existence and a country? Is it anti-semitic to express these views? Those who think it is anti-semitic should read the report of Mr. Stanfield. Is it anti-Israel to say that we

June 15, 1981
North-South Relations
could be friendly also with the Arab countries? I have always held that view. We must find a way with patience, with love and with understanding. Do we have to go through another Zimbabwe to end up having an independent country only after killings and killings? Will we have to go through the same thing in Namibia? Why did we have to go through the same thing in Algeria and Angola? Why do we not understand?
How is it possible not to understand that as long as we persist in not recognizing the existence of people who are alive, who have historical rights, who also want justice, we are wrong?

Positively, without a shadow of a doubt, I reject any kind of anti-semitism. I have always called that, both privately and publicly, a cancer, because once one is an anti-semite, one is anti-French, anti-Catholic, and anti anything else. We must understand that peace in the Middle East will only come when the people will accept that, next to Israel, there is a group of people who will stay there. These people who arrive in my country-

-as I say in French, dear Lebanon! What country in the world has been more generous than Lebanon? The Lebanese greeted the Palestinians on their soil generously, and what happens now? Palestinians in Lebanon are in the process of destroying that nation. It is my submission that there should have been over these last 35 years more seasoned, more pioneering politicians with a better knowledge of the Middle East problem. They know that inevitably people who exist will have to be recognized. One day the Palestinian problem may be solved, Lebanon's problem may be solved that dear country suffering from its generosity. This is the main thing to understand in the Middle East situation. I therefore urge hon. members-

-without partisanship, but, 1 say, with passion. Why not? I am not a robot. I feel and I think. I think that when one feels, one can also see how marvelous it would be if there were peace and co-operation in the Middle East; if the Arabs, on one side, would recognize the state of Israel and its right to survival and to security, and, on the other hand, the state of Israel would recognize that it cannot have a complete settlement that would last forever. It is a real provocation for a group of people to be sent to a settlement in the occupied territories. How would hon. members feel if I were to send 50 young French Canadians to Edmonton South, Toronto, Victoria or Esquimalt-Saanich who would say, "We are French Canadians, Catholic Quebeckers, and we are coming into Victoria to raise hell"? Of course, that would be provocation. Hon. members should read about the Israeli practices. This is a United Nations report on the Israeli practices.
We must not be afraid. However, sometimes some of us are unable to make people understand. Therefore, I am calling upon Canadians and Americans of Jewish faith to exercise their influence on the government of Israel to show some restraint and some understanding. The Jewish people have gone through hell, and we all know and recall that every day. Even this morning, on radio station CJAD, as I was coming from Montreal at seven o'clock, I heard that today there was a ceremony commemorating the Holocaust. There will be a nuclear holocaust for all the world, if we do not realize the extreme importance of the Middle East, if we do not understand that there are people there who will not disappear, who are spreading what I call this cancer all around because they are there and no one wants to look after them.
I will conclude by saying with sadness that although there are people who have more responsibility than I do, I am asking Canadians of Arabic origin and Canadians of Jewish faith to get together and talk to each other. This is in the report of Mr. Stanfield. I share that view; I go along with it. I think we should do as the report says.
I will conclude in two minutes-one minute, with your patience, Mr. Speaker. Mr. Stanfield recommends there should be-

However it is of the utmost importance that we should recognize that in most Arab countries the role of the government in the economy is generally more significant than in Canada and that the Arabs like to meet and get to know the people with whom they do business. Ministers and spokesmen for our government must make frequent visits to those countries, and there must be more frequent exchanges of well-prepared commercial delegations.
He also recommends that we send groups of students, academics and MPs so that this country, which might become the wealth of the Middle East, will get to know the relations. One can imagine what might happen if we could get the co-operation of what I call the Israeli know-how, or technological knowledge, Arab co-operation in the Third World, the new funds from certain Arab countries in addition to technology and knowledge. Is that not something to make anyone dream? Is that not something which prompts us to rise today and say that we must examine that question? I also urge my colleagues to read the Stanfield report.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
June 15, 1981
[Stage Direction]
FINANCE-(A) PRICE PAID FOR TREASURY BILLS; (B) REASONS FOR PRICE PAID
["The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.\nAt 10.31 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.", 'Tuesday, June 16, 1981']
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, on June 12, last Friday, I asked the Acting Minister of Finance why the Government of Canada, at its treasury bill auction on Thursday, had to pay 18.82 per cent for its 90 day money when the previous Tuesday, the government of the United States had to pay slightly over 14.9 per cent for the same money on the same type of instrument, a treasury bill. The same type of arrangement, the same type of ratios took place with respect to the 180-day-old bill. The effect was that last week, Canada paid 4 per cent, an average, more than the government of the United States did on treasury bills.
At 5.30 this afternoon I checked the situation in New York. At that point, the U.S. treasury bill rate at auction was running at 13.72 per cent. Comparing that to the Canadian rate of 18.82 per cent, Canada has, of today, paid 5.10 per cent more than the Americans for treasury bill money on 90 days. On the 180 day bills, the Americans were paying 13.46 per cent and Canadians were paying 18.22 per cent, or 4.76 per cent difference. We will average that and say 5 per cent more. Since I asked the question on Friday, the position has become 1 per cent worse.
1 did not want just to compare treasury bills, although I did ask the minister why that was the case-if it was a question of Canada's credit. The minister did not seem to want to answer. He thought that perhaps 1 was attacking the New Democratic Party. I was not; I was asking him a serious question.
I then turned to the London interbank rate. At the same time, three months' money was 17% per cent for 90 days and 1716 per cent for 180 days. In other words, the London interbank rate was at least 1 per cent less than what the Government of Canada has to pay on its treasury bills. That is the rate at which multinational corporations borrow on the international market. Indeed, a multinational corporation called Petro-Canada borrows at the London inter-bank rate, as my friend, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) knows. Petro-Canada, with its tremendous assets and its lack of equity, is able to borrow at least 1 per cent cheaper than the Government of Canada was able to do last Thursday.
1 had the chance to look at the banker's acceptance rate in the United States. Last Thursday, that rate was 16.5 per cent for 90 days. The Government of Canada paid 18.82 per cent. In other words, the Government of Canada paid 2.75 per cent more than an ordinary commercial corporation-the U.S. Widget Co.-had to pay for its money. That is the nature of the credit of Canada; it must pay more for its money than ordinary commercial traders in the United States pay for theirs, or ordinary multinational traders pay for their money. Canada pays very much more.
Going further, I looked at the Eurodollar rate. The same type of ratios took place. For three-month bills, the Eurodollar rate was 17.11 per cent. The Government of Canada's treasury
Adjournment Debate
bill rate was 18.22 per cent, for a difference of 1.71 per cent. If we go to the 180-day bills, the difference is a little over 2 per cent. The averages are very close to 2 per cent more. One wonders why this has happened. Normally, when a borrower has to pay more for money than his neighbour does, he pays more because his credit is poor. Why is Canada's credit so poor? I suppose part of the question has to do with what people think of the Canadian dollar. All one has to do is to look at the futures market for the Canadian dollar. The betting on the market is that the Canadian dollar will be worth 82 cents in three months and 81 cents in six months in terms of the U.S. dollar. That is the bet. That is what the futures market says. It is no wonder people lending money to the Government of Canada say they want more from Canada than they want from anybody because Canadian money will not be worth anything. Why is this so with the resources and with the educated people this country has? The answer lies in the government this country has.
What is happening in the United States? A boom is taking place there. Business is roaring ahead with enthusiasm, and with optimism led by a Reagan administration. What do we have in Canada? We have a government which turns business off. We have a government which deliberately nationalizes property and deliberately seizes property without paying compensation. That is the kind of government we have and that is why we have problems.
We have a national energy policy which causes problems. We are all paying for that policy. Every small business is paying for it. Every one of us is paying every day for ineptness and incompetence. This government has better come up with a new economic policy soon or our interest rates will go up even higher.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the question is based on an incorrect premise in that the Canadian treasury bills and U.S. treasury bills are not sold in the same market place. While it is true that Canadian interest rates are responsive to levels in the United States, and we have admitted that since we are so dependent upon capital inflows, it is simply not true that interest rates in Canada are tied to those in the United States in any way. The movement of interest rate differentials between the two countries over the past 18 months shows clearly that the pattern of interest rates in each country has been quite different. Thus, while the Canada-U.S. differential on treasury bills was some 130 basis points on May 20, the differential increased, as the hon. member indicated, to 400 basis points last week. Similarly, while the 30-day commercial paper rate in the U.S. was over four percentage points higher than that in Canada in December, it is now some two percentage points below the comparable Canadian rate. Shortterm interest rates in the United States over the past few months have moved over a much wider range than those in Canada. Indeed the hon. member should know that chartered bank prime lending rates in Canada and the best rates charged by banks in the U.S. are almost identical right now. There are some similarities as well as great differences.

June 15, 1981
Adjournment Debate
It is also evident that current high levels of interest rates have not slowed down the rate of credit expansion or the Canadian economy. Data recently released by the Bank of Canada shows that chartered bank general loans continue to grow at very high rates and there have been similar high rates of growth recorded in other credit aggregates.
Canadian prices and costs also appear to be increasing at faster rates than those in United States. Statistics Canada reported that the consumer price index continued to rise quite strongly in May. By contrast, the inflation rate in the United States is running at a lower level. This will be reflected in both inflationary expectations and the prevailing level of interest rates.
There are good and valid reasons why there should be differences between the rates charged in Canada and the rates charged in the United States. While we would like to see interest rates in Canada as low, if not lower, than those in the United States, there are currently very real factors at play in Canada which do not allow that.



Joseph Lloyd Reid: Mr. Speaker, it is a Progressive Conservative philosophy and a basic responsibility of government to provide whatever opportunities are necessary to enable each individual through education to develop his or her potential to the fullest degree and to employ those talents to the greatest advantage. Education should be for full time as well as part-time students, for adults as well as the youth, for upgrading and updating as well as for the unemployed. That is why I was so distressed when I attended a meeting of Niagara College students involved in academic upgrading, a most basic course of education leading to a higher form of skill training. For these students it was their last opportunity to upgrade their academic education. The door has been closed. Without that higher level of academic training, they will be refused enrolment in a course which will give them an opportunity to develop a skill or trade.
One after the other those students stated that they just had to be given the chance to make something of themselves, and now that chances was being taken away. I am not certain why that basic course of adult training was terminated at Niagara College. The answer of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) did not assist to any degree.
When the minister decreases the number of sponsored seats in a course of that nature, the province of Ontario will only sponsor 20 per cent of that number. A chain reaction is started by the Department of Employment and Immigration. Where there are fewer students, there are lay-offs, dismissals, and reassignments of academic upgrading and structures.
It is not good enough to say that those students can return to established schools of elementary and secondary training and education. These students had to steel themselves in order to return to a course established and promoted by this government. We cannot ask them to do more.
It is not an answer to say that there has been a reallocation of funds. There is no doubt that the apprenticeship program must be supported and funded. I hope the day will soon come when we can discontinue looking overseas for skilled workers because we will have enough trained people here to fill the jobs.
To say that we are diverting funds to programs where there are established job opportunities condemns forever a segment of the population to a status that we as a nation should not accept or condone. Students hit hardest are women, those on mother's allowance and welfare. There are many more in an urban riding such as mine who are seeking the opportunity to participate in such a course. They have been waiting for such an opportunity. That opportunity is no longer available to them. They are being condemned to a job as a waitress, bartender or babysitter.
The need for such a basic training program was emphasized in this college. The joint government approval to assist adults in below grade 12 levels raised enrolment of fee-paying students from 31 in December 1979 to 151 in December 1980. There is a current waiting list of over 200.
The advantages of adult education, the advantage of an adult setting, the opportunity of working at their own pace, the availability of financial assistance and support, counselling and instruction, gave hope to those students and offered a challenge and a chance which so many thought would never come to them. Now it may never come again, for in the Niagara College, a community college, that opportunity or that chance has been taken away from them. I suggest the minister should make a reassessment of his priorities so that this very basic organizational adult education training can continue at community colleges where it can do the most good.
[ Translation]


Mr. Dennis Dawson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to start off by correcting the impression given by the hon. member. There is no question of phasing out the adult academic upgrading program at Niagara College. There was indeed a reduction in the number of training seats purchased from that college under the Canada Manpower Training Program, but contrary to the statement of the hon. member the program is not about to be abolished.
During the fiscal year 1980-81 the Employment and Immigration Commission had purchased 82 seats which, for all practical purposes, made it possible to enrol 147 students. For the current fiscal year, the commission bought 64 seats and expects some 115 students. The reason for this reduction is that the government has put the emphasis on employment-related programs. That decision was taken in 1977 as a result of the publication of a report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance which pointed out that basic education falls essentially under provincial jurisdiction. Subsequent
June 15, 1981

studies have demonstrated that basic training for skilled development did not prepare graduates adequately for employment or further education.
Changes in the policy which have been implemented are spread over a three-year period as follows: BTSD must not be given to any one who has not completed the 8th grade; age and total school attendance as elegibility criteria must be tightened up. BTSD must be more occupation oriented and the need for training courses must be emphasized.
Mr. Speaker, 1 think that this is the direction the government must follow in the future.


HOUSING-REQUEST FOR INTRODUCTION OF PROGRAM WITH REASONABLE INTEREST RATES
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, on April 9, in my question to the minister responsible for housing and CMHC I pointed out that 70 per cent of loggers in coastal British Columbia faced lay-offs or short work weeks. There is no doubt that part of the reason for these employment cutbacks was the fact that the industry wanted to soften up union membership for contract talks. As a matter of fact, the contract expired for the IWA on the coast of British Columbia today. It is evident from the militant strike votes that woodworkers have not been intimated. They intend to get a good contract.
Quite apart from any attempt by the companies to sap militancy, some mills are, indeed, very short of orders, and while the long-term outlook for the forest industry in British Columbia is supposed to be good, there are immediate problems. Some of the methods the companies are using to deal with these problems are not healthy. For example, they are pulping logs that should be sawn into lumber. A recent survey showed that up to 40 per cent and over of logs in a boom that was going to a pulp mill were logs that should have gone to a sawmill. We have evidence of whole logs being exported for process in other countries, or logs that just had a slab taken off. At the same time we are facing an imminent shortage of logs for the future in the industry.
The industry has traditionally depended upon the export market for up to 70 per cent of the production in British Columbia. We simply should not wait for export markets to take up the slack when we have problems in the industry today. We should be developing industry in Canada which can deal with this, and the most basic industry that needs developing here is our housing industry.
Today, because of record interest rates, most Canadians are no longer in a position where they can afford to buy homes. The situation is quite the reverse. Many Canadians who own homes and have been paying on mortgages for a number of years are now losing their homes when they have to renegotiate their mortgages at these killing interest rates. It is a chilling statistic that 11 per cent of the Canadian people are
Adjournment Debate
now forced to pay more than 50 per cent of their incomes for housing. And our housing stock, especially for low-income people, is dangerously low. People are being forced to move into accommodation which ten years ago we would have considered to be very clearly inadequate.
We can look at the example of our failure with regard to Indian housing. While the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has announced that it has made money available, it just recently sent out a directive to Indian bands which requires that the bands give guarantees that any houses which are started must be completed. However, there is no labour component program which has been instituted by this government, and the funding which is provided for these houses is clearly inadequate. Yet no money is being released until the bands can give some kind of guarantee that the housing starts will be completed. The government is pushing on to the Indian bands the problems it has allowed to accumulate over many yeas. Obviously something is terribly wrong.
It should be plain even to the Liberal cabinet that there is a connection between lay-offs in our forest industry, the lack of decent housing and the ridiculously high interest rates this government has imposed upon the people of Canada. There is a need for an imaginative program, and there could be an imaginative program. In co-operation with the provinces and with municipalities the federal government could use some of its resources for land assembly projects. This would cut out some of the massive profits being made by real estate companies. Low interest mortgages could be provided so that people could buy homes without committing themselves to long terms of poverty and uncertainty. The public and co-op housing sectors could be developed.
The minister pointed to the failure of the British Columbia government to take initiatives in its budget to help the housing sector, and for once I agree with the minister. Along with other British Columbians, I work for the day when that government will be replaced by one which does care about housing and which will act to meet the housing needs of its people.
However, the federal government cannot hide behind the failure of provincial governments. The federal government has a responsibility for interest rates. It has the power to take the initiative to develop a rational land program and a rational housing policy. This would not solve all the problems of our lumber industry, but it would go a long way toward taking the slack out of the present situation, and I urge the government to develop a program which would begin to meet these needs.


Dennis Dawson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to give a more detailed answer to the question asked on April 9 by the hon. member. The high interest rates on mortgages have no doubt made it more difficult for people to own their homes and they have had a negative impact on the

June 15, 1981
Adjournment Debate
housing industry, yet, despite the rise in interest rates it is becoming more and more evident that housing starts will be on the increase in Canada in 1981. According to interim statistics during the first quarter of 1981 there has been an increase of about 43 per cent in individual housing starts compared with the corresponding period in 1980. Since more timber will be used as a result of individual housing construction such an increase will undoubtedly have favourable effects on the forest industry especially in the area represented by the hon. member. The upsurge in the housing sector during the first quarter of 1981 took place at a time when mortgage interest rates had indeed reached a higher point, more than 15 per cent, than in 1980 when it was below the 14 per cent mark. After four consecutive years of decrease, we predict that housing starts will increase by 13 per cent in 1981 to a total of
179,000	units.
I am, Mr. Speaker, personally more concerned about rentals and the effect that the tightness of some of the markets will have on low-income tenants. The hon. member will no doubt recall that last year we managed to get an extra 5,000
subsidized units for those areas with a low vacancy rate, for instance Vancouver, Toronto and St. John's. This helped the situation, but I nevertheless stated that more had to be done so that provisions regarding rental housing units be included in the October 1980 budget. These provisions will enable the building of some 10,000 extra rental units and will stimulate the construction of multiple unit projects in places like Vancouver where the market is tight. The Canadian Mortgage and Elousing Corporation has agreed to increase the maximum portion of guaranteed loans to approximately 70 to 80 per cent from the previous 50 to 60 per cent. In this manner, CMHC may help solve the housing shortage in the Vancouver area without overly risking the mortgage insurance funds and committing the government to major expenditures.
I would like to thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the extra few minutes, as well as the staff who had to stay here.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At 10.31 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, June 16, 1981