1982-06-01

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs tabled in this House on May 6, 1982, its third report-an inquiry into violence in the family. Among its many recommendations the committee calls on this government "to appropriate initial capital costs of new emergency shelters and funds for second stage housing" to offer protection and security to the thousands of Canadian women who are victims of domestic brutality. In light of financial obstacles facing emergency shelters, including Anselma House, a shelter for battered wives in the Waterloo riding, arising from CMHC's refusal to allocate funds for their second stage housing project, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes):
That this House urge the government to adopt the committee recommendation regarding second stage housing without delay and thereby demonstrate concern for victims of family violence.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, I also rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the Health and Welfare Department still demands the banning of the fungicide Captan because it is a cancer-causing agent and
a danger to health; whereas the Department of Agriculture proposals will not effectively reduce public exposure to Captan; whereas a study by the Department of the Environment called for the transfer of registration of pesticides from the Department of Agriculture to a less biased agency, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose):
That this House instruct the government to institute an immediate ban on the domestic use of Captan, significantly reduce acceptable residue levels of Captan on fruit and vegetables, and convene a parliamentary inquiry into the registration process of pesticides and other chemical products.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, since February of this year I have put five questions to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne), and introduced three motions on behalf of the people of the Chatham-Newcastle area, with reference to the government's decision to neuter CFB Chatham and destroy approximately 3,500 jobs in the process-all to no avail. After mammoth representations, including a delegation from the provincial Liberal Party, the government has made a colossal statement that the base will retain "some" military functions. I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That the government indicate if it is their intention to set up a retirement home for outdated tanks and leaky cruisers, a military museum where most of the Armed Forces gear could now go, or a memorial to those brave souls of the region who did not want to go down with the ship.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
8011 6-10

June 1, 1982
[ Translation]


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Marcel Dionne (Chicoutimi):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the Leader of the Progressive Conservative Party (Mr. Clark) publicly restated his support for the policy on bilingualism during his visit to Chicoutimi yesterday, and whereas the same day, the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) objected to the hiring of francophone staff for shops at Toronto Airport, and whereas the hon. members for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) and York North (Mr. Gamble) both object to the special francophone recruitment program in the public service, I move, seconded by the member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau):
That the Tory leader get rid of the elements in his party which refuse to consider French Canadians as one of the two founding peoples of Canada, and that he order those party elements to stop objecting to every measure aimed at improving the status of francophones in this country and making the insulting allegation that this would increase the burden on the taxpayer.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, in view of a recent decision taken by the Ministry of Transport to reject the lowest and all bidders for the provision of parking lot attendant services at Vancouver International Airport, a decision which led to the heartless termination yesterday of employment for 20 persons, including a number of new Canadians and middle-aged women supporting unemployed or handicapped husbands and their children, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen):
That the Minister of Transport be urged by this House to give the parking lot employees at Vancouver International Airport a six-month minimum extension of work at the airport or that he arrange alternative employment for them so that they may continue to support their dependent families.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, on April 12 the cabinet announced its decision to ban the import of all goods of Argentine origin as well as the export to Argentina of those goods and components which could be used as instruments of war. In contradiction of this policy, however, Canada has imported wood products into British Columbia from Argentina by way of a vessel of Argentine registry, the Entre Rio, with the shipper on Canadian customs control showing as Nassau, Bahamas, and, further, Canada has exported to Argentina in one shipment alone 400 tons of ammonium nitrate of 90 per cent strength which can be remanufactured as explosives which could be used against the British forces in the south Atlantic. In view of this contradiction of Canada's stated policy, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That this House call upon the government to enforce its so-called policy of banning Argentine imports and the export of those products of a war capability, including nuclear fuel bundles, because the strength of Canadian support for the British operations in the Falklands is being seriously undermined.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas June 5, 1982, will be the 150th anniversary of an act passed in the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada, granting persons of the Jewish religion all the rights and privileges of other subjects, and particularly the right to hold public office, and whereas the granting of full political rights to Jews did not take place until 1850 in the United States and until 1857 in Great Britain, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle):
That this House recognize the courage of Ezekiel and Benjamin Hart and others who fought for Jewish emancipation and honour the members of the Legislative Assembly of Lower Canada and its Speaker, Louis-Joseph Papineau.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
June 1, 1982


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Last night the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) finally admitted that nobody outside Canada wants to buy a Candu reactor and that there is no further demand for nuclear electricity in Canada at the present time. However, after finally arriving at these two earth-shattering conclusions, the minister proposed a new nuclear energy export plan by saying:
The Government of Canada believes that the Candu option should be preserved, if only to keep Canada's nuclear option open.
Therefore, in order to accommodate the irrational affection for the Candu demonstrated by the minister and his obsession with "preserving" this, the penultimate dodo of the great Canadian megaprojects, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Beaches (Mr. Young):
That the government scrap its latest Candu bail-out scheme of building reactors in Canada to sell nuclear electricity risk-free to the United States and, rather, that it satisfy the minister's nuclear obsession by pickling one last Candu and presenting it to the radiant minister for his own personal use and enjoyment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I would like to congratulate him for finally having the courage to admit in public that his program was a disaster which needed changing. We are very pleased to see the changes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: In the document on the energy update, the minister does not make it clear that oil prices will be going up. By January 1,10 per cent of the oil used in this country will be subjected to a new, higher price. I should like to ask the
Oral Questions
minister why he did not make that clear in the document. Can he tell us today, in terms that Canadians can understand, how much per gallon the price of oil and oil products will go up as a consequence of the new prices contained in his latest document?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I am glad to receive the congratulations of the hon. member although I would argue that they are certainly ill-founded, but one has to take small graces from Tory members.
I want to tell my hon. friend that the text of the document is quite clear. I am surprised that it took him that long to find out that an additional price would be paid for oil discovered between 1974 and 1981. That is spelled out quite clearly in this particular document, and every single journalist that I read got that point quite clearly. I fail to see why my friend had such difficulty finding it out.
As far as the question he asked is concerned, I am pleased to advise him that not only do we not expect any increase in the petroleum compensation charge in January to cover the cost of these particular changes, but in effect we expect a decrease in the petroleum compensation charge.


PRICE OF IMPORTED OIL
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, the minister is saying that maybe by January taxes will go down, but I would point out to him that the price of oil will go up. If he had told Canadians last night that the price of oil was to be increased five cents per gallon, that would be the kind of clarity they could understand.
May I move on to suggest that the program would not have been changed if there had not been a perceived need for change, so it is an admission of mistake.
May I ask the minister why he did not deal with the following situation. In Canada today, tax dollars are used to provide a subsidy on oil imported from Mexico of $18 per barrel, which makes that oil $9 per barrel cheaper than the Canadian produced product. We need the jobs in Canada, and we need the money in Canada, so why did the minister not take the opportunity last evening to make sure that Canadian oil would be sold at a price comparable to imported oil? Why did he leave a policy in place which provides that imported oil will become cheaper than Canadian oil, while jobs and money are chased out of the country? Why did he leave that system in place?
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, it was for the good reason that my hon. friend is as wrong on the second question as he was on the first. On the first point I want to remind him again that, because the price of international oil has not increased as much as had been anticipated, we will be able to finance the changes announced yesterday within and at prices which will

June 1, 1982
Oral Questions
be below those forecast in the agreement with the province of Alberta that my friend was cheering last September. We are going to end up with prices lower than those anticipated under the agreement. That is clear.
The hon. member referred to Mexican imported oil, but I would remind him that we import oil from many countries such as Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and others. As a matter of fact Mexico is only a small contributor to our total imports.
We have indicated that we took steps last month to reduce the quantity of shut-in oil in western Canada. In May and in June the level of shut-in oil will be as low as it has ever been in the past. In addition, yesterday we announced some measures whereby the companies are prohibited from buying on the spot market and will have to limit themselves to the minimum levels covered under the term agreement, in order to ensure that Canada will find itself able to get its supplies in the future if we ever run short of oil again. That is reasonable management of our energy policy and not, I am afraid, the kind of rhetoric in which my friend tries to indulge.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, Mexican oil is the only oil bought by this minister, and that is why it is of special interest.


FINANCE
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: My supplementary is directed to the Minister of Finance. Last night the Minister of Energy told us that the Minister of Finance is going to be short $25 billion-that is twenty-five thousand million-in the next five years. It can be recovered by cutting expenses, increasing taxes, or borrowing more and driving up interest rates. Can the Minister of Finance assure this party and the Canadian people that he will not raise interest rates in an attempt to cover up the mistakes made by the Minister of Energy? Can we have your assurance that-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Order.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I do not believe the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has made any mistakes. Quite the contrary.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: But I assure the hon. member that I propose to do everything possible to bring down interest rates.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy. World demand for oil has dropped 15 per cent in the last two years. The minister repeatedly tries to make the case that the 7 per cent reduction in oil consumption in Canada is due to his substitution and conservation efforts, when really this is only a fraction of the decline. The major factor in the decline is the loss of GNP due to high interest rates, farm failures, resource industry decline, and a lack of new homes being built.
Last night the minister admitted that he did not understand the needs of the oil industry. Will he admit today to this House that, in co-operation with the Minister of Finance, the major success of his National Energy Program in reducing oil consumption has been accomplished by forcing Canadians into the poorhouse?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, frankly we have another example of the amazing rhetoric of the Tories. The decline in crude oil consumption last year in Canada was 6.7 per cent. That took place at a time when the Canadian economy was growing in real terms by 3 per cent. That was not a time of recession, it was a time of economic growth in the economy in 1981. The record is there; the GNP grew by 3 per cent last year. Last August we had the lowest unemployment rate in five years.
In spite of that record of economic growth we managed, through conservation and substitution, and with the help of the program set up by this government and the co-operation of the Canadian people, to reduce our oil consumption by almost 7 per cent. That is a good record.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, if the minister will stop his rhetoric and take a look at the GNP for the last two quarters of 1981, and then try to repeat the same statement in the House, I will apologize. Otherwise, I think he should, because it was minus .9 per cent.


PROJECTED OIL DISCOVERIES-REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
Gary Michael Gurbin: Madam Speaker, my supplementary is to the same minister. Consumers and businesses across Canada have been asked to pay for energy products at prices which are often higher than their American counterparts, in spite of the fact we were promised energy prices no higher than 75 per cent of world levels. This was supposed to be part of the program to achieve self-sufficiency.
In light of the fact that, according to the minister's own projection, there would be no new oil discovered in Canada in 1982; in light of his failures with Alsands, Cold Lake and the Alaska gas pipeline, will he promise to give this House his resignation if his projections for 1983 are not realized? If by 1983 we have not discovered 177,000 barrels of new oil per
June 1, 1982

day, I think he should offer his resignation to this House, Madam Speaker.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, again I find it rather strange that when 1 answered the previous question by saying that the Canadian economy grew by 3 per cent in real terms in 1981, the retort of my hon. friend was to say that it did not grow as much in the first two quarters. My friend has to look at the whole year. For the whole of last year we had a real growth of 3 per cent, and the hon. member should at least be honest enough to recognize that fact, a fact which everyone has recognized.
As far as oil discoveries are concerned, I remind the hon. member that for the first time since 1970 there has been an establishment of oil reserves in the last two years of 1.3 billion barrels of oil. That is in addition to the reserves of oil in this country found by the discovery and the establishment of the commercial viability of Hibernia. For the first time since 1970 we have been able to add to the reserves of oil in Canada. I am confident that in the next few months and, as a matter of fact, in the next few weeks, my friend may have good news about additional reserves, and I hope he will stand up and congratulate us at that time.


SCHEDULED JULY INCREASE IN PRICE OF OIL
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since the fall the government has done a complete about face on its energy program. Between the federal government in Ottawa and the government of Alberta an additional $7 billion has now been given to the oil companies. When is the government going to do something for the Canadian consumer? Specifically, will the minister approach the energy ministers in the producing provinces with a view to negotiating the elimination of the 7 cents per gallon increase that is scheduled to come about on July 1 ?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the objectives of the energy program have been maintained. Not only have they been maintained, but they have been strengthened. We are determined to achieve self-sufficiency in this country. We are determined to enlarge Canadian participation in the industry, and we are determined to maintain fair prices for Canadian consumers. Under the program it has been established that Canadians will have the lowest energy prices of any industrialized country in the world. That is the record, and that record will be maintained for the Canadian people.
As far as the question raised by the hon. member is concerned, rather than going to the ministers of energy of the producing provinces I would rather go to the energy ministers of the consuming provinces. For instance, the province of
Oral Questions
Quebec has raised its taxes by 210 per cent in the last four years at the expense of the consumer.


Thomas Edward Siddon: You have done it too.


Marc Lalonde: It is in that sphere where some of the largest increases have taken place.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET PROVINCIAL COUNTERPARTS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Minister of Energy knows full well it is the trend in energy prices that counts. In the United States the price is downward in terms of energy cost, and so is the rate of inflation. In Canada the price of energy has gone up, and so will inflation. The minister should understand that. Considering that the 7cent per gallon increase on July 1 will cause an increase in the Canadian cost of living by a full percentage point, together with a loss of 25,000 jobs to the Canadian economy, why does the minister not tell the House of Commons today that he will approach the ministers of the producing provinces with a view to bringing a break in financial terms at long last to the Canadian consumer?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend refers to the experience in the United States. 1 remind him that even with the increases we have known, the blended price for a barrel of oil in this country which comes from the refinery is less than 80 per cent of the international price, and less than 80 per cent of the price in the United States.
If there are additional increases taking place at the pump, much of that is due to provincial retail sales taxes. Saskatchewan and Alberta have no retail sales tax on gasoline. Quebec's retail sales tax on gasoline is 40 per cent, and Ontario's retail sales tax on gasoline is 20 per cent. The percentage varies from province to province. Even with the increases forecast, not for July 1, because they will only come into effect in September, Canada's price for a barrel of oil will still be well below international prices and well below prices in the United States.
On the other hand, the federal government does not control provincial tax, and it is up to each provincial government to decide what is appropriate in that regard. This is where the difference may show up between certain states in the United States and as well in some provinces in Canada, for instance. But, as a whole, when it comes to the price of oil from the refinery, Canadians now get the lowest prices in the industrialized world, and they will continue to get the lowest prices in the industrialized world.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the minister knows full well that the economy is in a terrible tailspin and that the increases which are coming in July, when they go into effect in September, will cost us thousands of jobs and result in an increase in the cost of living. Also the minister knows that the Government of Canada and the government of Alberta have given $7 billion more to multinational oil companies.

June 1, 1982
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR ACTION ON BEHALF OF CONSUMERS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the minister again why he does not do something to stimulate the economy and to help Canadian consumers by negotiating a price downward movement instead of an upward one? Will he tell the House that the real reason he is not willing to act for consumers but is willing to act for oil companies is that the oil companies have literally given hundreds of thousands of dollars in the past decade to the Liberal Party?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, my hon. friend must be scraping the barrel and really running short of arguments. First of all I should like to tell him that getting that industry going will create jobs in the country, not only in Alberta but all over the country. It is not by running any particular industry into the ground that my hon. friend will create jobs, despite all his rhetoric and despite what the CLC may say. the money which has been given, or the concessions which have been made by the government of Alberta are quite significant, as he indicated. We, the Government of Canada, have made some adjustments yesterday to the tune of over $2 billion. Most of that money will not go to the multinationals; it will go to small Canadian companies. Most of them are Canadian companies. These are the companies which will be helped.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Most of that money will go to those companies in the next 18 months when the Canadian economy needs stimulation. That is what we have to do to help job creation in the country, and not do as the NDP would do and scrape the barrel.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Today the Canadian dollar dropped to the lowest level in recorded history in reference to the American dollar. This drop in the dollar represents a total lack of confidence in the Canadian economy. Despite the minister's efforts last week at increasing our interest rates while American rates went down, despite his massive influencing of the market, with the Bank of Canada today at noon bidding heavily against the drop, where are we going in the country with confidence? Will the minister tonight, or this afternoon, request the unanimous consent of the House to speak on motions to outline to the people of Canada where we might be going?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has made some reference to the Canadian dollar. I think it is worth pointing out to him that what is happening is basically not a
general weakening of the Canadian currency in international currency markets. The Canadian currency is rather strong in comparison with other currencies, apart from the United States dollar. I should point out to him, so that he will keep the matter in perspective, that at the present time the American dollar is at a five-year high in relation to the Japanese yen and the German mark which are regarded as rather strong currencies. The Canadian dollar against the American dollar is performing better than most other currencies on international markets.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, the minister knows that at noon today the Bank of Canada was using massive amounts of our foreign exchange to prop up the Canadian dollar.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MAKE STATEMENT ON MOTIONS
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, will the minister confirm that he has or has not drawn on our credits with American banks to support the dollar? In other words, will he come clean with the people of Canada and tell us where we are going? Will he do that on motions tonight, after the markets have closed, to give the country some sense of confidence?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I believe the hon. member is doing his utmost to create a lack of confidence in the Canadian currency and its performance.


Mr. Crosbie:: You do not need any help, Allan.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If there is any source of uncertainty, it is coming from the lachrymose comments of the hon. member at the present time. I have confidence in the Canadian dollar. It is not the intention of the Government of Canada to encourage a devaluation of the Canadian currency. He ought to look at what is happening in international currency markets at the present time. He ought to realize that the American dollar is strengthening against all currencies, including the Canadian dollar. When he puts that in its proper prespective, I hope he will withdraw the rather fearsome comments he has made in his last two questions.


MINISTER'S STATEMENT IN COMMITTEE
Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. He may have confidence in the Canadian dollar, but Canadians do not have any confidence in him. One of the reasons is his own track record. Yesterday in the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs the minister announced that he would be borrowing billions of dollars more to cover the deficit. I asked him specifically whether that news would depress the Canadian dollar, and he said that it would not. Given the fact that the dollar is dropping like a stone, how could the minister be so wrong?
June 1, 1982


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Madam Speaker, I think that I was totally right because I do not believe either the hon. member's question or my answer saw the light of day in any place except the report of the committee, which will come out in several weeks.


Pat Carney: The Minister of Finance has more confidence in committee reports than 1 do. I was talking about the judgment of the Minister, and obviously his judgment was wrong.


CAPITAL COST ALLOWANCES
Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question deals with the changes which the minister announced yesterday in his continuing budget striptease. I understand that the changes he announced yesterday bring to about 28 the number of changes that have been made. He is offering tax relief to people buying small tools, metric scales, uniforms, bed linen, and even encouraging the purchase of art by dead Canadians as well as living Canadians. In view of the terrible economic conditions, when will the minister replace these small change items with some big ticket changes to capital cost allowances to encourage the construction of new plant and equipment and to revive job opportunities in the Canadian economy?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member belittles the changes which were made in the capital cost allowance. I advise her that these changes are regarded as important by those who have requested that they be made, including a large number of members of the House of Commons and representatives of private industry. Perhaps the hon. member ought to inform herself more clearly on this matter, as well as the fact that her question and my answer yesterday were not reported anywhere that I could see and, therefore, had absolutely no effect upon international currency exchange markets.


DISASTERS
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. It concerns the raging forest fire in New Brunswick. I wonder whether the minister could inform the House what type of assistance the military might be prepared to give, and whether indeed it is providing any assistance-


Mr. Fraser:: Send the navy.


Maurice James Harquail: This is a serious question. The hon. member for Vancouver South should appreciate that forest matters and forest products are very important to the economy.


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


Maurice James Harquail: Madam Speaker, while I am on my feet, and without further interruptions, I wonder whether I could learn from the Minister of National Defence just what assistance the military might be able to provide, with manpower and equipment, to contain this fire and protect that important natural resource.


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, the Armed Forces are in the service of all Canadians. We were notified of the forest fire on Sunday evening and as soon as we were requested by the civil authorities, we supplied all the resources we could. At the moment we have 312 troops there, 56 vehicles, and four helicopters helping the people in the region of Beaverbrook Lake and the Mirami-chi. We are very glad to do it.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The Government of Alberta has given $5 billion to the oil companies, and the minister's government gave them $2 billion last night. Is the minister prepared to do something for the consumer? That is all that we are asking him to do, to give a quid pro quo to the consumer. More specifically, is he prepared to review the federal excise tax? He cannot blame Quebec or any other province for the federal excise tax. Second, is he prepared to renegotiate a pause in the increases in oil price that are to happen-approximately 7 cents a gallon in July? Those are two concrete suggestions to help the consumer. Why does he not do something for the consumer, because the National Energy Program is no longer working for the consumer?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, frankly, my hon. friend must not have read the National Energy Program, the agreement of last September, or the document that we released yesterday. The document which was released yesterday indicates that, thanks to the price schedule that is in the National Energy Program, in the agreement with Alberta I should say, and which is in effect at the present time, as an average, between 1981 and 1986, Canadian consumers-every man, woman and child in Canada-are going to save $2,500 in energy savings because they do not have to pay international prices. This is what this government has achieved. This is what the Canadian consumers will benefit from.
I am afraid that my hon. friend must be wearing blinders day and night if he cannot see that. I must tell him that we will indeed continue to benefit in this country from the lowest

June 1, 1982
Oral Questions
prices of any industrialized country in the world. That is the situation, and 1 am sorry if my hon. friend cannot see it.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I have a supplementary for the arrogant Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I invite him to go to my riding where the average person is paying from $700 to $1,100 for heating oil, an increase in the last year, and has paid from $600 to $900 this year to drive a car, and where the price of energy has gone up 30 per cent for people, including those on fixed incomes. He should get out of his ivory tower and go down among the people to ask them what they think of the program.


SOURCE OF FUNDING ASSISTANCE FOR OIL INDUSTRY
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Every day we ask the Prime Minister in the House whether he is prepared to find some money to aid in health care or education-money for the provinces-and to find money for jobs. How is the Prime Minister's government able to find $2 billion to help the oil industry-mostly the large oil industry in this country-when it cannot find money to help the unemployed and the people who need health care?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I may remind the hon. member that as a result of the National Energy Program and the agreements concluded with Alberta, every Canadian will benefit from a net savings of $2,500 between 1981 and 1986. The hon. member referred to the home heating bill for someone living in Vancouver. Now, if that same person were living south of the border, in the United States, it would cost him 25 per cent more to heat his home today, and 1 do not know how much if he were living in a country other than the United States. That is the situation. We are not saying that energy is cheap in Canada. We are not saying that prices are not going up, but we must live with the realities of the world we are in today. At the present time, Canadians are paying the lowest prices of any industrialized country in the world, and this will continue to be the case during the next four years, thanks to the measures taken by this government. 1 wish my hon. colleague would acknowledge these facts. As far as assistance to-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for York-Sunbury.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Has he had an opportunity to consider the recommendations made in the report on wife battering which was recently tabled in the House? If so, what is the intention of his government with respect to the implementation of these important recommendations?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, indeed, the government has seized itself with this report which reveals a very distressing situation in Canada, and one which is something of a blot on our society. I have had occasion to verify the actions taken by various departments. It would seem that in just about every area contained in the recommendations, the ministers have taken action or are at the point of taking action.
The hon. member was courteous enough to send me notice of his question. I have a short list of areas where ministers are taking action. The Solicitor General has been looking into ways of establishing training programs, particularly in sensitizing the forces to the special problems-


Mr. Clark:: Table it. Order. He should table it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am not sure what is worrying the Leader of the Opposition at this time.


Charles Joseph Clark: Table the answer. He has got a long list; let him table it.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, if the Leader of the Opposition wants his members to ask written questions, we will give written answers. But if they are allowed the courtesy of giving verbal questions, we will give verbal answers. That is the rule of the House.


Charles Joseph Clark: You are reading a list.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think that many of the debates in the House, and question period itself, would be much more serious if we did proceed by way of written questions and written answers, and with notices of questions. I am prepared to discuss that situation.


Charles Joseph Clark: You will abuse it like you are abusing this.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I believe the question was on a different matter.


J. Robert Howie: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the Prime Minister for the encouraging answer.
June 1, 1982


IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATIONS
J. Robert Howie: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question which might elicit, in abbreviated form, the information he was attempting to give us. Is it the intention of the government to treat its response to the recommendations in the report as a high priority?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, yes. As I say, the ministers are already engaged in ways of following up on that report. The Minister of National Health and Welfare, for instance, has been encouraging the use of CAP funds to establish shelters for battered wives, and the minister has already established a family violence clearing house which can have as its mandate, resource information, research, where to turn for help, and such other matters.
In other areas like the recommendation on federal-provincial consultation, this has not begun yet, of course, but the Minister of Justice meets annually with his counterparts and it is his intention to raise this matter with them and to look at the report on this subject with the attorneys general of the provinces. There are many other areas which are under examination and we would be happy to discuss them with the hon. member at another time.


AIRPORTS
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. It is interesting to see the antagonism and the disagreement on such an issue as are apparent on the government side with respect to the future of Dorval and Mirabel airports. Since the President of the Treasury Board has a direct interest in the financial viability of Mirabel and also jurisdiction over many of the public servants connected with it, as well as being a Montreal member, will he attempt to resolve the problem and bring some rationale into the continuing operation of both these airports? What is his solution?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, as this is one of my responsibilities I want to assure the House that I received representations from the President of the Treasury Board as I have from many other hon. members, if not all hon. members, from the Montreal area.


QUERY RESPECTING POSSIBLE SOLUTION
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, I will go right to the top. I am going to the Prime Minister. I know he has a logical solution as he has a solution for most of the problems which beset this country.


An hon. Member:: Don't say you are going to the bottom!
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: The Prime Minister knows that Mirabel airport has been a financial, agricultural and commercial disaster, and that it is a problem which cries out for a quick and rational solution. He also is aware, for example, that a delegation of several concerned and angry municipal politicians from his area met again on Monday. Therefore I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he can finally bring an orderly and rational end to this continuing controversy which is doing no one any good, not the industry, nor the area, nor even his own caucus.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker, I must say that the hon. member is fortunate in that his own Quebec caucus does not seem to be divided on this subject.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: In unity there is strength.


John Edward Broadbent: Like your western caucus.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But certainly on this side there are very vigorous hon. members from different areas of the province who are presenting conflicting points of view, and it is the job of the caucus, under the leadership of the excellent minister, to find, as the hon. member hopes, a rational solution to the subject.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, my question, too, will be directed to the Minister of Transport, if I can get his attention. Private concession operators at Toronto airport, but not at Mirabel, are being coerced to implement an involuntary, forced bilingual personnel policy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ronald Alexander Stewart: This directive will lead to the dismissal of present employees who are unilingual. It is an affront to the merit system, and reduces unilingual Canadians in an overwhelmingly English province to the status of second-class citizens. It will mean, also, that our shop operators will have increased overhead costs. In places-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member really think that that is a question? This is question period.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Madam Speaker, it is very important to Italian Torontonians. I would ask the minister, what is the nature of the legal action which will be taken against concession operators who fail to comply, and will this language policy be

June 1, 1982
Oral Questions
extended to other airports such as Vancouver, Calgary and Winnipeg, under federal jurisdiction? Will it be extended to other free entreprise operators within Canadian federal institutions?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, there is in Canada an Official Languages Act.

There is an Official Languages Act in Canada- [Translation]
-and in my department, as in other departments, we are trying to implement this legislation as it applies to aviation, and that includes the particular case we have here of concession operators in airports. We are trying to do this as realistically and as responsibly as possible, and that is why, as far as airport concessions are concerned, we have established three categories: (a), (b) and (c), according to the demand for use of the other official language. We are applying the legislation by diplomatic and responsible means, through agreements signed with the concession operators. The agreements contain requirements the concession operators must meet.
Therefore, when these measures are implemented, we are, in fact, applying the terms of the contract. There are problems, and we are trying to solve these, but in most cases we have been remarkably successful by using persuasion instead of simply enforcing the regulations.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Madam Speaker, the Liberal Party is the party that champions human rights, but obviously not language rights. I would like to ask the minister if he considers that that will happen with the CNR, too.


EFFECT ON UNILINGUAL ENGLISH-SPEAKING CITIZENS
Ronald Alexander Stewart: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister one further question. Is this not a divisive policy, in view of Quebec's bill 101 which denies language rights for Canadians? By 1984 or 1985, will it mean the young people of nine out of ten provinces will be precluded from jobs because they are not bilingual-as an example, in these buildings?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I feel you will find many examples. Not too long ago I had the occasion to serve on a commission that gave me that opportunity. The hon. member will find that in many parts- all parts of Canada-


Charles Joseph Clark: What happened to its recommendations?


Jean-Luc Pepin: -there are a great number of people who are certainly fundamentally devoted to the implementation of bilingualism in this country.


An hon. Member:: Like Jack Horner.


Jean-Luc Pepin: We think that what we are doing in the Department of Transport is right, given that objective which is shared by the people of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. The minister is no doubt aware that a consortium in Saskatchewan, which includes Saskoil and Petro-Canada, is proposing to build a heavy-oil upgrader near Moose Jaw. In light of all the announced tax changes last night, such as earned depletion and others, I wonder if the minister could tell us whether any of these tax changes can be applied against the development of a heavy-oil upgrader in the province of Saskatchewan.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, in the National Energy Program published in 1980 we provided some funds to support the development of upgraders in Montreal and Saskatchewan. Those funds are still part of the energy envelope and are still available. In addition, the changes we announced last night will mean that there will be more money in the hands of the corporations. This will improve that cash flow of corporations. This way they will be in a better position to proceed with that particular project.
Finally, I understand that the new government of Saskatchewan, which I am also wishing well, is considering substantial changes to the royalty level in Saskatchewan. I remind my hon. friend that the royalty level in Saskatchewan is the highest in Canada. As a matter of fact it is one of the highest in the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: I think it is high time that the royalty level be changed if we want to see progress and action in the oil and gas field in Saskatchewan.


PARTICIPATION BY GOVERNMENT CORPORATIONS
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Madam Speaker, in other words there is nothing in the tax changes which could be applied toward the building of the heavy-oil upgrader itself in the province of Saskatchewan. It is like building a road to the river but building no bridge to cross the river. In light of that I would like to ask the minister whether or not he has had a chance to speak to the new minister of energy in Saskatchewan. Has the minister received a commitment from the minister of energy in Saskatchewan that Saskoil must still put up 25 per cent of the cost of the heavy-oil upgrader? While he is on his feet, can the minister make a commitment to increase
June 1, 1982

Petro-Canada's share from 15 per cent to at least 25 per cent so that Saskoil and Petro-Canada will hold a majority of shares in that upgrader in Saskatchewan?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I would like to remind my hon. friend again that I have indicated there is substantial support provided under the National Energy Program for the construction of an upgrader, in the form of a straight grant. Today that is still part of the energy program. Second, the cash flow which will be increased to the industry through the changes we announced last night will help the private sector and Petro-Canada to proceed, if they so desire, with the construction of that particular upgrader. I have not discussed the particular issue to which my hon. friend referred with the Saskatchewan minister. I am not considering making representations for particular changes with regard to actual participation. I would rather leave that to the corporations concerned, that is, Saskatchewan Power and Petro-Canada, to decide the best arrangements.


ASSISTANCE FOR WESTERN SERVICING INDUSTRY
Mr. Bert Hargrave (Medicine Hat):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. I am sure that the minister is aware of the very serious situation in the oil and natural gas servicing industry in western Canada, particularly with the near-total collapse of the natural gas servicing industry at Brooks, Alberta, almost totally involving small, independent Canadian operators. Would the minister indicate what specific help is now available for this sector as a direct result of his statement last night, quite apart from the recent Alberta announcement? Would the minister also indicate whether he sees any significant increase in the short-term possibility of natural gas exports to the United States?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the announcement last night included $2 billion. I indicated that over half of that amount would go to the industry in the next 18 months and that a large share of that amount would go to small Canadian companies which have proven to be the most active reinvestors. It is fair to assume that those companies would show the same dynamism in the next few months as they have shown historically in the past. This should have a positive effect on the service industries in Alberta. As a matter of fact, some contact that we had with some representatives of that industry this morning indicated that they were very supportive indeed of the steps that we took yesterday.
As far as the export of natural gas is concerned, I cannot promise my hon. friend that there will be substantial increases very shortly. As my hon. friend knows, the National Energy
Committee Reports
Board has approved new ways of determining the surplus and it will consider applications for additional exports. I think we will have to wait until the latter part of this year to know whether the Board will approve the further exports or not.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, following last night's discussion on the report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, there has been a discussion with party representatives and we have come to a compromise. If the following motion is accepted by unanimous consent, as seems to be the case, then a member of the committee will table the fifth report of the committee, and not the sixth. I move:
That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development be permitted to table its proposed fifth report after this date, provided that the said report is limited to observations on the main estimates, 1982-83 and does not deal directly with the said estimates, which pursuant to Standing Order 58 were deemed to have been reported without amendment on May 31, 1982.
If we have unanimous consent for this motion, Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Abitibi (Mr. Gingras) will be tabling the fifth report only.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House give its consent to this motion?


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I have no reason to believe that members of this party would withhold the unanimous consent that is necessary, but I do want to express my disappointment that the entire proceedings of the committee are not to be reported back to the House in the way in which the committee handled them.
Motion (Mr. Pinard) agreed to.


INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT- PRESENTATION OF FIFTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Rene Gingras (Abitibi):: Madam Speaker, as ViceChairman of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


ENERGY LEGISLATION-PRESENTATION OF SEVENTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. D. M. Collenette (York East):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the seventh report of the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.

June 1, 1982
Petitions
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (A), 1982-1983
[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting supplementary estimates (A) of sums required for the service of Canada for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1983 and, in accordance with the provisions of The Constitution Act, 1867, was presented by Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Madam Speaker to the House.

Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Madam Speaker, I have the duty to present a petition on behalf of a number of my constituents in the riding of Fraser Valley East. The purpose of the petition, signed by more than 130 members and friends of the Chilliwack Fish and Game Club, is to register their protest against the private member's Bill C-451, regarding gun control legislation, which deals with the number of firearms in circulation in this country and the control of the number of firearms in Canada.
Wherefore, the undersigned, your petitioners, humbly pray and call upon Parliament to oppose this legislation and deal directly with the present gun laws which are cumbersome, expensive to administer and ineffective except to harass law-abiding people.


Mr. Ron Irwin (Sault Ste. Marie):: Madam Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting a petition of 3,000 names of citizens of Ottawa, collected by Mr. Richard Delaney, requesting the Cabinet not to approve an Ontario Hydro scheme to sell power to General Public Utilities of New Jersey unless proper emission control devices are included. If Canada is to have any credibility in this environmental field, Madam Speaker, then this petition should be considered as seriously as the all-party petition of 139 Members of Parliament and the other place requesting basically the same disposition.
In addition, as well as the petition, the Ottawa Board of Education approved a resolution requesting that the students in science classes be exposed to the petition, discuss the matter and vote. The results of the vote are enclosed with the petition. Seventeen Ottawa schools have responded. One hundred and seventy three are in favour of the present Ontario Hydro
proposal, while 4,568 are in favour of imposition of environmental controls as a pre-condition of approval.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I move, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 59:
That the supplementary estimates (A) 1982-83, laid upon the Table earlier today, be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Smith (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,960 and 4,177.


Mr. Clarke: With reference to the uninsured losses of more than $1,000 of equipment recorded by the Department of the Secretary of State for the National Film Board in footnote No. 17 at page 13.4, volume 1 of the 1979-80 Public Accounts of Canada, under what circumstances was the film projector lost and (a) who was culpable (b) were any convictions made and, if so, what sentences were imposed (c) are any trials or appeals pending (d) was the equipment replaced (e) did the department undertake steps to ensure that such losses did not recur and, if so, what were they?


Mr. Jack Masters (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Communications):: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows:
1. The projector was loaned to Manitou College, a private Indian corporation occupying premises administered by the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, as part of the National Film Board's commitment to community development under the government's Challenge for Change program. The college was closed and the premises are now under the administration of the Department of the Solicitor General, which established a penitentiary institution there. The matter of the missing projector was referred to the Department of Justice, which was acting for the above-mentioned two departments to solve problems caused by the closing of the institution. The Department of Justice reported
June 1, 1982

that the projector was not among the assets located on the premises after closing and no trace of the projector was found; their report stated that NFB could consider that it had disappeared, and that it would be impossible to recover the equipment and/or its market value.
(a)	See above, (b) Not applicable, (c) Not applicable, (d) No. (e) Yes; more frequent follow-up on equipment on loan.


Mr. Andre: 1.	How many times did the National Advisory Council on Petroleum (NACOP) meet during (a) 1981 (b) 1980?
2.	How many times did the Business Advisory Council to the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce meet during (a) 1981 (b) 1980?


David P. Smith: I am informed by the Departments of Energy, Mines and Resources and Industry, Trade and Commerce as follows;
1.	(a) and (b) The National Advisory Council on Petroleum has not existed since 1978.
2.	Number of meetings in (a) 1981 None, (b) 1980 None. However, meetings were held with many business groups including the Canadian Manufacturers' Association, Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Air Industries Association and the Business Council on National Issues during this period.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, if question No. 3,557, standing in the name of the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure of the House that question No. 3,557 be deemed to have been made an order for return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Friesen: 1. From 1975 to the present, by year, what were the number of escapes and attempted escapes in the (a) British Columbia region at the (i) Regional Psychiatric Centre, Abbotsford (ii) Kent Institution, Agassiz (iii) Matsqui Institution, Abbotsford (iv) Mountain Institution, Agassiz (v) William Head Institution, Victoria (vi) Mission Institution, Mission (vii) Matsqui Trailer Unit (viii) Ferndale Institution, Mission (ix) Elbow Lake, Harrison Mills (x) Pandora Centre, Victoria (xi) Robson Centre, Vancouver (b) Alberta region at the (i) Edmonton Institution, Edmonton (ii) Drumheller Institution, Drumheller (iii) Bowden Institution, Innisfail (iv) Drumheller Trailer Unit (v) Grierson Centre, Edmonton (vi) Portal House, Calgary (vii) Altadore Centre, Calgary (c) Saskatchewan region at the (i) Regional Psychiatric Centre, Saskatoon (ii) Saskatchewan Penitentiary, Prince Albert (iii) Saskatchewan Institution, Prince Albert (iv) Oskana Centre, Regina (d) Manitoba region at the (i) Stony
Order Paper Questions
Mountain Institution, Stony Mountain (ii) Rockwood Institution, Stony Mountain (iii) Osborne Centre, Winnipeg (e) Ontario region at the (i) Regional Reception Centre, Kingston (ii) Regional Psychiatric Centre, Kingston (iii) Prison for Women, Kingston (iv) Millhaven Institution, Bath (v) Collins Bay Institution, Kingston (vi) Joyceville Institution, Joyceville (vii) Warkworth Institution, Campbellford (viii) Frontenac Institution, Kingston (ix) Pittsburg Institution, Joyceville (x) Bath Institution, Bath (xi) Beaver Creek, Gravenhurst (xii) Montgomery Centre, Toronto (xiii) Keele Street Centre, Toronto (xiv) Portsmouth Centre, Kingston (0 Quebec region at the (i) Regional Reception Centre, Ste-Anne-des-Plaines (ii) Correctional Development Centre, Laval (iii) Laval Institution, Laval (iv) Archambault Institution, Ste-Anne-des-Plaines (v) Leclerc Institution, Laval (vi) Federal Training Centre, Laval (vii) Cowansville Institution, Cowansville (viii) La Macaza Institution, L'Annonciation (ix) Montee St-Fransois Institution, Laval (x) Ste-Anne-des-Plaines Institution, Ste-Anne-des-Plaines (xi) Ogilvie Centre, Montreal (xii) Martineau Centre, Montreal (xiii) Sherbrooke Centre, Montreal (xiv) Benoit XV Centre, Quebec City (xv) Pie IX Centre, Montreal (g) New Brunswick region at the (i) Dorchester Penitentiary, Dorchester (ii) Westmorland Institution, Dorchester (iii) Parrtown Centre, Saint John (h) Nova Scotia region at the (i) Springhill Institution, Springhill (ii) Shulie Lake, Parrsboro (iii) Carlton Centre, Halifax?
2.	For the years 1976 to 1980, how many inmates of federal institutions were unlawfully at large?
3.	For the same period, for each institution in part 1 (a) what were the number of (i) attempted suicides (ii) suicides (iii) self-mutilations (b) how many prisoners were (i) murdered (ii) killed in accidents (c) how many prisoners were (i) killed (ii) injured by correctional service personnel acting in the course of their duty (d) how many staff members were (i) killed (ii) injured by prisoners?
Return tabled.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Madam Speaker, 1 rise at this time with respect to question No. 4,120 and to draw it to the attention of the parliamentary secretary. The question which is in three parts, Madam Speaker, is not a difficult one for the government to answer. It asks, for each cabinet minister, the names of the executive assistants and other members of exempt staff who are receiving income, from sources other than funds allotted to ministerial budgets, the names of those who receive income, favours, loans or other benefits of value from sources other than those permitted by the conflict of interest guidelines of cabinet ministers and former cabinet ministers. It also questions whether the Prime Minister has supplied every cabinet minister and each executive assistant and all members of the exempt staff with copies of the code of ethics produced by the late Prime Minister Pearson, and with a copy of the conflict of interest guidelines for cabinet ministers and former cabinet ministers.
The parliamentary secretary will understand that the reason for that question is to ensure that the exempt staff of cabinet ministers are receiving payments under ministerial allotments and to determine whether there are any special favours or benefits such as interest-free loans of payments of income from Crown corporations or other government agencies in an indirect way by way of subterfuge which otherwise would not be concealed from public view. I know the matter would be of some embarrassment to the government if it gave a reply. I know that because of the information we now have before us. I

June 1, 1982
Supply
ask the parliamentary secretary to do his job and to get these questions, which are straightforward, answered as soon as possible.


David P. Smith: Madam Speaker, I am not familiar with the exact progress which has been made in answering this question, but I will be happy to look in on behalf of the hon. member.
I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


John Carnell Crosbie: That this House deplores the failure of the Government to represent Canada properly or adequately in our external relationships or in accordance with the views and principles of the Canadian people specifically by its failure to oppose in any convincing and meaningful way the violation of human rights within Poland and the imposition of martial law therein, by the failure to support the United Kingdom and the rule of law in international affairs by opposing in a meaningful and convincing way the armed aggression of Argentina in its invasion of the Falkland Islands and, this House deplores the failure of the government to strengthen the Department of External Affairs as recommended by the McDougall commission as well as its failure to eliminate all aspects of patronage in the operation of that department.
He said: Madam Speaker, it is more in sorrow than in anger that I rise to speak on this motion. This is an occasion for sorrow among Canadians because of the level to which our external relations have fallen. The motion mentions four particular areas of our foreign policy or our external policy which are the cause of great sorrow and, in fact, can certainly inspire anger as well.
Canada is not a nation which wants to subjugate others through military or economic power. We are a middle-ranking nation which wants stable world order. We want a world order in which we can trade and increase our own wealth and prosper. We want to assist others for humanitarian purposes as well as for our own enlightened self-interest. However, it has become very obvious that we are not any longer a nation which is trusted as an honest broker or even a truth teller or as a nation which could be a trusted go-between. We are a nation which no longer can even defend our own national interests against other small or medium-sized powers. We suffer from impotence with respect to defence. We are unable to defend ourselves even from small or middle level powers, should that become necessary.
The white paper on defence in 1971 was the last such paper, and it said that there were four major areas of activity Canada should involve itself in in defence. The first was surveillance of
our own territory and coastlines to protect our own sovereignty. We are no longer in a position even to do that. It would not be a question of Canada's seizing, for example, St. Pierre and Miquelon, if we did desire to do that. It is more a question of whether St. Pierre and Miquelon might seize Newfoundland from Canada. That is the posture into which our military defences have put us, and the state of our navy is not due to any fault of those who serve on those forces but to the fault of a government which is uncaring about that aspect of our national being.
The second priority was said to be the defence of North America in co-operation with U.S. forces. As all hon. members of the House know, we are completely dependent upon the United States of America for our defence, yet we have a government which, having put us into that position, is forever carping and criticizing our defender and making snide comments, feeling itself to be morally superior to the United States of America. We depend on the United States to defend us with their nuclear arms, their military spending and their defence activities, but our government seems to think it puts us in a morally superior position to be defenceless and to depend on the United States of America and then to cavil and criticize them and feel superior to them.
Last night I came across a quotation from Fisher Ames, who said in 1800-and it is certainly true: "Nations that want protectors will have masters." This nation has wanted a protector, and it has a protector-or protectors-but it also has masters, and it is just as well for us to recognize that fact.
Going back to those defence objectives, our third defence objective was to fulfil NATO commitments. All hon. members of the House know we are not fulfilling our NATO commitments in any way, shape or form. We are seriously deficient in that respect.
The fourth objective was supposed to be international peacekeeping. We are attending to our international peacekeeping role to some extent.
Our foreign policy in the last number of years has largely been the creation of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), who claims to have a special expertise and a special interest in that area. He paints himself as a world leader in that area. However, he has failed to provide any leadership in the foreign policy field. Under his direction the government has taken a very narrow view of our interests in foreign affairs.
Most importantly, in our view this government has failed to express the desire of the Canadian public for moral content and spirit in our foreign policy. Canadians want a foreign policy and they want a government that will take foreign policy stands which project abroad those values that govern us internally, by which we define Canada to ourselves and by which we want to define Canada to the world. We do not believe we can stand for freedom at home while we condone repression abroad. We do not think it is a great accomplishment to have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms for Canada, but our government demonstrates hardly any sympathy at all for the loss of those same human rights and freedoms which
June 1, 1982

were being established so painfully in Poland last year under Solidarity.
As a result of the Prime Minister's deficiencies in this respect the government has failed either to lead or to educate Canadians on foreign policy matters. Foreign policy is any little matter the Prime Minister is interested in at the moment. For example, the Prime Minister whined to the United States of America and to the other six powers that comprised the economic summit some years ago because Canada was not to be included. Because Canada pleaded to be included and because the United States took pity on us and our Prime Minister, we were included in the economic summits. We are attending the one which starts this week because the United States of America listened to the pleas of the Prime Minister, who wanted to be included and who will go there this week not to put forward some far-reaching design of Canada's but to whine about United States interest rates and to try to pretend that it is the American economy and American policy which have Canada where it is today economically and which have devastated Canada from one end to the other. He will go there and use that opportunity to try to find a scapegoat in the United States, the very country which made it possible for Canada to attend. That is what foreign policy is in the Trudeau era.
The Prime Minister also does not think much, apparently, of his Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan). He does not appear to think he is up to being the spokesman for our foreign policy or external affairs generally. When that minister has taken that occasional stand, he has inevitably been contradicted by the Prime Minister, with the result that our foreign policy is and appears to be contradictory and confused.
What are some examples? One was the response to the Polish imposition of martial law in Poland in December when the Prime Minister took a very easy going approach to that, almost approving-really approving-while the Secretary of State for External Affairs seemed to take his line from Mr. Haig in the United States to take a tougher line. Further confirmation was the supposed reorganization of the Department of External Affairs on January 12 of this year when this minister was cluttered up with two other ministers hung around his neck like albatrosses. One was the Minister of State for International Trade (Mr. Lumley). Some people believe that there is an argument to be made for putting those people into the Department of External Affairs. But a third minister, one designated the Minister of State for External Relations (Mr. De Bane), the former minister for DREE, has been added. This only causes confusion in the Department of External Affairs. It shows how little the Prime Minister trusts the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Why was it necessary to appoint a Minister of State for External Relations? It must be because he has relatives living overseas! One cannot see any other purpose for the appointment.
Supply
To top off the insult to the Secretary of State for External Affairs from the Prime Minister, who should be supporting him at all times, in announcing the role of the Minister of State for External Relations the Prime Minister said that the purpose of the appointment was to develop a strategy of our relations with foreign countries and the role of Canada in francophonie, Africa in particular, and so on. Surely to heavens the role of Canada in francophonie and our relations with foreign countries must be decided and defined by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, not by some third minister hung around his neck.
Where is the Minister of State for External Relations? When it was necessary to send someone to Cameroon it was not the minister of state in charge of francophonie who was sent but the Minister of State (Mr. Joyal). The Minister of State in charge of nothing from Quebec represented Canada for a week in the Cameroons. We are to have a fourth minister to assist in foreign affairs. The matter would be laughable if it were not so serious. What is left for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to do once our relations with foreign countries and the role of Canada in francophonie and international, social, cultural and humanitarian affairs are removed? What kind of trash is this, Mr. Speaker? The Secretary of State for External Affairs has been cut off from the neck down, if not from the knees up.
The Prime Minister's foreign policy is plagued by contradictions between what he says and what he actually does. In a press conference on May 14 he said that we are 100 per cent behind the British in the Falkland Islands crisis. If Britain had to depend on friends like that, God help the United Kingdom! If we are 100 per cent behind the United Kingdom while we are shipping 3,000 nuclear fuel bundles to Argentina this month-if we are carrying on business as usual, as the cabinet paper stated-is that 100 per cent support for the United Kingdom or is that hypocrisy pure and simple on a gigantic scale?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: The government claims that it is bound by a contract with Argentina. I have requested that the contract be tabled but the government refuses. We are told that it is such a strong contract that it cannot be breached. We may forget about war, forget about civil commotion, forget about riots, acts of the Queen's enemies and all the other exceptions that are put in every contract. This is apparently the strongest contract ever entered into on this earth between two sovereign nations. Apparently we cannot break it by stopping the supply of nuclear fuel bundles for a nation that is already proven to be an aggressor and which has used armed force to invade the Falkland Islands. We are to supply that nation with nuclear fuel bundles while at the same time supporting the United Kingdom 100 per cent. If that is 100 per cent support, it is the same kind of support we see the Prime Minister giving the Secretary of State for External Affairs-100 per cent in the back!

June 1, 1982
Supply
In the Korean war days, if we had had a contract with North Korea when it invaded South Korea, would we have carried on with business as usual? It is not likely. If this government had been in power, we might have; but we did not do it when we had men in power. When Germany invaded Poland, for example, would we have continued with our contracts with Germany no matter what it had done on the international scene? I suppose if the Prime Minister had been in power the answer would be yes, but we would not have done that under any other Canadian representing the feelings of the people.
The government has condemned Argentina for violating international law but it is "business as usual" with that government whose own leaked document says that it is going to continue to build a nuclear bomb.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs who is supposed to support the United Kingdom said in response to a question that I put to him that the Canadian government took no position on the question whether Britain had sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. Mr. Speaker, the U.S. Senate passed a resolution to the effect that the Falkland Islands were a British colony. It was not afraid to say that Britain has sovereignty over the Falklands, but this government, giving Britain 100 per cent support, will not even say that Britain has sovereignty over the Falkland Islands. That is the kind of support it gives. That is standing against aggression. But then, that is this government all over-hypocrisy of a gigantic dimension.
Have we offered any assistance to Great Britain to help repel armed aggression in the Falkland Islands? No, we have not. Have we offered a ship, as New Zealand has done? No, we have not. Have we offered anything to Britain except pious platitudes? No, we have not. That is disgraceful, Mr. Speaker. Of course, we have the Prime Minister's statement and I will elaborate on that.
What about the question of Poland? On February 23, 1982, a feeble list of sanctions against Poland and the Soviet Union was announced. The minister admitted that these were only symbolic and were designed to encourage the martial law regime to live up to its intention to re-establish civil liberties. We called upon Soviet authorities to end martial law, to release those who had been arrested, to restore immediately a dialogue with the church and Solidarity. That is what the minister's press release of February 23 said that Poland should do. The sanctions were designed to strike such fear into the hearts of the Polish government that all this would happen. But has it happened, Mr. Speaker?
I have here a dispatch from Peter Kent, who was jailed several weeks ago in Poland, in which he said that he saw the Polish guards beating Solidarity demonstrators with rubber truncheons in front of his very eyes. Martial law has not been lifted and civil liberties have not been re-established. Martial law still exists and there is no dialogue between the church and Solidarity.
Those sanctions were imposed three months ago. On March 24 we outlined the kind of sanctions that we would have
imposed were we in power and these received the full support of the Polish community and the Canadian Solidarity groups. But the government says that it does not want to impose harsher restrictions and that it is going to continue to sell grain to Poland with credit for three-year terms, the most generous credit arrangements we have with anyone. It is going to continue to allow the Polish government to send trawlers into our 200-mile economic zone to take 12,000 tons of fish per year without receiving any return. It claims it is doing that because it wants to help the ordinary Polish people and it does not want to interfere with the supply of food for them. These measures do not hurt the Polish government, Mr. Speaker, but, rather, help it.
If it is necessary for us to assist the Polish people, if they need food, if they need aid, it should go through international agencies of assistance which will see that it is distributed and gets to the people it was meant for. It should not be done in a way that props up the despotism that now rules Poland.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I have in my hand a letter dated May 12, 1982, from Zygmunt Przetakiewicz.


Mr. Flis:: Shame on you. You cannot even pronounce it!


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) has turned his back on the Polish community so I do not want to hear from him. Shame on him, sitting over there without protesting while this is happening to the Polish people.
In this letter of May 12 the head of "Solidarity" Information Office in Canada, referring to our proposals of March 24, writes as follows:
I fervently hope that your proposals will be implemented by the Canadian government as soon as possible.
I believe that sanctions precisely directed at the Polish and Soviet authorities are the best peaceful means by which we may aid the Polish people's struggle for their rights.
In this manner our actions would parallel the peaceful resistance of the people in Poland by which they hope to apply sufficient pressure on the Polish authorities to force them to end the state of war, to release all of those arrested and to resume the dialogue between Solidarity and the government-
This has the backing of the Solidarity movement in Canada. The first Pan-Canadian conference of Solidarity had a meeting on April 24 and 25 in Toronto. They made resolution that the Canadian government is obliged to defend human rights now suspended in Poland; that the issues be raised at the UN by Canada; that the Canadian government use moneys put away for Poland to finance the delegation of accountability to verify whether Canadian food exports to Poland are reaching the people. They asked that the Canadian government replace what they call the present symbolic and ineffective sanctions with more meaningful ones, and implement a full range of trade, diplomatic and cultural sanctions against Poland and the Soviet bloc until the state of war is lifted in Poland and human, citizen and trade union rights are reinstated. That is
June 1, 1982

what they have asked for. And if I cannot pronounce that gentleman's name properly, he knows that my heart and support is with him!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: On May 17, Mr. Speaker, I presented those Solidarity resolutions to Parliament exactly as they had been given to me by way of a motion under Standing Order 43. The members on the Liberal side of this House said no and did not permit that resolution to be passed by this House.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


John Carnell Crosbie: The party that sits with and supports-


Mr. Cullen:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand, and you can correct me if I am wrong, that it is inappropriate and improper to comment on the result of a vote because the hon. member does not know from which side the "no" on those motions comes from. In any event, he is not supposed to comment on them and that is a rule of this House.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I am-


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. gentleman wants the record set straight in Hansard. When martial law broke out on Sunday, December 13-


John Carnell Crosbie: That is not a point of order.


Jesse Philip Flis: Yes, it is. On Monday there was an all-party agreement to a motion which was to be presented in the House on that day. When the motion was brought into the House the Conservatives refused to give it unanimous consent-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member will have an opportunity to be recognized in the course of debate. The hon. member for St. John's West has the floor.


John Carnell Crosbie: the Polish Scarlet Pimpernel has spoken. Mr. Speaker, I have limited time or I would deal with that Polish Pimpernel pretty quickly. However, I want to move on and my next-


Jesse Philip Flis: 1 have a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Parkdale-High Park is rising on a question of privilege.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if you could check whether that was parliamentary language or not. As a Canadian, 1 resent being called names like this.


John Carnell Crosbie: 1 retract, Mr. Speaker. Let me leave Poland for a few minutes, Mr. Speaker. By the way, the Prime Minister has never retracted his initial statement of December 18 when he said:
Hopefully the military regime will be able to keep Solidarity from excessive demands.
He was very hopeful about that. What were the excessive demands of Solidarity? Free speech; freedom of movement; freedom to have a free-trade union. Those were the "excessive demands", and our Prime Minister hoped that the military regime would be able to keep Solidarity from those excessive
Supply
demands. What do they say in Poland? The Globe and Mail reported that one Pole said:
Your Trudeau, he really did us in.
This illustrates the false hypocrisy of our position in the world, the pirouetting and posturing which goes on under this government.
The Prime Minister made a speech on May 2 at the convocation of St. Francis Xavier University where he warned of a moral void. He spoke of the-
-need for a new code of international morality, a new global ethic to guide the conduct of peoples and of nations, in this new age in which we live.
The person who spoke those noble words is the same person who is selling nuclear fuel bundles to Argentina, no matter what happens in the realm of armed aggression. That is the "new global ethic" of this Prime Minister who speaks in these terms to university graduates and then proceeds to sell nuclear fuel bundles to the military regime of Argentina which is guilty of the most heinous human rights violations, apart from anything else. Do his actions in support of martial law in Poland reflect his new code of "international morality?" If that is the new code, then we have no difficulty in finding out who the architect of that new code is.
There has been an erosion in the moral vigour and direction of our foreign policy which is paralleled by a decline in the status and efficacy of its chief instrument, our foreign service. The Prime Minister cares not a whit about the condition of the Canadian foreign service. The Secretary of State for External Affairs cares not a whit. A royal commission was appointed by the Prime Minister in the person of Pamela McDougall when he himself said that dissatisfaction was prevalent in the foreign service. She reported to the government on October 18, 1981, and what action did the government take? It has taken no action. There was a major reorganization of the department on January 12 about which she was not consulted by the Prime Minister who appointed her. She was not consulted by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. She was not consulted by the deputy minister of that department until some time in February or March, I have forgotten the exact date. The minister was satisfied to tell us here in this House that he had nothing to do with the commission, that it was reporting to the Prime Minister. Well, God help Canada if we have ministers in charge of departments who are proud to proclaim that they are doorsteps and footmats for the Prime Minister, and that they do not control or administer their own departments. If that was my department I would have had Miss McDougall in within a week after she gave me that report, and would read it and discuss it with her. Maybe I will never be in that department, but I would not want to be if I had to function as the Secretary of State for External Affairs now functions, like an India-rubber man.
This royal commission report was ignored, Mr. Speaker. What are some of its findings? Tremendously alarming findings were made, and then the minister came into the House and tried to pretend that Miss McDougall did not mean
17974	_______________________COMMONS DEBATES_________________________June 1, 1982
Supply
what she said. He was repudiated by Miss McDougall in the committee. I read to her the minister's statements in this House and Miss McDougall said it was a false impression. She stood by, she said, every recommendation and conclusion she came to in the report. On December 17 in this House the minister said:
-that she herself stated that the report puts things out of focus, that on balance it is a good foreign service with good morale. By singling out the various problems ... this gives an over-all false impression-
That was the answer of the minister to a question by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) on December 17, 1981. Then the author of the report came to committee and said that was entirely false, and she stood by all her conclusions. Some of her conclusions were that the morale of this department is shot. There is a huge gap in communications between agencies in the field and the head office. There is a sorry state of communications between Ottawa and missions abroad. There is mistrust, confusion and misunderstanding about the partial consolidation of 1981. There is a crisis of identity and confidence in the foreign service which requires positive counteraction. There is a profound malaise in the foreign service.
This is the commissioner appointed by the Prime Minister, one who is experienced in the service, speaking about the implement through which our foreign policy is carried out. She says there is a failure of management in the foreign service.
The Prime Minister did not care, because the Prime Minister does not care about that department. The Prime Minister makes up his own foreign policy as he goes along, and he has nothing but contempt for the people who work in the Department of External Affairs, and nothing but contempt for the three ministers he put there to play ring-around-the-rosy when there should be one secretary of state in control of Canada's external relations. That is why there is an erosion in the quality of our foreign service and that is why it is in its present condition. So our foreign policy is transformed from an enterprise which should be dedicated to achieving our interests, securing our friendships and preserving peace and the values of the west, into a vehicle for the personal glory of the Prime Minister. Here is what he said at St. Francis Xavier:
Heads of state and of governments ought to work together to forge existing international bodies into an authentic network whose lines of communication will be kept warm by a human current-summitry.
The Prime Minister thinks the answer is for heads of state to meet at the summit. Summitry is the answer to all the world's problems. It is the personalized approach to foreign policy. Canadians wonder whether we have any role to play or if it is all to be done by this magical Prime Minister at the summit.
I want to spend a few moments on patronage in the foreign service, which has been exemplified by the recent appointment of Mr. Erickson to be the architect to design our embassy in Washington. After practising an elaborate deception on the whole Canadian architectural profession in a shameful manner, Mr. Erickson, not recommended as one of the four best by
the committee, was appointed by the Prime Minister because he was a pal, a friend of the Prime Minister.


David P. Smith: That is nonsense.


John Carnell Crosbie: Let me say this. If that gentleman had any courage or was the architect he is supposed to be, he would revoke that commission and send it back so that the people who were recommended, the Zeidler firm in Toronto, who were found to be the best by the committee, would get it. What happened is absolutely shameful.
At the very font of our system is the Prime Minister who is supposed to be the leader of this country. But what do we see?
We see the kind of action that Louis XIV might have taken as the "Sun King" at Versailles, and that is where the Prime Minister is going on Friday. The procedure followed is what an absolute monarch would do but not a parliamentary government.
The questions posed by the Edmonton Journal on May 12 are the questions we have to ask now. How ethical is it to establish a selection committee which has no real role? How ethical is it to ask for costly submissions by architects for a project they cannot win? How ethical is it for Mr. Erickson to accept the project when a panel has decided that he is not the best qualified to design the embassy?
Mr. Speaker, I believe you are indicating that my time is running out. That is the difficulty when we are on such a vast subject. I speak now of Argentina. There is an old proverb;
"He that sups with the devil must have a long spoon." We are supping with the devil by sending nuclear fuel bundles to	H
Argentina. I have another proverb written by Erasmus in	H
1508: "It is easier to raise the devil than to lay him." The devil	H
that we are raising in Argentina today and with whom we are H supping is one with which we will have the greatest difficulty H ever laying.	H
In conclusion, I have to say that we have the weakest foreign	H
policy we have ever had, administered by a Prime Minister and	H
a Secretary of State for External Affairs who are letting this	H
country down badly, who can do nothing of substance, who	H
posture plaintively and humiliate us on the world scene by	H
letting down our friends, comforting our enemies and by	H
inflicting shame on the Canadian people who feel we can do	H
very much better by assisting where we are needed in interna-	H
tional affairs.	H


Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr.	H
Speaker, I thought possibly the Secretary of State for External	H
Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) would like to respond to some of the	Sh
hyperbole we have just heard. If he would like to respond now,	H
I would be willing that he do so.


Mr. MacGuigan:: The hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett)	may	have the floor.	H


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, it strikes me passing strange that the party to my right should be talking about international	I
morality and the absence of it on the part of the government.	H
Mind you, they are quite right. There is no great spirit on the

June 1, 1982

part of the government. But for the Conservative Party to be placing itself in the position of morality in international matters is almost unbelievable. Where was the Conservative Party when many years ago we were talking about the importance of not providing Argentina with a nuclear reactor? Where was the Conservative Party then?


An hon. Member:: We were not at war then.


Pauline Jewett: We said at that time that Argentina would be on the threshold of developing nuclear weaponry and that if we provided a reactor we might well assist them in developing nuclear weapons. But now hon. members to my right are saying yes, and now they are protesting the sending of nuclear fuel bundles to Argentina. But there was never a word from the Tories about that a year and a half ago. There was never a word about the oppressive, dictatorial, militaristic regime of Argentina a year or so ago. Not a word. Have you ever heard a Tory worry about the people who have disappeared in Argentina?


Mr. Taylor:: Do you have a monopoly on it?


Pauline Jewett: One or two, perhaps, the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) being a case in point. But only one or two in that whole party have ever worried or concerned themselves about the dictatorial regime in Argentina.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: You are the epitome of words, I suppose.


Pauline Jewett: But now the Tories are talking as if they had somehow all along been in support of criticizing that regime.


Mr. Wenman:: What about human rights in Poland?


Pauline Jewett: All right. The only country which the Conservative Party has been looking at seriously from a human rights point of view in the last several months has been Poland. All of us have been concerned about the imposition of martial law and the deprivation of rights of the Polish people.


Donald W. Munro: What about the Soviet Union?


Pauline Jewett: It has been said earlier in this debate that we were prepared to have a unanimous motion in this House deploring the situation there. Where was the Conservative Party when we were talking about martial law in Turkey? Have you ever heard a single Conservative protest martial law in Turkey, Mr. Speaker?


Donald W. Munro: What about human rights in the U.S.S.R.?


Pauline Jewett: Have you ever heard the Conservative Party as a whole protesting the 30,000 murdered people in El Salvador? Never. The Tories have never said a word about the denial of human rights in Guatemala, El Salvador-
Supply


Donald W. Munro: Nicaragua and the U.S.S.R.?


Pauline Jewett: As a party they have never taken this position on any country. The hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) above all has never taken a position in the defence of human rights anywhere in the world. When he says that we want to project fundamental values that we all share in the world, we could not help but agree. But we would like to see it done in practice, not done highly selectively.


Gordon Edward Taylor: We don't support communists.


Pauline Jewett: We have supported the arguments made time and time again in this party and in Socialist International in opposition to martial law in Poland. It is all on the record. We have supported the opposition to martial law in Turkey. We have supported the need to refer the human rights question in countries in Latin America and above all in El Salvador to the United Nations. But not the Tories. Don't tell me they are concerned about values concerning human rights.


Gordon Edward Taylor: You know everything.


Pauline Jewett: The Tories are not at all concerned about these questions.
The hon. member for St. John's West also spent some time in South Africa. Never have we heard a word from him or from the Tory party as a whole on the question of apartheid in South Africa.


John Carnell Crosbie: I was also in Japan and China.


Pauline Jewett: Nor have the Tories been very concerned about Namibia. I could go on and on in this vein, Mr. Speaker.


Donald W. Munro: I have been concerned about Namibia and SWAPO.


Pauline Jewett: We sit here and listen to the utmost hyprocri-sy, but we are obliged to take this dog's breakfast of a motion and see what we can pull out of it which might be useful and valuable.
There is no question in the minds of anyone in this party that what the government did in the matter of assigning the design of the new embassy in Washington to a crony of the Prime Minister's was reprehensible. There is no question in our minds about that. Whether or not if the Tories had been in power they would have done the same thing is hypothetical, because they were not in power long enough. But I remember one occasion in the last election campaign when the hon. member for St. John's West complained that when the Tories were in power they had not used the power of political patronage sufficiently.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: What about the NDP in Saskatchewan?


Pauline Jewett: The hon. member complained that in politics there are times when one should be rewarding one's friends. That was the hon. member for St. John's West in the last

June 1, 1982
Supply
election campaign. I am not at all sure that if the Tories were in power they would have done very much differently on that matter.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: And the NDP in Manitoba.


Pauline Jewett: I am not at all sure either whether the Tories would have listened to Miss McDougall. If the hon. member for St. John's West had been Secretary of State for External Affairs, I am not at all sure that he would have even known that his Prime Minister had appointed a royal commissioner to look into conditions in the foreign service. There is such division and lack of communication in the Conservative Party that he may not even have known.
He did not mention in his motion one of the most serious criticisms made in the McDougall report concerning the conditions faced by spouses abroad and the absence of any adequate female representation and promotion in the Department of External Affairs. When the minister is considering the report, I hope he addresses himself to that matter.
What is most alarming about the motion before us today is that is does not touch upon the most important matter to all humanity today, that is, the arms race. Not a word does it say about what Canada's position might be or should be at the special session on disarmament which will begin next week. Not a word of criticism does it offer about the absence of any follow-up by the Government of Canada on its 1978 strategy of suffocation. There was not a word in this motion about a matter which is on our doorstep and will be the subject matter, as we all know, of a seven-week session of the United Nations. Do we in fact have a policy for the government to follow? There is a good deal of talk that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would be available, would return from his travels on June 14, which is the day allotted for the Canadian speech. Will he go there to speak? Is he likely to speak there when we know that apart from a small glimmer in his speech at Notre Dame University-a speech which was quite at variance with the recent addresses of both the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne)-he has no new initiatives for Canada to take to the United Nations and therefore probably will not attend? It would hardly be satisfying to the Prime Minister to announce at the United Nations special session that we would make our major contribution the testing of airborne Cruise missiles.
The government has agreed to postpone the final decision on that testing until after UNSSOD II. However, it seems to me that the government is still very deeply committed, because it is so intimately tied up with American strategic planning, to go ahead with the testing of Cruise missiles. There was not a word of criticism of the government for its lack of ideas, hopes and even dreams in the field of international affairs which is so vital to us all. I suggest the reason for this lack is that in fact, for all the hyperbole of the hon. member on other matters about the great differences between the two parties, there are no great differences between the two parties on these matters.
When the Conservatives were in power in December, 1979 they went along with the NATO decision, without a murmur, to have ground-based Cruise and Pershing IIs in Europe. The Conservative government of the day did not raise a murmur, as did the governments of Belgium, The Netherlands and other countries. In fact, if anything, the Conservatives might even be worse in this intimate tie-in in the nuclear arms field than the Liberals.
Having no real difference, and being Tweedledum and Tweedledee on these matters, the motion before us today did not even raise the matters of arms control and disarmament. It was as if the entire area of arms control and disarmament, about which all Canadians are now talking, is something that the Conservatives have not even heard of, with the exception of two hon. members. If some of the Conservatives here had been at the walk for peace in Vancouver on April 24 and had seen the 35,000 people who were there, if some Liberal Members of Parliament had been there as well, I think they would take a very, very different view on this matter today than they do.
The fact is that the Liberal government has been extremely remiss in almost all aspects of foreign policy. It has allowed Canada's whole orientation to be changed. Ever since 1968 it has abhorred the enormous advances made by the late Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson. It has as much as said-and in fact did say on one occasion in the words of the Prime Minister- that it did not want to be a helpful fixer, a mediator or a power in the world scene which was working for peace, understanding and reconciliation. It has not taken that course but rather has allowed Canada to become absolutely and totally enmeshed in a military strategy and doctrine over which it has no influence or control. As a result of taking that course, it has put itself on the fringes as far as the world scene is concerned.
I wonder what the government knows about the newest document which was leaked in Washington concerning the Pentagon strategy for fighting a long nuclear war. I wonder whether the minister read it. It appeared in the New York Times the day before yesterday. I wonder whether our officials and the minister had any role to play in the development of that document. In case some hon. members have not yet seen it, the document is the new five-year over-all plan of the United States defence department for "fighting and winning" a nuclear war, even though President Reagan a few months ago said that in a nuclear exchange there are no winners. Did our Department of National Defence have any input into this? Perhaps the Secretary of State for External Affairs does not know, perhaps the Minister of National Defence does not know; in fact they probably do not know.
Since we are so intimately linked with American strategic planning, I ask whether we in fact had any input into the development of this document. I am quite sure the answer is no. Canada has given up the kind of influence it in fact exercised in the 1950s and 1960s. Also it has given up the role, to use James M. Minifie's phrase, of peacemaker and has almost become totally and solely a powder monkey. This is what Canada has done in the last decade.
June 1, 1982

There are glimmers that the government might yet have Canada play a more independent, more responsible and more useful role in the world. I hope that in the course of the minister's remarks today we may hear something positive and creative, particularly in light of the fact that we will be speaking at the United Nations Special Session on Disarmament on June 14.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, at no time in our history has Canada's national principles and interests been so deeply engaged with the world around us. We often sense, with a terrible immediacy, events in the farthest corners of the globe. The international system developed in the post-war world needs constant repair and renovation if it is not to unravel. The interplay of political, economic, military and social changes is dizzying in its speed and dangerous in its potential consequences.
What do Canadians expect of their foreign policy in such a time? Foreign policy constantly embodies the views and principles of Canadians. It is the expression abroad of the nature of our country, of our deeply held values and of our national policies. This government believes that there are a number of principles which Canadians cherish and expect to see pursued at home and abroad. These principles were first laid out in the paper at the beginning of the 1970s and include the fostering of economic growth, the safeguarding of Canada's sovereignty and independence, working for global peace and security, promoting social justice, enhancing the quality of life and ensuring a harmonious natural environment. These are six values to which Canadians are deeply committed as a people in their life abroad as well as their life at home.
In the current period, economic growth and social justice are the priority goals of this government abroad as they are at home. Attention to peace and security and to the rule of international law is surely a fundamental pre-condition to prosperity and justice. The international environment at the present juncture is by no means congenial or conducive to the pursuit of peace and international co-operation. Perhaps the most troubling is the tendency toward persistent crises, toward a failure of mediation and the emergence of problems which spring up beyond the reach of national institutions; problems which slip through the international safety net and threaten violence and injustice.
Canadians expect their foreign policy to work for the good of this country but they also insist that it work for the good of the global community. They realize that Canada cannot pursue its goals in a world of instability. They demand of their foreign policy that Canada make a contribution to world order and harmony.
Canadians expect their foreign policy to address the perplexing issues of the day openly, directly and peacefully. They expect Canada to pull its weight in the world, for example by promoting the independence of Namibia, supporting the Association of Southeast Asian Nations, accepting refugees from oppression, countering the Soviet threat in alliance with traditional partners, working for economic progress in the
Supply
Caribbean and Central America or deepening our ties with francophone states.
It is against that background of priorities and principles that I now turn to the motion before us. I believe I am speaking on behalf of a middle power, a modest people, but a people with a strong sense of idealism not only for themselves but also for their world. Canadian foreign policy articulates and demonstrates the long-standing Canadian characteristics of moderation, reason and co-operation quickened by concern for our fellow man.
This party is in the mainstream of Canadian opinion with respect to international affairs. It is in the mainstream of western opinion. That cannot be said for either of the parties opposite.
Let us look at their position. Let us take Her Majesty's loyal opposition. Let me cite this incident which occurred at the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence on May 4. The mover of the motion for today's debate, the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) and the official critic for his party in that field, attacked the government for not providing military assistance to Britain in the conflict over the Falkland Islands. In the same meeting his Conservative colleague, the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), told the committee, "I want some compromise. 1 want you"-speaking to me-"identifying the nature of the compromise and getting on to that."
One could speak volumes about the confusion that exists in the ranks of the official opposition with respect to foreign policy. One wonders where the members of that party are today. For instance, I had hoped to hear the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) speak of the views of the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) on the election in El Salvador. It would have been most enlightening for the country to find out where the Conservative Party stands. It would have been interesting to hear the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble)-and perhaps we will-speak of the views on social justice of the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche), who knows that I agree with his position but also knows that he unfortunately does not have the support of his own party. It would be interesting to hear the views of the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean) on the disarmament theories of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon). That would be a treat.
Let me give another case in point relating to the hon. member for St. John's West who is, for the moment, the official critic for his party. When asked about the actions of the brief Tory government over the invasion of Afghanistan, this hon. member-obviously stretched to the limits of his understanding of foreign policy-told startled journalists that the Soviet Union had been invited into Afghanistan. Not only is that hon. member not in the mainstream of Canadian public opinion, not in the mainstream of western public opinion, but he is not even in the mainstream of world public opinion, because 105 nations at the United Nations voted against the Soviet invasion of-not invitation to-Afghanistan. It would

June 1, 1982
Supply
have been interesting to have the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) here to see this cavalier treatment of the policies of his government when they were in office as expressed by the hon. member for St. John's West.
As I have said, this government speaks for the mainstream. There are a few brave souls in the party opposite, risking the wrath of their fellows, who swim along with the government, but there are others who are off paddling on the sides by themselves, and there are some who are floundering. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands is swimming in the wrong direction, upstream, and the hon. member for St. John's West has indicated by his views on Afghanistan and other issues that he is not even in the water yet. Perhaps I might change my metaphor somewhat to say that he is actually a beached whale who has been thrown up on the shores by his own leader.
With respect to the New Democratic Party, it is all too well known that their attitudes to the world are vitiated by the antiwestern, anti-NATO position which they have taken on all issues of the day but which come out most dramatically on issues of East-West confrontation and issues of disarmament. It is well known that the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), the leader of that party, is a closet supporter of NATO but is not allowed out of the closet by his own party who, at their last meeting, voted against the continuance of Canada in NATO.
Having seen that the opposition parties are not in the mainstream, let us look at the position the government has adopted with respect to the crisis in Poland and Canada's response. Following the imposition of martial law in Poland on December 13 of last year-


John Carnell Crosbie: They sent Flis over!


Mark R. MacGuigan: -Canadian policy in respect to this tragic event has been twofold. We have continued to manifest our humanitarian concern for the welfare of the Polish people, particularly for their human rights and freedoms. We have also sought to demonstrate clearly to the Polish and Soviet authorities our firm belief that the imposition of martial law on the united people struggling to build a better future for themselves and their country was a reprehensible act. I need not list again for hon. members the humanitarian assistance that the government has provided for the Polish people.


John Carnell Crosbie: Helping the government.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Our efforts have been considerable and have served to supplement, in no small way, those of thousands of Canadians across this country. I notice the interruptions by the hon. member for St. John's West. I think the House should once again take notice of his interruptions. I do not know whether he was speaking for his party on this occasion or not. How is one to know? On this occasion he said that he was opposed to the continuance of the food supply of wheat which Canada allows to go to Poland so that the people will not
starve. That is the policy of that hon. member, at least, and perhaps of his party. I leave that to them to fight out among themselves in their usual happy fashion.


John Carnell Crosbie: That, I never said.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Happy as you are. As long as you tell the truth, Mark.


John Carnell Crosbie: Try the truth, like the Minister of Justice.


Mark R. MacGuigan: We have also frequently and consistently expressed our serious concerns about the human rights situation in Poland. I attended the fifth session of the Madrid follow-up meeting of the Conference on Security and Cooperation in Europe-


John Carnell Crosbie: You are good at attending meetings.


Mark R. MacGuigan: -and spoke out in detail on that occasion, February 9. Let me recall a portion of my Madrid statement.


John Carnell Crosbie: All talk and no do.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I stated:
The commitment of the Polish government to fulfil its obligations under Principle VII has clearly been abandoned in the events that have transpired in Poland since December 13, 1981. Thousands of people have been interned, simply for having been active in an organization duly recognized by the Polish courts. They have been charged with no criminal offences. They are simply being held, being allowed minimal contacts with their families and friends, at the pleasure of the government-
At the time of the imposition of martial law in Poland, nearly ten million of the country's work force of some 14 million belonged to "Solidarity". They were supported in their efforts to improve the economic and social conditions prevailing in Poland by their families and friends, by the million-strong membership of rural Solidarity and by millions of sympathizers and admirers around the world.
Their valiant efforts to exercise their right to self-determination gave us all hope in the power of the individual to take his life in his own hands, to join together with other like-minded individuals, and together to build a better future. These hopes were quashed on December 13, 1981. The present Polish authorities have not, despite all their efforts, been able to explain to our satisfaction why they acted as they did, where the threats of civil war and anarchy came from.
Canada has stated on numerous occasions that Poland must be left to resolve its political and social difficulties without outside intervention. We believe firmly that only the Poles themselves have the right to determine their national destiny-but it must be all Poles, not just a small ruling class.
Surely this statement fully demonstrates the Canadian government's concern for the human rights of the Polish people. I can tell hon. members that the Soviet and Polish representatives in Madrid were left in no doubt about our position.
In implementing the second aspect of the response to the imposition of martial law in Poland, the Canadian government has stood firmly with our NATO allies. At our ministerial meeting in Brussels on January 11, and again in Luxembourg on May 17 and 18, we called for the lifting of martial law, the release of those detained and the restoration of the dialogue among the government, Solidarity and the church. Canada and its NATO allies also agreed to suspend the provision of future commercial credits for goods other than food, and to hold in abeyance consideration of holding negotiations on the payments due in 1982 on Poland's official debt.
June 1, 1982

The measures the government later announced on February 23, 1982, were designed to demonstrate our concerns over developments in Poland to the Polish and the Soviet authorities. These measures are well in keeping with those adopted by our NATO allies, and we remain fully committed to them.
This again illustrates the fact that we are in the mainstream, not only in the mainstream of the Canadian people, which is our most important responsibility, but also in the mainstream of the west because our sanctions and measures taken against the Soviet Union are parallel to those taken by other members of the alliance.
I would like now to say a few words about the Falklands crisis. 1 referred earlier to the instability of the world in which we live; I should also have added the unpredictability. The Falklands crisis illustrates the volatility of events. It also underlines the need to give more than lip service to the norms of international law, and that stability will only come when international principles are achieved in practice by all states.
The text of this motion, in so far as it concerns the situation in the Falkland Islands, suggests to me that Rip Van Winkle must have been one of the drafters because they have obviously forgotten, if they ever took the time to learn, what the Canadian position is. The resolution criticizes the government for its alleged "failure to support the United Kingdom and the rule of law in international affairs."
Let us look at the record. On the same day that Argentina began its occupation of South Georgia and the Falkland Islands on April 2, we called in the Argentine charge d'affaires to express our consternation and concern that in this day and age Argentina would resort to force to settle a territorial dispute with another country, in clear violation of Article 2-


John Carnell Crosbie: Nuclear bundles.


Mark R. MacGuigan: -of the Charter, which states that "all members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace, security and justice are not endangered." It is on this clear point of principle that Canada opposed Argentina's action and fully supported the Security Council Resolution 502.


Mr. Gamble:: The strongest words you can muster.


Mark R. MacGuigan: During the Security Council debate on Resolution 502, our ambassador clearly expressed Canada's position in this regard. He said:
My delegation has requested participation in the debate in order to express its shock and deep concern at the precipitous action of Argentina in resorting to force in its attack and armed occupation of the Falkland Islands.
This was followed by our decision on April 4 to recall the Canadian ambassador to Argentina for consultations, a traditional diplomatic device to demonstrate formally disapproval of another country's action.


Gordon Edward Taylor: And left the technicians there.


Mark R. MacGuigan: At the same time, the government placed an immediate embargo on the export to Argentina of all military equipment and, on April 12, followed these measures
Supply
by a ban on all imports from Argentina and on export credits for any new commercial transactions with that country.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Still sending nuclear bundles.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Our sanctions, of course, were parallel to those taken by the European Economic Community, by Australia and New Zealand and, of course, went beyond those of the United States. I might say that they were adopted without terminal date, unlike those of the European Community which had to be renewed twice and only now are like ours, without terminal date.
Both sides are obviously convinced that their claims to the Falkland Islands are just, but Britain has always been prepared to seek a peaceful solution to the dispute. Argentina, unfortunately, chose to use force in violation of the United Nations Charter, an illegal act which was so recognized by the Security Council at its emergency session on April 3 which demanded by a vote of ten to one Argentina's withdrawal and the immediate cessation of hostilities, and the beginning of negotiations between the two governments. Regrettably, not only did Argentina ignore the Security Council resolution but actually flouted it, because it proceeded to strengthen its garrisons on the Falkland Islands.
In the face of this action, as I have said, Canada joined the European Community, Australia and New Zealand to impose economic sanctions. As was explained at the time of this action, the government's principal concern was to contribute to ensuring the respect for the United Nations Charter and for the rule of international law consistent with our conviction that force must never be used to settle territorial disputes.
Canada has maintained this position consistently since that time in the same manner as the European Community, Australia, New Zealand and the United States. I have received on numerous occasions expressions of appreciation from the British Foreign Secretary and the British High Commissioner for Canada's forthright and robust position with respect to support for Britain.


John Carnell Crosbie: A diplomatic nicety.


Mark R. MacGuigan: I can assure the House that no British request for co-operation has gone unanswered.


John Carnell Crosbie: Shameful. You have not offered any.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, Security Council Resolution 502 calls on the governments of Argentina and the United Kingdom to seek a diplomatic solution for their differences. As the world well knows, over the past several weeks there have been intensive efforts by the two parties, by the United States Secretary of State Haig, by President Belaunde of Peru, and finally by the Secretary General of the United Nations, to bring about such a negotiated solution. Canada was asked by Peru to be associated with one such initiative and we agreed to

June 1, 1982
Supply
do so provided that our role was acceptable to the parties concerned. However, this initiative was soon overtaken by events and was superseded by the efforts of the Secretary General of the United Nations.
I have indicated to the British Foreign Secretary, to the Foreign Minister of Argentina, to the United States Secretary of State Haig, to the Foreign Minister of Peru, and to the Secretary General of the United Nations, that Canada would be willing to facilitate any negotiations, or to participate in any agreed settlement arrangement, if the parties concerned felt that Canada could play a useful role. That offer still stands; but no useful purpose would be served by seeking to involve ourselves in the current negotiating processes so long as they offer some hope of success, as they are presently being conducted.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I want also to say a word about our bilateral relations with Argentina. As part of our policy to enhance our relations with the countries of Latin America and the Caribbean which I announced in March 1980, we have been endeavouring to develop a better degree of correct and cordial relations with Argentina. We have made it clear that although we do differ profoundly with Argentina in respect of its unilateral and aggressive action in trying to resolve this territorial dispute with Britain, we would hope nevertheless that when the present crisis has been resolved we can continue the process of developing these relations to our mutual advantage.
We have no quarrel with Argentina per se, but we do respect, and we insist upon the respect of others for, the rule of law. We profoundly hope that reason will prevail within the government of Argentina. We hope that they will accept the will of the international coummunity and will abide by the Charter of the United Nations and with the specific requests of the Security Council Resolution 502 which calls for an immediate withdrawal of Argentinian forces from the Islands and a resumption of negotiations between Britain and Argentina to resolve the matter peacefully through negotiations in accordance with the United Nations Charter.


John Carnell Crosbie: What about the contract? Will you table it?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, the war in the Falkland Islands has raised among other issues the red herring, I might almost say the red flag, of nuclear politics. This flag has been waved ferociously and piously by members of both the opposition parties.
The considerations are twofold. First there is the question of the reliability of Argentina as a nuclear partner. Second, there is the question with respect to the war. Let me take the question of the war first. The opposition has attempted to capitalize on the natural concern of people about both of those issues. With respect to the war, this is not a matter which has any relationship to the hostilities. The nuclear bundles will not even be delivered to Argentina during the likely currency of hostilities. The nuclear reactor will not be in operation for
quite some time after that. All of this, of course, is according to a contract which Canada entered into many years ago with the government of Argentina.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Do you believe that?


Mark R. MacGuigan: The hon. member for St. John's West, as I understand him-and again I do not know whether it is the party's view or not, but it seems to be his view-suggests that we should add this sanction to our sanctions. Let me point out, Mr. Speaker, that no other country has done this. Germany has not done it. The European Community has not done it. I mention Germany in particular because they are a supplier of nuclear material and technology to Argentina.


John Carnell Crosbie: Lead the way.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Indeed, the BBC program, which was recently copied by the CBC, said they had reports that led them to fear that it may be less than a year before Argentina joins the nuclear club, and they went on to say that it would do so with the help of modern German technology. There is no accusation with respect to the supply of Canadian technology. Canadian technology is not only not readily adaptable but is well protected by safeguards and, of course, by international inspections.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Canadian technicians are down there right now.


Mark R. MacGuigan: When the opposition imposed sanctions with respect to the invasion of Afghanistan, which the hon. member for St. John's West calls the "invitation" to the Russians to enter Afghanistan, they related, of course, to a limitation; they were not a total embargo. When sanctions were imposed with respect to Iran and other countries, they dealt with future contracts. That is the normal posture with respect to sanctions, that if they apply they apply to future contracts. That is exactly the rule that we are following here, Mr. Speaker.


John Carnell Crosbie: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the hon. minister if he will permit a question before he finishes his remarks.


Mark R. MacGuigan: At the end, Mr. Speaker, I will take a question if 1 have the tolerance of the House and my time has expired.
That is the military aspect of the question, Mr. Speaker. The other aspect is the suitability of Argentina as a nuclear partner. I have already indicated, Mr. Speaker, that we have the bilateral arrangement by which Argentina has undertaken not to use the nuclear reactor for any purposes other than peaceful.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark R. MacGuigan: In addition, we have the right of inspection by the International Atomic Energy Agency as soon as that reactor comes into effect.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
June 1, 1982


Mark R. MacGuigan: The hon. members from the opposition are shouting about this. If this is what they are concerned about, if they are concerned about the suitability of Argentina as a nuclear partner, why did not their government cancel the contract?


Gordon Edward Taylor: We were not at war.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Their government was then in power, briefly, it is true, by choice of the Canadian people. Because of the kind of judgment they were expressing on this question they were not kept in power very long by the Canadian people. They had a chance, Mr. Speaker, to cancel this contract and they did not do it. Now they are saying that we should do it- because they are over there.


Gordon Edward Taylor: We were not at war then.


Mark R. MacGuigan: We understand, and the country understands, the whole hypocrisy of their position.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please, the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs has the floor.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, obviously they do not like the truth. They find it very hard.


An hon. Member:: You are hypocritical. You are two-faced.


Mark R. MacGuigan: The truth is always very difficult. We see their hypocrisy of taking one position in government and a different position in opposition.
Mr. Speaker, I think I am in my last minute. I would just say that we are a party which has been expressing the mainstream of Canadian politics. In fact, we have been doing that for generations. That is why we keep being returned to this side of the House. In this case we are also in the mainstream of the western world.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mark R. MacGuigan: I would like to end with a quotation from the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent-


An hon. Member:: I wish he were here now. He would have a different policy.


Mark R. MacGuigan: He articulated this philosophy many years ago:
A policy of world affairs, to be truly effective, must have its foundation laid upon general principles which have been tested in the life of the nation and which have secured the broad support of large groups of the population.
We are proud to be in the mainstream not only of the present but also of the past and the future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member for St. John's West to ask a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Carnell Crosbie: I have a very short question, Mr. Speaker. The mainstream, of course, will soon flush the minister right out
Supply
into the ocean, but is the Secretary of State for External Affairs prepared to table the Argentine nuclear contract and all associated documents which, the minister says, absolutely forbid Canada to make any changes, even in this emergency? Will he produce that contract and table it so that we can see it?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, at the last meeting of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, which I attended-I believe the hon. member was not in attendance but had a nominee asking questions for him-I said I would not table those documents because they contain confidential commercial information.


John Carnell Crosbie: Naturally.


Mark R. MacGuigan: We are looking at the question to see whether there is any way of easily getting around that, but it appears at the present time those documents are not suitable for tabling.


Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton South):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to note that in the approaches used by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) and the minister they recognized instinctively that their cases against this outstanding motion were so weak that they had to resort to trying to divide the Conservative Party. They used the well-known tactic of "divide the opponent when you do not have a substantive argument to offer".
I will get to the minister in a moment, but the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam began by criticizing the Conservatives for not opposing the sale of Candu technology to Argentina and by saying we are now being hypocritical in this motion. I want to tell the hon. member that when the Conservatives formed the government in 1979, it was that Conservative government which refused a second sale of a Candu reactor to Argentina on the ground that Argentina would not accept the full-scope safeguards upon which my party, and my party alone, insisted. We would not allow Candu sales without those safeguards. I think the record should be made clear in that respect.
Then the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam spoke about El Salvador and human rights. She said my party was without any compassion; I think that was the word she used. I do not know where she was on March 9, 1981 when several addresses were made by various members of my party. I refer only to the one I made on behalf of my party in the debate that afternoon in which I talked about the agony of El Salvador and the repression of human rights there.
Members of the New Democratic Party talk about the Conservative Party's not having compassion or concern about human rights. Who was in government in 1979 when a policy was brought in to bring the boat people of Vietnam to this country? That was one of the greatest humanitarian endeavours undertaken by this country. It was the Conservative government which did that, so I prefer my party be judged

June 1, 1982
Supply
by its actions, which I proudly stand in this House and reflect and report, rather than by press accounts of so-called divisions within my party.
The minister talked about his party being in the mainstream. The use of the word "mainstream" applied to the Liberal government would be funny if it were not so tragic. The Liberal government is so far in the backwaters of Canada-and, indeed, the world-with its duplicity that I believe the minister would have been better advised to try to defend himself and his government against this motion; but I heard hardly a shred of rebuttal against the charges made in the motion.
The minister tried to defend the government's continuance of nuclear technology co-operation and the sale of 3,000 nuclear fuel bundles to Argentina in the midst of a situation the entire world knows is tragic. The world knows how the Argentine government conducts itself with respect to human rights, with respect to trust, with respect to violations of the United Nations Charter and with respect to invasion in contravention of international standards. This matter was referred to several times during the course of the minister's intervention. When there is a war going on it is absolutely shocking that the government should refuse to review its policy on nuclear sales.
Just before I speak about Argentina in some detail, I would like to refer to the fact that the minister also tried to divide my party. He began with the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). He referred to him as a beached whale. I have always considered the hon. member for St. John's West to be a roaring shark snapping at the entrails of a government in total disarray.
The minister also said I do not have the support of all the members of my party. If I do not have their support, I would like to know how I come to be standing here at this very moment speaking on behalf of my party. I remind the minister-and I hope he has a chance to read this-that as part of the responsibility 1 have for speaking for my party on international development I made a statement on May 13, which has the full support of the hon. member for St. John's West, the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble) and the other members of my party. On May 13 I was speaking about the estimates of CIDA for this year. I said that if the government wants the support of the Canadian public at a time when our domestic economic situation is so serious, when the number of bankruptcies is up and when we have high levels of unemployment, inflation and interest rates and if the government wants to increase CIDA estimates, it will have to toughen up its whole operation and get tough with the bureaucrats here in Ottawa who are standing in the way of sound development practices. The government will have to get tough with those developing countries which are spending excessive amounts on arms and cutting back on development programs for their own people. The government will have to get tough with a communications program which can tell the Canadian people exactly what is going on.
1 do not want to hear any more talk about divisions in my party. 1 hope the media are paying attention to my speech, if
we can ever find them present at a foreign policy debate. All the media want to do is try to poke holes in parties attempting to reflect deep Canadian concerns.
Let me talk now about the more serious of all Canadian concerns today in the field of foreign policy. One of them is the continuance of the sale of 3,000 nuclear bundles to Argentina at a time when we are increasingly concerned about the instability of that regime. On July 14, 1981, the subcommittee on Latin America and the Caribbean was examining this situation in some detail. The witness that day was Mr. James Donnelly, the president of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited. I asked him in a summary question: "Can you give a guarantee to the committee that recycled fuel from the Candu reactor in Argentina will not be able to be used for a nuclear device?" Mr. Donnelly replied: "I certainly cannot give the committee or anybody else that assurance."
Since the start of the nuclear co-operation program with Argentina, we have known that there was the risk of nuclear fuel being siphoned off the nuclear reactor which went to Argentina as a result of the 1973 arrangement. The risk was clearly seen by the government of 1976 which imposed full-scope safeguards. It is bad enough that the government of that time left the sale of the Candu reactor in place without insisting that Argentina support the full scope safeguards, and it was bad enough that Argentina had not signed the nonproliferation treaty; but in light of the escalation of the war in the south Atlantic, and at a time when the trustworthiness of the Argentinian regime has been called into question and the government's leaked document said that Argentina is well on the way toward developing an indigenous nuclear fuel cycle that is completely free of safeguards-despite all that official concern that Argentina may manufacture an atomic weapon from its Canadian nuclear reactor, the government has refused to reconsider the full implication of its policy. It has refused to accept responsibility for the possibility that Canada may turn out to be an accomplice in the development of an Argentinian nuclear bomb.
What kind of government are we dealing with in Argentina? Since the military took over and formed the junta there has been a consistent policy of torture and murder of political opponents to the rightist government. Amnesty International estimates that 20,000 people disappeared after having been picked up by government security forces. There are thousands of political prisoners in jail. The military government has financed and armed private death squads. There is no freedom of the press in Argentina. No opposition political parties are allowed to function. There is no right to strike and no right to collective bargaining. Libraries and book stores have been purged of so-called leftist books which were burned in public.
As my colleague the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) properly remarks, Solidarity would never have been able to get off the ground in Argentina.
So much for the character of the regime, Mr. Speaker. Against this canvas of one of the most repressive juntas on the
June 1, 1982

face of the earth today, we have the escalation of the south Atlantic war. I am sure we are all happy to note that the British forces, which certainly could have had more support from this government than they have had, appear to be closing in on Port Stanley at this very hour. I have no doubt that all of us in the House fervently hope that this tragic conflict can be quickly brought to an end.
Why did that conflict start, Mr. Speaker? It started because, against the standards of international conduct, Argentina invaded the Falkland Islands. Despite the importuning of the Secretary General of the United Nations, despite Resolution 502 of the Security Council, despite the tremendous effort made by diplomats on all sides, including the U.S. Secretary of State, the war went ahead. Argentina refused to recognize that opinion in the western world opposed its continued occupancy of the Falkland Islands by force.
The minister said that we have no quarrel with Argentina per se. I want to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that I have a quarrel with Argentina.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Douglas Roche: This party has a quarrel with Argentina. It was this party that trusted Argentina so little that it would not even sell it a second Candu reactor without the application of full-scope safeguards. The minister now says, in defence, that this is a red herring of nuclear politics. He also claims that the motion of the hon. member for St. John's West which raises our concerns-which are the concerns of everyone in the world who wants to avoid some sort of nuclear catastrophe-is just a red herring and that no other country has applied added sanctions. The only sanctions that we have applied against Argentina, Mr. Speaker, are on the import side. This means that we can keep on selling to Argentina and trying to make money. So desperate is this government for funds that it will even play with the security of the world, in spite of a report of its own advisers which was provided to the cabinet committee warning the government of the consequences of the present policy of maintaining nuclear co-operation with Argentina.
An article written by Margaret Munro, which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen of May 18 this year, ended as follows:
The briefing paper prepared last month goes on to say: "In fact, the president of Argentina's nuclear agency, Rear Admiral Castro Madero, has in recent statements been unequivocal in rejecting the Non-Proliferation Treaty and full-scope safeguards, while reaffirming his country's desire to retain a nuclear explosive option-
"Our immediate concern is that in their rush to close the (nuclear) cycle, the Argentines may be tempted to exploit their power reactor program which is now under safeguards."
1 call on the Canadian government to reassess its policy on Argentina and nuclear co-operation. I call upon it to do so today. I do not know what it will take to get the government to see light on the subject.
We have here a great example of what happens when there is a conflict in a small, remote part of the world such as we have seen over the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands. We
Supply
have seen what happens in the absence of permanent peacekeeping machinery that, with the consent of the two parties, can be used to straighten things out and to act with some authority. It is absolutely essential that the world move to the establishment of some international peace-keeping machinery. This party has stood for the development of such peacekeeping forces and, as a matter of fact, we want our own defence component strengthened so that it can more adequately serve the cause of world peace through participation in peace-keeping forces.
There was a small glimmer of hope today with the news that President Reagan had announced yesterday that the United States and the Soviet Union will open negotiations in Geneva on June 29 regarding the limitation and reduction of strategic nuclear arms.
The hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam asked why this question was not included in our motion. We are not raising it today because we are trying to get the government to put some teeth into its own strategy. All members of this party want the Canadian government to go into the Special Session on Disarmament with policies built on principles designed to further the cause of world peace. That is the stand taken by 78 distinguished Canadians who signed a statement called "Canadian Foreign Policy in the 1980s". I will just close by referring to what this distinguished group of Canadians is asking the Canadian government to do. They say that they want:
1)	removal of the threat of nuclear war, the greatest danger facing mankind today;
2)	the strengthening of the United Nations and other global institutions designed to bring about a pacific settlement of disputes, foster international cooperation, promote the growth of wond law and the protection of basic human rights;
3)	the mobilization of world resources to achieve a more equitable international order and bring an end to the crushing poverty which is the common lot of the majority in the Third World.
That is the basis of a foreign policy which combines a perception of the direction of the world, compassion, and a reflection of our own domestic interests applied externally. We must have a foreign policy which combines those elements of security, trade and development. We must be able to operate on all these fronts with some credibility. The government is destroying its credibility. There is no other area where the government's credibility is under so much question as that of the continued export of nuclear fuel bundles and technology to Argentina, a country which has no business making a bomb, and a country which will threaten world peace. 1 believe I speak for millions of Canadians when I say that we do not want to be compromised or share in the complicity over Argentina, knowing what it has done to its own people, and what it intends to do in the future as demonstrated by the invasion of the Falkland Islands.

June 1, 1982
Supply



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker)- Administration of Justice-Legal costs incurred by exonerated nurse, (b) Law Reform Commission recommendations; the hon. member for La Prairie (Mr. Deniger)-Energy-Export of power by Hydro-Quebec-possible difficulties; the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway)-Indian Affairs-James Bay Agreement-Government position on TAIT report recommendations, (b) Safety of water supply.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Crosbie:
That this House deplores the failure of the Government to represent Canada properly or adequately in our external relationships or in accordance with the views and principles of the Canadian people specifically by its failure to oppose in any convincing and meaningful way the violation of human rights within Poland and the imposition of martial law therein, by the failure to support the United Kingdom and the rule of law in international affairs by opposing in a meaningful and convincing way the armed aggression of Argentina in its invasion of the Falkland Islands and, this House deplores the failure of the government to strengthen the Department of External Affairs as recommended by the McDougall commission as well as its failure to eliminate all aspects of patronage in the operation of that department.
Ron Irwin: Mr. Speaker, there are many facets of this motion and I intend to deal with only one, the Polish question: what happened to the economy of Poland; Poland's relationship to the East and the West; a bit of the history of Poland-because if you do not understand its history, you do not understand what is happening today; Solidarity; and human rights.
The present problems in Poland go back to 1970 when then Premier Gierek decided to import western technology on a massive scale, mostly on credit. After that he ran into the OPEC price increases and the worldwide recession. As a result, the Polish economy was virtually bankrupt at the time of the Solidarity uprising. In 1981 Poland's national income was down 15 per cent, as was industrial production. In 1980 coal production was 200 million metric tons; in 1981 it dropped to 165 million. Last year Poland had to import six million to seven million tonnes of agricultural products, and their balance of payments deficit reached $4 billion. Between 1981 and 1985 they faced a crisis in rescheduling $2.5 billion
in debt. Exports to socialist countries were down 17 per cent and imports up 20 per cent. Exports to the West were down 25 per cent, and imports also were down 17.5 per cent because of a lack of hard currency.
What kind of cultural environment does Poland live in? It has a very distinct East-West environment which you must understand. It is the only East bloc country with small individual land owners. The Catholic church is very strong in Poland, as is well known. Culturally it has a Western lifestyle, yet we have a large amount of tourism and travel from East and West into Poland.
In general the people are better educated than in the rest of the Eastern bloc. There have been ruptures in the past between communist states: Stalin and Tito in 1947-48; Czechoslovakia in 1968; the Polish uprisings of 1956, 1970 and 1975; the Hungarian revolution of 1956.
Why is Poland different from the others? Poland is the key country in the Soviet bloc because of its strategic location, its military and economic potential, and because of its large population. Therefore, major change in Poland could transform if not destroy the Soviet Union's East-European empire.
What did Solidarity demand, Mr. Speaker? There was an agreement on August 30, 1980, at the Lenin shipyard in Gdansk. These are the things they thought they would be getting. First, the beginnings of an independent trade union movement, which no other communist country had. The right to strike, the right to collective bargaining, Saturdays off, the right to enter candidates in local elections, and a joint task force to co-ordinate supplies of food, fuel, medicine and clothing. I find it odd that the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) should say, quoting him as closely as I can: "We do not think it is important to have a charter of human rights at home if we do not support human rights in Poland." He was talking about freedom from arbitrary arrest, freedom of speech, freedom of the press, freedom of association, freedom of peaceful assembly, the right to a jury trial and the right to counsel. He was speaking of entrenched rights, and these are all things he voted against in our own Constitution until he was satisfied that they could be overturned, overridden or set aside by the provinces and the federal government. I have to go back and see what his position was on human rights six months or a year ago.


John Albert Gamble: The Russians have those rights in their Constitution as well.


Ron Irwin: If it is a choice between human rights and political opportunism, he opts for political opportunism. So how can I trust what he says, a man who advocates human rights in Poland but who will not support entrenched human rights of the type he wants in Poland right here in his own country?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I do not mind being criticized by the hon. gentleman, but he should be factual. I voted for the
June 1, 1982

concoction brought into this House by the government, and I have never voted against a charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. I do not want to be quoted as having voted against them.


Ron Irwin: The "concoction" the hon. member voted against was Section 15, which said that there shall be no discrimination based on sex, religion, colour, age, or whether people are handicapped or mentally retarded. He voted against the legal rights which allowed jury trials, the right to counsel and reasonable bail.


Donald W. Munro: We have had those for centuries.


Ron Irwin: He voted against freedom of association-


Donald W. Munro: You just got those rights last week? You are out of your mind.


Ron Irwin: I see I have two other members of the Conservative Party who voted against these rights.


Donald W. Munro: I did not vote against them.


Ron Irwin: I have a lot of respect for many members in that party, but don't come in here and tell me about human rights in Poland when you will not support them in your own country. That is the record.


Donald W. Munro: Tell the truth for a
change.


Ron Irwin: I was not going to raise that, Mr. Speaker, but when I see the minister unfairly attacked by hon. members opposite, then the truth should be known in this House. And that is the truth.


John Albert Gamble: Then you are departing from your present
practices.


Ron Irwin: Let me get back to Poland. Solidarity was supposed to be 12 million strong. Perhaps in spirit, but I do not think in fact. Solidarity has collapsed. Prime Minister Woj-ciech Jaruzelski declared a state of emergency. Lech Walesa and approximately 10,000 Solidarity members and even the former party leader, Edward Gierek, were imprisoned. That is the situation.
To understand how Poland got to this position, you have to understand the history of Poland. Poland has had almost 1,000 years of wars, splits and divisions going back to the year 966. That was when supposedly-it may-be myth-the first king of Poland, King Miezko, ruled. Poland progressed into the sixteenth century. That was supposed to be the golden age of Poland. 1 think it was. In the sixteenth century Poland was the predominant power in eastern Europe. In 1572 the Jagellonian dynasty died out. It had existed from the fourteenth century to the sixteenth century. What is odd about that and why Poland declined is something that we should remember in Canada. More and more power was given to the landed gentry. In 1652,
Supply
the notorious liberum veto was introduced. This situation has almost come into being in Canada. Any member of the Diet could defeat legislation. Doesn't that sound like the power given to the provinces? This liberum veto could nullify previous laws and it could dissolve the Diet.
By the mid-seventeenth century Poland was in its decline. The Russians invaded from the east and the Turks came from the west. The Cossacks living in the frontier area of Poland revolted and Charles X of Sweden invaded Poland. I tell hon. members opposite to listen and learn. They will learn something about the country they are talking about. I say to hon. members: "Do not form your foreign policy on what happened last week by what is reported in The Globe and Mail." I tell them to learn something about what makes Poland tick.
In 1660 Poland had peace. But wars, the bubonic plague and mass murders followed and by 1668 the population was reduced to 4 million. It had decreased 55 per cent. The cities lost all their manufacturing, most of their industries and three quarters of their inhabitants.
Between 1704 and 1710 Poland went to war with Sweden. Sweden invaded Poland and one third of the Polish cities were in ruins. Between 1702 and 1710 the population decreased from 8 million to 6.4 million. Sweden advanced into the Ukraine and Russia defeated Sweden. Under Peter the Great, Russia took over Poland.
Hon. members have to understand the historical connection between Russia and Poland. In 1763 Catherine's former lover, Stanislas Pontiatowski, was made King of Poland. Finally Poland died as a result of three partitions. These partitions occurred in the years 1772, 1793 and 1794. Poland was divided in 1975. Russia, Prussia and Austria took over the country and Poland totally disappeared. This was the First time in the history of Europe that a country by cold calculation was divided up and disappeared without war.
However, during this period there was a group much like Solidarity today. It was led by a peasant called Kosciuszko. They had only scythes as weapons but they defeated the Russians at Raclawice. If it had not been for the Prussians coming to the aid of the Russians, the Poles might have been successful. Except for one period under Napoleonic rule, Poland disappeared until after World War I when we come into modern history.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, Poland was created from three defeated empires after 1918. But even then the Poles seemed to do the wrong thing. In 1920 Poland went to war against Russia. The Poles were governed by a band of colonels who were cronies. They had fought against Russia in World War I. Poland went through a period under Marshal Pilsudski. Marshal Pilsudski said something interesting about Poland. He said: "Even if you are defeated, if you are not vanquished, that is victory." That seems to be the Polish phenomenon that we witness. Poland basically went through a series of benevolent dictatorships prior to World War II. But in this period Poland attacked Lithuania over a dispute concerning the city of Vilna.

June 1, 1982
Supply
Poland attacked Czechoslovakia and Poland again attacked Russia.
In World War II Poland would not aid Czechoslovakia nor would it allow Russian troops to cross Poland to aid Czechoslovakia. William L. Shirer said that "this was bound to be a policy of suicide".
And that is what it turned out to be. Poland alienated all of its allies surrounding it. Mr. Shirer went on to say:
-and indeed it is difficult to escape the conclusion that the Poles in the nineteen thirties, as on occasions in the centuries before, were & 1700;-1 driven by some fateful flaw in their national character toward self-destruction and that in this period, as sometimes formerly, they were their own worst enemy.
After World War II Poland was basically under the absolute rule of Russia. But it was not until 1955 that Poland became a member of the Warsaw Pact. In this respect, it is interesting to note what happened.
At the beginning of World War II Russia made a secret pact with Germany. The Russians moved into the eastern half of Poland. In this connection 6 million Poles died, which represented almost 22 per cent of the population. There were over 600,000 war casualties. Poland sustained damage to its industry, its communications, its housing. Damage sustained to Polish culture was impossible to estimate. Toward the end of World War II, on August 1, 1944 there was still that will, that search for freedom, within the people and the Polish underground arose. Poland was still occupied. The underground movement lasted two months. The Russians incited the uprising, but they did nothing to help. The Poles were virtually wiped out by the Germans. Two hundred thousand people, mostly young boys and girls, were killed by German SS troops as revenge.
Finally, on January 17, 1945 the Russians took over, and unlike other countries such as Yugoslavia and Albania, which were liberated by their own partisan communists, Poland was liberated along with Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria, East Germany and Czechoslovakia and occupied by Russia.


John Albert Gamble: You cannot call that liberation.


Ron Irwin: Eventually through a process of elimination the communist party took over in Poland. In 1948 the Socialist party and the Polish workers' party emerged to become the Polish united workers party. The Stalin purges occurred between 1947 and 1949. In 1955 Poland became a member of the Warsaw Pact.
Throughout 1000 years of autocratic history there have always been groups in Poland who have searched for freedom. There was the peasants' revolt under Kosciuzko. Solidarity was led by Lech Walesa and there were the World War II freedom fighters. Truly, to be defeated without being vanquished, that is victory.
After World War II and a slow start as a result of its aftermath, and during the cold war period, Canada's relations with Poland developed comparatively quickly, especially during the 1960s and into the heydays of detente of the 1970s.
As the minister said, we have maintained that the internal problems of Poland must be solved by the Poles themselves. But we want to impress upon Polish authorities that their actions are met with categorical disapproval by most of the Canadian people.
The hon. member for St. John's West I believe has said "do something". He keeps leading up to it but I am never sure what he means. I think he said: "Cut off our exports of grain to Poland". What else is there?


John Carnell Crosbie: I never said that. Read the March 24 statement and see what was suggested.


Ron Irwin: Twenty per cent of the food going into Poland comes from Canada. Do we further the cause of human rights in Poland by cutting off food to the Poles?


John Carnell Crosbie: No one has suggested that.


Ron Irwin: I am getting a little tired of criticisms about what we have or have not done for Poland. Right now we have allocated $500 million of credit to Poland. This is the highest per capita of any western democracy. Also we have allowed 1.5 million tonnes of grain to be shipped to Poland on credit and have allocated $500,000 to the International Red Cross for food, clothing and medical supplies. Also we have allocated $300,000 to support the relief efforts of the Canadian Polish Congress, and we have agreed to take in more refugees on the highest per capita basis of any free country in the world. This is what we have done. I am getting sick and tired of opposition members not acknowledging these facts. Tell the facts as they are. Canada and Canadians have been the most generous per capita in the world as far as Poland is concerned.
That is Canada's commitment to the Polish people. But is it enough? As John Stuart Mill said in 1854:
The worth of a state, in the long run, is the worth of the individuals composing it ... A state which dwarfs its men in order that they may be more docile instruments in its hands even for beneficial purposes, will find that with small men no great thing can really be accomplished-
In February, 1982-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member's allotted time has expired. He may continue if there is unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Carnell Crosbie: No, not at all.


Ron Irwin: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: There is not unanimous consent.


John Carnell Crosbie: No, there is not unanimous consent because the truth is not being spoken.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The Chair sought unanimous consent and it is not forthcoming.
June 1, 1982


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker,
1 say in all sincerity that we all benefited from the trace of the history of Poland that we have just had, and that we all acknowledge the courage of the Poles throughout their centuries of persecution. We acknowledge it today. It is inherent in that people. I only wish we had more people in this country to stand up like the Poles and defy government. Solidarity is a great cry, and we need that type of spirit in Canada.
I was delighted that the hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche)-


Ron Irwin: You are never going to get a minute more than you are allowed as long as I sit in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Cry baby.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) has the floor.


Donald W. Munro: I was pleased that the hon. member for Edmonton South preceded me and brought to the attention of the House some of the comments which were made in the subcommittee hearings on Canada's relations with Latin America and the Caribbean. I want to read into the record for the second time the inherent danger in shipping nuclear bundles to Argentina. The hon. member for Edmonton South asked Mr. Donnelly, the president of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, whether he could give a guarantee to the committee that recycled fuel from the Candu reactor in Argentina would not be used for a nuclear device. Mr. Donnelly replied: "I certainly cannot give the committee or anybody else that assurance." That is a damning statement when we think of the refusal yesterday of my motion under Standing Order 43 commending the dock workers at Saint John for their efforts to prevent nuclear rods from being loaded in Saint John for shipment to Argentina at the insistence of an arm of the Canadian government, the AECL, whose president gave the answer to which I just referred.
Since I put my motion I have received a telephone call from AECL indicating that it is not the agent for sending this material to Argentina but that it is being done through a private organization. He did not argue too much because he and I both knew-and there can be no argument about this- that no nuclear fuel will leave the country without the permission of AECL, which is an arm of the Canadian government, a Crown corporation.
1 just want to return to the Argentina-Falkland Islands aspect of the motion today because, in my view, the government seems prepared to turn its back on this matter and, in the process, almost condones violations of human rights in such countries as the U.S.S.R. Also the hon. member for Edmonton South brought forward evidence that Argentina has embarked upon a military campaign of occupation, in defiance of the norm in world behaviour and now in defiance of a United Nations resolution, and attacked one of our prime allies. The United Kingdom is more than an ally. It is the origin of almost 50 per cent of the people of Canada. This government seems prepared to send nuclear bundles to the enemy of that country so that it can develop nuclear energy.
Supply
I am sure the minister-he may be the only one or there may be others, such as the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne)-has heard of San Carlos de Bariloche, a famous ski resort in the Andes, in southwest Argentina and adjacent to the Chilean border. It is a ski resort but it is also the seat of the Argentinian think tank. As well, it is a detainee centre where Argentinians used to send political detainees, such as Evita Peron, at one time. There were possibly others detained there.
It may be that the Argentinians had in mind to take over the Falkland Islands and transport detainees from San Carlos de Bariloche to the Falkland Islands where they could be safety left. I am referring to those people which Argentina would not want to have in its own country. They would not be able to swim back to the mainland in order to cause trouble. It would be sort of a Devil's Island for Argentina.
Another thing which happens at San Carlos de Bariloche- and I am sure the minister knows this-is that it is the Argentinian atomic research centre. This is where research goes on, using spent fuel or plutonium created from the use of the Candu reactor, likely to process a nuclear device. We all remember what happened in India. We had an ironclad guarantee that there would be no bomb construction, and then we heard that India managed to create one. San Carlos de Bariloche in southwest Argentina is a centre where this work could likely be conducted. The government now has an opportunity, with the action of the dock workers or stevedores in Saint John, to reconsider its actions and say that it will not send these rods to Argentina where they might be misused, despite the undertaking which has been given.
There are two other areas which I wish to raise in deploring the actions, policies and performance of the government. There is so much which is deplorable about the foreign policies and performances of this government that one barely knows where to start. I will give one instance.
Almost two years ago an initiative was taken by the Institute of Natural Resources in Pietermaritzburg in Natal, South Africa, to work up an exchange of persons and ideas with a department in the Ontario government on land use programs in Natal and in one of the Bantustan states of Kwazulu. The South African institute felt that Ontario had much to offer in this area and was anxious to draw on Ontario's experience.
The concepts that were being explored were not only innocuous in political terms but could well form the basis of useful interchanges in areas of great importance to both countries. They included the development of what is called the integrated approach to land use. That is, use based on a sound evaluation of the natural resources of a region plus a thorough understanding of the people's needs and wants in that region. These were purely technical studies and a prospective useful interchange approved wholeheartedly by the South African government.

June 1, 1982
Supply
By January, 1981, the plans had matured to the point where an exchange of scientists was being considered. The names were almost ready. A Canadian was to go to South Africa to explore related techniques as developed in Canada and a South African was to come to Canada to the Ontario Ministry of Natural Resources where he could see what there was transferable from Canada in technology to South Africa. Everything seemed to be in place for this exchange of officials. 1 underline the word "officials". They were not politicians or soccer players or rugby players, but technical officials.
Only a month later, in February, 1981, the whole deal was off. Why? The Ministry of Natural Resources of Ontario had said that they were in touch with the Canadian Department of External Affairs in Ottawa and, believe it or not, they were advised, and I quote from the letter:
Since we wrote to you last October, 1 have been in contact with the Canadian Department of External Affairs in Ottawa. I have been advised that a cooperative project between the government of Ontario and the Government of South Africa through your Institute would be inappropriate in light of the present state of relations between Canada and South Africa.
What was so harmful and inappropriate about such an interchange? But they said it would be inappropriate, and the province of Ontario bowed to the superior knowledge of the Department of External Affairs. I believe it is a sad comment on international relations and the manner in which this government handles those relations.
The other area I wish to speak on relates to the report prepared at the behest of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) by Miss Pamela McDougall who is a former ambassador to Poland and a high ranking civil servant since her return from Poland. She was to look into what is called "conditions of the foreign service".
Programs affecting External Affairs have struck me as being deplorable for a long time. I would say that the most deplorable programs began about 1968, but even before then. I can recall as far back as the mid-1960s when managerial reorganizations were imposed on the department with little or no prior consultation by people who had little or no notion of what a foreign office was designed to do. "Experts" were brought in from outside to reorganize a department whose function within the Canadian government service and whose function within the world these experts were absolutely incapable of understanding.
The net effect of that reorganization, or those reorganizations, were that the employees of the firm which had been sent in to reorganize the department found niches for themselves in the department and settled in. Eventually they moved up into the higher positions. They liked External Affairs the way it was and they were determined to enjoy some of the fruits of overseas service. They were not equipped or trained in the foreign service. They came in as managerial experts.
Now, we find that Miss McDougall discovers that the Department of External Affairs is in a managerial shambles. This shaking up of the department was just getting under way when the bilingualism program was introduced with all that it meant in absences from foreign policy desks. I might add that
this bilingualism program was introduced to a department which was at that time, I am quite sure, more bilingual than any other department in the Canadian government.
This was almost immediately followed by a scheme of "program budgeting" and subsequently by "zero based budgeting." Shortly after that we were involved with absorbing all overeas support staff into the staff of the Department of External Affairs. We then had to contend with the problems of lateral entry. The early Ericksons of this world were being brought in to the Department of External Affairs at fairly high levels while preventing promotion up through the ranks. We then learned about the interdepartmental interchange from one department to the other which was presumably to reflect the government's notion of what Canada is.
As though this were not enough, there was a scheme for consolidation thrust upon the department by the Prime Minister's office. Then almost immediately there was the appointment of Miss McDougall to look into what was described as conditions in the foreign service. You can be sure that conditions by this time were in a sorry state and a royal commissioner such as Miss McDougall was needed to look into those conditions.
What is deplorable about how the government functions is that no sooner had the McDougall report been submitted in October of 1981 that a further and a more comprehensive consolidation of all the departmental officers from all departments concerned with offshore and overseas problems relating to trade, immigration and foreign policies-but not CIDA- were to be integrated into the Department of External Affairs with three ministers superimposed on them. Is it any wonder that the Department of External Affairs had been going through a period of the jitters, as it most certainly has? This can be verified if you talk to the employees of the department. It was so deeply involved in reorganizing itself and its departmental structures and learning about all the different kinds of budgeting and remanipulation of streams of command that it had little or no time to turn to the fundamental problems for which the department was established, that is, the definition of foreign policy recommendations for the government.
Due to these manifold and concurrently imposed changes, it has been obliged to be, at best, responsive to outside events and by no means capable of developing new initiatives to further Canada's causes in the many fields of our concern. Perhaps this is what the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) wants. I can recall as far back as the mid-1960s when he was quoted as saying: "What is the use of sending all those types to missions abroad? We can read what is going on in the world by reading The New York Times." I see a former foreign service officer walking behind the curtain. He could confirm this fact if he would stand up and say so. What the Prime Minister failed to take into account in such a cynical, arrogant and indeed stupid and ignorant comment was that, without a fully trained and devoted foreign service, it is just not possible to get to the bottom of the motivations of peoples and states except through living abroad.
June 1, 1982

What is it that causes them to adopt this stand or that at the United Nations, or in a disarmanent debate, or in the Law of the Sea discussions or to invade the Falklands? These matters do not develop overnight. They can be observed only by a competent foreign service. These in-depth analyses of motivation and explanation of national behaviour are not to be found in news reports, in The New York Times or any other paper, despite what the Prime Minister says. That is what the Department of External Affairs was well trained to do, until successive governments under this Prime Minister deliberately debilitated it and set out to destroy that essential capacity in foreign affairs.
Why otherwise, 1 ask myself, did Miss McDougall feel moved to recommend as she did in her report at page 55? Recommendation 44 is a very important recommendation and I implore your Honour to listen. It states, "Concrete steps should be taken to correct the widely held view that those in positions of power consider the activities and the product of the foreign services largely irrelevant to federal government or Canadian objectives." When a royal commissioner has to make that kind of a recommendation, conditions in the foreign service are in a sorry state. They are at a low ebb. I am glad that there are at least two ministers present in the House to hear my comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. gentleman, but his allotted time has expired.


Donald W. Munro: 1 have a lot more to say.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: The hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki).


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my contribution to this debate will be fairly well directed to one aspect, and that is by way of an overview to the background of Polish history to indicate what is expected of that country today and in what direction our help and our support should be given. Much of the debate, a great deal of the talk that one hears and the arguments put forward are without a real understanding of what the underlying cause of the problem has been in Poland. The help being given is very much that of symptomatic relief. It is superficial help. It does not get down to the cause of the internal and worrisome problem existing in that country.
To really understand it, one must look back to Yalta in 1945, at which time the principals, namely Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill, made a decision by which Poland was handed to Russia. It was put under the sphere of influence of Russia with the rather vague understanding that within the next one or two years, a free election would take place and at that time the country would be given an opportunity to direct its future. This was an assurance given by two allies, by Churchill and President Roosevelt.
This was a very damaging and unbelievably serious blow to the personality of that particular nation. Until that point,
Supply
Poland had a record of one thousand years as a protector of the Christian faith. It had been a protector of democratic principles. It had contributed to the world of art and to the world of music. It had been scholarly in various intellectual pursuits. At that time it was the centre of university training and had the ultimate example of the concepts of freedom and education. This freedom, by virtue of that meeting at Yalta, was snatched away.
Those of us who took part in the last war heard stories of the exploits of the Polish people in a military sense. They took a very active part in the Royal Canadian Air Force. Indeed, a prominent member of this House from Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale) was a member of that squadron and took part in some of the air battles. The Poles made a very outstanding defence at Monte Cassino in Italy under Alexander. They fought in Africa in the third Canadian and British divisions under Montgomery and acquired the distinction of being very worthy fighters and supporters of the allied cause.
What I am pointing out is that this country, whose ideals and ideology were similar to ours, and which supported the Christian faith, was handed over to a completely foreign country with an ideology completely incompatible with its personality, background, ideals and hopes. It was at that point that if anyone were to assist the Poles, they ought to have stepped forward. Unfortunately, there was no initiative by any of the allied countries to give the Poles that free election and the opportunity to acquire the status they had previously held. What happened was that this nation of courageous and hardworking individuals was able to adjust on its own, and did adjust, to the conditions under which it was forced to live.
Shortly after 1945, the Poles did accept a socialist form of government and the loss of sovereignty and were prepared to work with the communist government imposed on them. They realized very early that they comprised a buffer state between western Europe and the eastern communist bloc. However, their spirit and drive were such that they were not satisfied.
All of us who have followed the progress of the country of Poland have seen how it was possible for the unions to be organized under the very eyes of the communist regime, how they were united with the support of the church, the farmers and the university students. The Polish people formed a union which was unique in the world, one which worked hand-inhand with management, with the academics and with the farmers in creating a force which, through its own moral suasion, was able to bring ten million of their 14 million workers under one umbrella unit.
The members of this group known as Solidarity were effective in producing a crack in the ideological makeup which we know as communism, and they have continued to enlarge that crack. They were able to surround themselves with people of similar aims amongst the Czechoslovakians and the Hungarians, and then martial law was imposed upon them. Now,
17990

June 1, 1982
Supply
my message is just simply this: that the underlying disease, the deep-seated, deep-rooted problem, the gnawing cancer that exists is their loss of freedom, the loss of their individuality, their loss of hope in the future. This is the primary problem which at this point has no ready cure, no easy approach. However, they do require the understanding of other democratic countries about them. They do require a constant representation on behalf of human rights. They require continuous material support, but they do not require any other intervention. They do not require actions or activities that will be provocative. They do not require outside help that could stir up activity which would be deleterious not only to their own growth and to their own future, but which could spark and ignite a catastrophe in the rest of the world.
I have every confidence, and I think those who know the soul and the heart of the Polish people must have confidence, that the Polish people are innovative, are daring, are courageous, that they will evolve a technique, a method, whereby again they will acquire the status in this world that they had in the past. What is not needed at this time is a bickering and a hassle by well-meaning people, well-meaning allies, wellmeaning neighbours who in their enthusiasm to try to help them, may harm them. The people of Poland are of an indomitable spirit and of considerable initiative and drive. I, for one, would rely on that spirit and that support to bring them again the status that is rightfully theirs. What they need is support from every angle, whether it be monetary, or food supplies or the prayers of the people about them. My only thoughts and my only considerations are that we in our enthusiasm help them but not be an obstacle in their way of winning freedom again.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity afforded me by the motion now before the House to participate in this debate on Canada's role and concern in international affairs. 1 had planned to respond to some of the comments made by previous speakers. I was interested in the contribution made by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) in words that were dripping with self-righteousness. I decided otherwise because my hon. friend from Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) responded to those comments in a more gentlemanly manner than I might have done.
1 was interested in the comments made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) regarding the appointment of the member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) to his present position of external affairs critic in the Conservative Party. The minister suggested that the hon. member had become somewhat like a beached whale, beached by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). I would carry that idea just a little further.
I wonder what would have happened to the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs, if we were to project that idea a little further. If the hon. member for St. John's West was beached by being placed in the external affairs critic position, perhaps the Prime
Minister (Mr. Trudeau) beached the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville by appointing him as Secretary of State for External Affairs. Possibly to give him a little help, he appointed two other ministers of state and put them in with him to try to help him out of his predicament. Instead of that, the plan has backfired, and he is in a worse situation than ever.
The minister's statement that he had no quarrel with Argentina was a shocking one, in view of the statements that have been made and the charges that have been levied against Argentina, and with every justification for them. For the minister to say we do not have any quarrel with Argentina is almost beyond belief.
It was suggested that the Progressive Conservative Party had an opportunity, when in office for a very short time, to do something about the Argentinian case. The question was raised why we did not cancel the agreement with Argentina then to supply material relating to the CANDU reactor.
The situation was entirely different then, I am sure. At that time Argentina was considered at least a friendly nation in some respects, even though it was far from maintaining those standards of human rights that we would have appreciated. Nevertheless, they had not declared war, they were not at war with one of our NATO allies at that time. There is a war going on now and this government is continuing to supply nuclear fuel bundles to a nation, Argentina, that is fighting against Great Britain at the present moment.
In a somewhat belligerent manner, the minister charged some members of the opposition with voting against the charter of rights. He did not enlarge upon it, but I would like to have asked him where he was when the government refused to incorporate in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms the right to property.


Benno Friesen: Right on, and human life.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Yes. As my colleague, the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), has suggested, the right of human life.
I can remember the time when Canada's role in foreign affairs was considered a very important one, and I remember the time when Canada's voice in the international forum was listened to with respect and appreciation. Those were the days when we had the opportunity to discuss foreign affairs in this House. There were opportunities to debate a whole spectrum of international relationships, Canada's role, Canada's place and Canada's responsibility. But those days seem to have gone. The government places so little importance upon this subject that it will not assume the responsibility of stating on certain occasions that it is prepared to introduce debate on external affairs. I said we used to have those debates, but those days are gone.
In latter years this House has had limited opportunities to deal with the many perplexing problems confronting the international community and where Canada and Canadians stand in relation to those issues. There is little, if any, evidence
June 1, 1982

that there are any fundamental principles upon which our foreign policy is based. Problems are viewed in an indefinite and uncertain fashion, and it has become almost impossible to understand where we are going in our foreign affairs policy and how we propose to get there.
It has been pointed out by other speakers in this debate that the morale in the Department of External Affairs has plummeted, and in spite of a very thorough and logical report commissioned by and submitted to the government, the problems still remain and the recommendations of that report remain in limbo.
Since the present Prime Minister has been in office, there has been a continuing drift in external affairs policy and a downgrading of Canada's Armed Forces, resulting in a serious lack of manpower and equipment. Canada's commitment to NATO has been greatly reduced and, as for NORAD, the Prime Minister has stated that the U.S.A. would not see Canada invaded. I, as well as many other parliamentarians, have had the opportunity to visit the Canadian bases in Europe, and 1 remember very well on different occasions when I had the opportunity to be there what a brave front our service men put on. They were courageous; they were efficient; but as far as their equipment was concerned, we were told it would not stand up in any sense to the rigours of warfare.


Benno Friesen: Embarrassing.


Alexander Bell Patterson: That is embarrassing to our Armed Forces, it is embarrassing to our Parliament and it is embarrassing to the Canadian people.
The bright spot in recent Canadian history was during the brief period when my party was in office. A comprehensive review of Canada's foreign policy was undertaken with a view to updating the policy in the light of current conditions and restating the principles upon which Canada's commitments would be based.
At that time we stated that the task of Canadian foreign policy in the 1980s was to seek the establishment and maintenance of an international order in which Canada could pursue its own interests and foster its ideals. The goal was to strengthen Canada's voice and actions in the world community in support of the interests of peace and human dignity. Time does not permit the elaboration of those objectives, but I submit the government is derelict in its responsibility by failing to initiate in-depth parliamentary study and debate on these and other important basic principles.
One of our immediate concerns at this moment is the conflict raging on the Falkland Islands, and this forms one of the parts of the motion currently before the House. A crisis was precipitated by the occupation of territory-not theirs- by the armed forces of Argentina. This naked act of aggression is an affront to international law and order and a repudiation of the facts of history. If it is countenanced, it poses a threat to the peace and security of the world.
Supply
We are reminded today of the history of this particular crisis and the attitude of Argentina. Argentina has refused to be part of the group which signed the nuclear non-proliferation treaty. Argentina refused to sign the Mexico agreement declaring Latin America as a nuclear free zone. Argentina invaded and occupied territory illegally. Argentina promised Falkland Islanders that their cultural, linguistic and property rights would be respected. That commitment was broken and rights violated, and reports in that connection have been placed before us. Argentina disregarded the UN resolution which condemned Argentina's action and called for Argentina to withdraw. The resolution called upon Argentina to negotiate with Britain to settle their dispute.
Britain accepted that challenge and endeavoured in every way to reach an understanding and a peaceful settlement of this dispute. In fact, Denis Healey, the Labour spokesman in Britain, stated that the Thatcher government had bent over backwards in an endeavour to resolve the crisis. But, of course, Argentina would not respond.
The actions of the European Community have been more forcibly proclaimed than has Canada's commitment. In my view one of the unmistakable indications of our concern and dismay would be at least the halting of any further shipment of nuclear fuel bundles to Argentina until the crisis is resolved. Other actions might be considered, but this should be the minimum. The minister stated that the shipment of such bundles would not affect the war because it possibly would be over before they reached their destination. We have to thank the dock workers who said they would not be a partner in the shipping of those nuclear bundles to Argentina. Apparently they had a great deal more courage than the government in pursuing that course.
I would like just in closing to refer to an article which appeared in my local paper. I see my time has almost gone. This article was written by Mark Rushton and is entitled "Talkin' thru my hat???"-and sometimes he does. However, what he says here is very good.
However, as far as I am concerned, Britain has done the right thing by the Falklands, and by the rest of us in the free world.
If aggressors the world over believe they can get away with scooping minor protectorates like the Falklands or Somalia, what is next. The Russians do not appear at all reluctant to sweep through Europe, gobbling up Afghanistan and Poland.
The article concludes-


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


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Just one minute.


Alexander Bell Patterson: This article concludes:
Wouldn't it be comforting to know that if a banana republic starts a nuclear war, it is doing it with Canadian products.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

June 1, 1982
Supply


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: When the House rose at six o'clock, the hon. member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson) had the floor.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for not noticing the Speaker when he rose to call it six o'clock.
I should like to conclude my remarks by adding a little to the statement made by the editor of my local paper in order to make it clear. He wrote as follows:
Britain, small as she is, is telling the world that western nations are no longer going to sit back and take it.
It is interesting to note that the U.S. is going very public in its support of Britain's action. Where, I wonder is Canada? Still worrying about ensuring its sale of Candu nuclear reactors to Argentina?
Wouldn't it be comforting to know that if a banana republic starts a nuclear war, it is doing it with Canadian products. We may all be dead, but in our graves we will know we have died an employed nation, rich from the sale of such "necessities." Of course, our federal government can protest that it is not selling nuclear weaponry. After all, buyers sign a form saying they won't use their reactors for production of war material.
It is nice, and safe, to be naive, but has Ottawa forgotten the old saying about "All's fair in love and war?"
I am sure that if it suited Argentina's convenience, it would not hesitate to somehow break the agreements. Indeed, there are signs that it is going to do that. I hope that this debate will alert the government to some of the problems we face. The time has come to take a new look at our foreign policy and to recognize that in a changing world we must be up to date in order to meet the challenges that confront us from day to day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in this debate today I am tempted to indulge myself in some thoughts about Poland and about the current and possible future state of East-West relations in light of the plight of that hapless country. I am equally tempted to say a word about the Falkland Islands dispute as an expression of the problems of residual remnants of empire and of self-determination in them. These are questions that Canadians might do well to ponder and to make such contribution to their resolution as their resources and interests may determine.
However, I have been asked whether I would instead say something about the third part of the opposition motion which relates to the royal commission on conditions of foreign service. I am happy to do so not only because I was in the foreign service for some 12 years, but because during that time 1 had the opportunity to work closely with the royal commissioner, Pam McDougall, in Vietnam. 1 recall very well the adverse circumstances in which we served in Saigon and Hanoi and the frustrations of attempting to be a peacemaker. The gospel says blessed is the peacemaker; I would suggest that more often the peace-maker is frustrated, and we certainly had good measure of that.
Miss McDougall has personal experience of life in the foreign service, including at smaller posts where Canadian
interests are sometimes not so obvious as in larger. She has offered the government and indeed the people of Canada a timely review. It is in some respects similar to those which emerged in recent years in other western countries, such as the Duncan report in the United Kingdom and several reviews in France and the United States.
It is hardly surprising that from time to time such reports, including the McDougall report, are prepared. They offer useful benchmarks in the continuing reevaluation of our diplomatic service. Change has accelerated in international relations, as in so much else. It is certainly appropriate for Canadians to consider upon occasion what changes should be made in the conditions of foreign service, to match the differing circumstances in which diplomats find themselves today.
As technology continues to annihilate space and limit the influence of time, diplomacy finds itself excluded from variety of functions which traditionally fell to it because of the distances between states and the time it took to consult amongst them. Indeed, diplomats today live in a different world where the ease and rapidity of travel and telecommunications, the omnipresent press, the pervasive influence of television, the increasing emphasis on multilateral diplomacy as opposed to traditional bilateral diplomacy, and a variety of other factors, have made for different circumstances in all foreign services today. Additionally, contacts between countries at a variety of levels, through a range of non-governmental organizations, have also contributed to the new circumstances in which our diplomats must work. It is a long way, Mr. Speaker, from the world of Lord Dufferin or even Lawrence Durrell, or the Canadian diplomat Charles Ritchie who has described so wittily the role of Canada on the world stage in the post-war years. That role was in several major respects fundamentally different from what we see today.
Canada, during the immediate post-war years, was a middle power playing a significant role on a relatively uncrowded stage. Canada had emerged from a self-imposed isolation to the giddy experience of world diplomacy. In the few decades since then Canada's role has changed, and if our foreign service does not also evolve, some of our diplomats may find applicable to themselves the unenviable description offered by Anthony Sampson, a noted British writer who said:
The intensity and isolation of embassy life and entertainment ... the formalities and protocol, all contribute to the diplomat's lassitude. Young British diplomats soon lose their curiosity, usually after their third posting, and achieve a lacklustre expression, an immunity to new experience and new people, and above all an absence of zeal.
That situation is characteristic of a foreign service attempting to carry out policies which are either not clearly enunciated or else irrelevant to the real national interests of the country involved. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in Canada there is no need for this. The challenge for Canadian policy is to pursue our own particular interests, in new and evolving areas, new in the sense of emphasis rather than principle. The challenges are
June I, 1982

also new in the sense of more emphasis on trade, not merely in the more traditional practice of tariff negotiations, but in removing and reducing non-tariff barriers, of new initatives in the energy field and telecommunications, in the elimination of pollution, and in promoting a regime of law for the oceans of the world. All these and other activities represent a new emphasis for the Canadian foreign service, roles which no other entity in our society can possibly play.
Some reference has been made to the role of newspapers in providing some of the information on which governments formulate their foreign policy, and on which governments act. But I would suggest that no newspaper can represent our particular interests to another nation. Mr. Pearson made an observation, some years prior to that of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), to the effect that newspapers are often well informed, their foreign correspondents are well informed. They cannot, however, provide the representation of Canadian interests, nor indeed can they evaluate knowledge of the local country policies against our interests. One challenge for Canadian policymakers is to be certain of our own interests and to avoid spreading our resources too thinly. Over-staffing is to be avoided in any organization. Indeed, there are some who would argue that today we have too many posts abroad, we have too many missions not fulfilling a useful function. In that respect I would bear in mind the admonition Arthur Andrew, a distinguished Canadian foreign service officer who wrote:
An effective foreign service cannot be obtained simply by spending a lot of money and maintaining a large variety of diplomatic missions. The diplomat is extremely conscious of the expense and inconvenience of maintaining him abroad and he is quick to know if his work is important or not. It is normal for him to think that the foreign ministry at home does not give proper weight to the importance of his work. He accepts this and goes on trying to convert his colleagues at home to his way of thinking. But he cannot function and may become a parody diplomat if he comes to believe that his job has no significance. There are undoubtedly many diplomatic posts in the world for which there is little or no present justification. Maintaining them may be inescapable but can have a devastating effect on the diplomats who are obliged to keep them open.
Indeed, the challenge for Canadians, the Canadian government, and the foreign service is to continue to employ our talent, of which there is a vast reservoir in our foreign service, in imaginative ways, helping to ensure that members of the foreign service have the direct challenge of contributing to the formulation of our foreign policy. If some posts require a reduction in staff, there are certainly others which could benefit from strengthening of their activities, particularly in the trade field.
On another subject, Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether, in the circumstances of the foreign service today, or indeed at any time, the introduction of collective bargaining or, in effect, the trade union method of negotiating conditions of employment has been a very helpful innovation.
Without wanting to sound like an ultra-traditionalist, I would suggest that we have not benefited much from the introduction into the foreign service of collective bargaining. I would certainly hope that at least some of the more difficult manifestations of collective bargaining can be avoided by
Supply
ensuring that the practices and conditions within the foreign service are such as not to trigger that particular form of redress.
In that context, of course, the report of the royal commission becomes particularly relevant since Miss McDougall has attempted, with considerable success, to address some of the problems of the foreign service in an environment where, for example, the role of spouses is changing, or where singleparent families have particular constraints or needs. I hope that members of the House will take the trouble to review some of the recommendations which Miss McDougall has offered because they have real validity. In that connection I would note that the Prime Minister has requested the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) to assume responsibility for the review of the report's recommendations. In carrying out that role, the minister has appointed a senior member of the department to co-ordinate a response which is now well advanced.
However, in any discussion of the report it is important to recall that its recommendations, and the issues it has raised, are complex and many of them have extensive legal and financial implications. As a result it is obvious that the recommendations need to be thoroughly examined and changes designed which will bring the maximum long-term benefits.
I believe that the Secretary of State for External Affairs has already reported to the House that certain steps have been taken to implement recommendations of the royal commission report. The House will have in mind that one of the principal recommendations of that report is the merger of the former trade commissioner service, which hitherto functioned under the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, with the foreign service of the Department of External Affairs. That merger, recommended by the royal commission, recognizes the fundamental fact that Canada is a trading nation, that our prosperity depends to a major degree on trade, on our ability to trade with other countries. For a country that lives by trade, we have fortunately long had an outstanding trade commissioner service. I, for one, welcome the merger but will follow with interest whether the traditions and the quality of the trade commissioner service are maintained in the new merged foreign service.
As part of the review of recommendations, the assistant under secretary responsible for personnel and the co-ordinator, whom I mentioned earlier, have met with individual staff associations of the department and various employee groups to ensure that their reactions are fully taken into account in the government's implementation of the recommendations it chooses to follow. In addition, all staff at posts abroad have been invited to submit their comments.
Amendments to the foreign service directives as implemented a month or so ago respond directly to many of the royal commission's recommendations for improvements in benefits and compensation for foreign service.

June 1, 1982
Supply
On an interdepartmental basis, the working groups, chaired by the co-ordinator, have submitted a number of papers and recommendations on diplomatic status, privileges and immunities, passports, equity of treatment, security and personal safety, education, recreation and availability of information on current Canadian affairs to foreign service families abroad. In that latter connection, I am sure that the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) who I see in the House this evening will recall well the feeling that many of us had abroad of being isolated from events in Canada.
When he and I had the honour of serving in posts abroad, we often encountered difficulty in being kept up to date on information concerning Canadian events and public policy. I am sure that any improvement made in that area will be of great benefit to the effectiveness of our foreign service.
Those issues which I have touched upon, all of which were identified in the royal commission report, are now being considered by senior management in the Department of External Affairs. Questions of the foreign service environment are also being addressed with recommendations on the report's many spouse related issues, including the conditions and circumstances of life abroad which spouses are likely to encounter. As well, the report deals with questions on housing, health care, the concerns of single employees and a variety of other matters. Our expectation that recommendations for senior management and, as appropriate, for government consideration, will be available by the end of this month.
I might say, Mr. Speaker, that whatever positions are initially taken by the department, some have significant financial implications which will require consultation with Treasury Board and in some cases with other departments and agencies of government.
In short, within the Department of External Affairs, work is underway on a variety of organizational, personnel administration and foreign service management changes which flow directly from the report of the royal commission. Accordingly, the government has decided to seek an amendment to the Department of External Affairs Act with the aim, among other things, of giving responsibility to the Secretary of State for External Affairs for the administration of the foreign service and of recognizing the foreign service as an integral but unique component of the public service. In its application, the new act will make it possible to make, in the commissioner's words, "Occasional exceptions to domestically oriented policies and programs in the personnel and financial administration fields, where foreign service requirements dictate such acceptance."
The concept of a broader foreign service act, not recommended by the royal commission but proposed by a staff association, is also being studied. It is hoped that the new act will be presented to the House for consideration in the near future.
In providing for special legislation governing circumstances of foreign service, we are not in fact engaging in any radical departure from Canadian practice or, indeed, from British practice where circumstances of the foreign service, circumstances differing from those which obtain in the public service generally, have traditionally been embodied in separate
legislation. Foreign service should be, to a degree, regarded as a separate and identifiable entity within the total public service.
Separately, a study is under way into the extent to which there can be a greater delegation of decision making authority to heads of posts abroad. You may recall, Mr. Speaker, that one of the commissioner's recommendations was "Let managers manage and make them manage." The government, sympathetic to this point of view, is examining the best means of putting this broad recommendation into effect.
Mobility was also encouraged in the report between the foreign and domestic services. A task force with a mandate to include the development of a plan to increase two-way secondments has been established under the chairmanship of a senior public service employee. Action is also being taken to improve the administrative capability of foreign service personnel through the reintroduction of the administrative services employee group. This group disappeared in past reorganizations.
During the last two years, competitions have been held to staff 33 such positions, with 27 of the successful candidates drawn from the rotational support staff ranks. In addition, it is expected that during the next two years about 50 administrative trainees will be recruited, of whom no less than one-half will be drawn from within the department.
In summary, a wide range of activities are under way both within the department and interdepartmentally to examine the recommendations of the royal commission. Careful consideration is being given to all the issues addressed in its report. Steps are already being taken in a number of areas directly relevant to its recommendations and observations.
I shall conclude by quoting an observation of the commissioner. She said:
The foreign service I have described still attracts and retains a high calibre of employee-one who responds to challenge, is stimulated by change and adjusts extraordinarily well to a variety of living and working conditions. I met such people everywhere I went and at every level. They work hard, they give their best and they enjoy the service.
Canada can be proud of such a foreign Service, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, in Saskatoon last Sunday I joined a group of people in the park near the Bessborough Hotel for an ecumenical service protesting the Cruise missile and asking for peace in general throughout the world. We had very bad weather last Friday and Saturday in Saskatoon. There were dark clouds, rain and snow of all things on the second to last day of May. However, as the service was taking place at about 3.00 to 3.30 on Sunday afternoon, the clouds suddenly broke and a glorious spring came to Saskatoon.
This event is something that I would like to see take place in the world. Then we would be able to find fresh sunlight of hope breaking through the dark clouds of despair which in a
June 1, 1982

sense cover so much of the planet. I hope we find some solution to the problems which have been discussed today in the House of Commons by members of all parties. I hope we find some real answers to these questions.
Interestingly enough, on the same afternoon in Penticton, British Columbia, at the provincial convention of the Liberal Party there was an ongoing discussion regarding the whole question of the testing of missiles in Canada and nuclear disarmament. I understand there was hot debate at that particular meeting and that a certain gentleman by the name of Mr. James McIntosh of Richmond countered that the arms race is "like two men standing in a basement up to their ankles in gasoline. One has seven matches and one has nine, and the idiot with the nine matches thinks he is safest". I was glad to hear that the British Columbia Liberal Party sent a strong recommendation to the national government to take into consideration that thought when it sends representatives to the United Nations for the disarmament talks next week.
I am happy that this debate was called today and that it began with the question of human rights. Of course I would have been happier if other countries had been listed in the motion aside from Poland. I do not think anyone in the House of Commons doubts the question of the violation of human rights in Poland, but South Africa and some other countries in Latin America could have been included. Even a closer look at ourselves would provide opportunity for a broader and fairer debate on the question of human rights. One major problem facing the world at the present time is the violation of human rights at all levels in all parts of the world.
During my tenure in the House of Commons, I feel that the two experiences for my part which were the most important was working on the North-South task force and later on the special subcommittee to study Canada's relations with Latin America and the Caribbean. These groups consisted of hon. members of all three parties, people with different experiences and people with different perceptions. At the end of the work of both these committees, as the interim report on Latin America and as the report of the task force were brought down, there was unanimous consent on the part of all parties in regard to these two areas. It was a thrilling experience. When we deal with all problems of the planet in areas in which we do not have all that much expertise, the best we can do, if we are to do anything, is to use everything at our disposal to reach a positive conclusion. I think everyone who worked on these committees would agree that we were able to work together on these serious questions. I was fascinated to learn that people from different parts of Canada with varying backgrounds had different perceptions of the same thing. I should like to speak tonight about perceptions-how people see things.
Many members of the House of Commons, whether they like it or not, are about my age. We are all Canadians. Some of us were born in Canada but we have all lived through the same era of history. I was 17 years old when the first atomic bomb was detonated and knew that from that day on the world would never be the same. Something happened that day which
Supply
had never happened before, and from that day on the history of the planet was different. It is fascinating how differently Members of Parliament perceive that event. I feel that we must find a way to get rid of atomic bombs; there is no question about it. Yet, other people seem to think that we need more atomic bombs in order to be safer. I am not questioning their truthfulness, but some people feel that more armament brings greater security and safety. I am not condemning anyone because their perception is different than mine, but I am mentioning this because basically we were all born here and we see things differently.
When we look at this in the context of Canada, we realize that there are many different people in various parts of the land, but when we look outside the country we see how difficult it is to obtain an accurate perception of another reality in another part of the world. Fortunately I had the experience of living for a period of time in Latin America. It was not my fault; it just happened to be part of my life experience. Anyone who has gone to live in another country for a number of years will share the experience I had and know how difficult it was to find out what was going on in Latin America. In the beginning many things were shocking. How could these people see things in that manner? Why could I not see it in the same way? Was I stupid or were they stupid? People who have lived in other countries talk about culture shock, and culture shock is what it is. It literally flattens a person when he cannot find out what is going on some place else. However, after a person lives in another place for a while, begins to speak the language and begins to hear what the people are saying, he begins to realize that they have reasons for looking at things as they do. As I say, members of the House of Commons have different reasons for looking at things in different ways.
Approximately 2Vi months ago the main concern was the question of El Salvador. We know that there was deep division on our perception of what was taking place there. Again, I condemn no one's perception, but there was deep division within the House of Commons on the question of El Salvador and what was taking place there. It was difficult-and I am not saying that it was the same for everybody-to understand a complicated reality in a totally different historical and cultural place. That was the question 2Vi months ago. Suddenly on April 2 the news changed. El Salvador was more or less forgotten, Central America dropped out, and attention was focused on the southern Atlantic and the Falkland Islands.
Throughout history the people of Latin America have looked upon the Fakland Islands as the Malvinas. From the time they are little children they look upon the islands as part of Argentina. Their perception of the islands is very different than our perception, if anyone knew where they were, that the Falkland Islands are British territory. With this twofold perception there was bound to be a head-on clash.
It was almost like a medieval play. For a period of four, five or six weeks, they were being drawn closer and closer into

June 1, 1982
Supply
conflict while everyone hoped a solution would be found in order to stop that conflict. But they kept getting closer and closer to that final conflict until finally there was attack, death, destruction, ships sunk, planes being shot down and both countries going bankrupt along with all the other tragedies which war entails. Obviously, it would have been preferable for this not to happen, but it did.
I personally believe that in our modern world with its atomic bombs and the threat of total destruction within hours that one of our greatest problems is that we lack a true model for solving conflicts. We need another way to solve conflicts other than armed confrontation. When the crisis began I read an article, which 1 believe is true, about a group of children who were visiting President Reagan of the United States. These children had heard about the war over the Islands which was about to commence. These children asked President Reagan why it was not possible to play a game in which the winner could win the Islands.
Although this may seem like a naive suggestion, let us imagine for a moment that this could be one possible model for establishing who had sovereignty over the Islands. Instead of young men dying and families crying over the loss of their sons, imagine another way to solve the conflict which the diplomats were unable to do. 1 say this in the sense of using our imagination because it probably would not have happened. There ultimately had to be some kind of contest over this stalemate, so let us suppose that the idea proposed by the children to the President of the United States had been accepted as the process in which to solve the conflict. An international football match between England and Argentina could have been arranged. The prize would have been sovereignty over the Islands. In this way the conflict could be settled without having to revert to war. I think that this model might have been accepted. Argentina won the World Cup in international soccer which Latin countries believe to be a great achievement. They were the last winners in 1978. England has also won the cup and both countries are great soccer powers. The World Cup is being played again in approximately a week and is contested every four years.
Let us suppose that this particular solution had been followed. The troops would have left the Island and a third country could have been selected as a site for the game. It could have been televised on international television for everyone to see and representatives from every country could have attended. This game would have been played for the sovereignty over the Islands and there would not be death and destruction all over the Islands.
The point is that there must be other ways to solve conflicts. I spoke with the Prime Minister of Barbados and mentioned this proposition which was made by those children. He said it was a good idea but that if Barbados was involved they would have to play cricket. Any game could be played, but at least it would be another way to solve the problem of conflicts in our modern world.
One factor which brings about conflict is differing perceptions on issues. This motion deals with the implementing of the McDougall report recommendations relating to the foreign
service. I believe it is extremely important that today's diplomats are very well versed in the cultural and historical values of the countries to which they are stationed so that they will be able to really understand what is happening in those countries. I appreciate that our diplomats do attempt to become part and parcel of the society and philosophies of the people in the countries they are stationed, but nevertheless, we must realize that diplomats enter those countries with a slanted view, or preconceived notion, of the reality in those countries.
For example, members of the House of Commons are Canadians who are roughly the same age, with the same type of education, the same background and yet we have quite different slants to our views. When we filter information back to our constituents, the slanted view which various members may have will obviously taint the reality of the matter we are reporting on.


John Albert Gamble: The same as yourself.


Robert Joseph Ogle: I have a slant as well. There is no doubt about that. What I am attempting to say is that by understanding the culture of different people, our slanted point of view will change. If we impose our standards on the culture of another country and assume that is what it should be, it will, of course, be an improper slant.
As we consider this motion today, it is important that we realize we are facing a decade ahead which could literally mean the end of the world.
As all members know, the Holy Father, Pope John Paul II is visiting the British Isles. It is the first time a Pope has visited England. There has been 400 years of separation between churches at one level or another which has been marked by bloody war at times, with hate and anger because of different perceptions or slants on the meaning of religion and what it will mean. The Pope is in England now. While I was watching the sun rise over Saskatoon, the Holy Father was in Coventry, England. As we all know, that is an area in England in which the beautiful medieval cathedral of Coventry was flattened in the Second World War. Coventry became the inspiration for the British during the war. The motto was "pay them back because of Coventry."
The Pope was there in an ecumenical group of Anglicans, Catholics and others and gave a speech on peace. I would like to read part of that speech for the record. He said:
Wherever the strong exploit the weak; wherever the rich take advantage of the poor; wherever great powers seek to dominate and to impose ideologies, there the work of making peace is undone; there the cathedral peace is destroyed. Today, the scale and the horror of modern warfare, whether nuclear or not, makes it totally unacceptable as a means of settling differences between nations. War should belong to the tragic past, to history; it should find no place on humanity's agenda for the future.
And so, this morning, I invite you to pray with me for the cause of peace. Let us pray earnestly for the Special Session of the United Nations on Disarmament, which begins soon. The voices of Christians join with others in urging the leaders of the world to abandon confrontation and to turn their backs on policies which require the nations to spend vast sums of money for weapons of mass destruction. We pray this Pentecost that the Holy Spirit may inspire the leaders of the world
June 1, 1982

to engage in fruitful dialogue. May the Holy Spirit lead them to adopt peaceful ways of safeguarding liberty which do not involve the threat of nuclear disaster.
Thank you.


Mr. Maurice Dupras (Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, I find it strange that this type of motion should come from the hon. member from St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). He must have found it very difficult to develop his position on Saint Pierre and Miquelon, which he already mentioned in his speech, and to produce such a motion. He has to be some kind of an acrobat.
In any case, tradition has it that the role of the opposition party is to oppose the government; but tradition also has it that the opposition party should oppose the government on sensible policy grounds and not just for the sake of opposition. Its motion already contradicts the affirmation of the government of the United Kingdom when it says that it is satisfied with the support that Canada has given. It has not put in any requests which have not been satisfied, and this has been established quite a few times. The opposition party's motion before the House today "deplores the failure of the government to represent Canada properly or adequately in our external relations or in accordance with views and principles of the Canadian people". Then it proceeds to list, in a shotgun approach, a variety of subjects concerning which the government policy has allegedly produced failure, which the opposition party calls upon this House to deplore.
Allow me to recite some of the opposition's complaints. It complains about the government's response to the violation of human rights in Poland. It complains about the government's response on the imposition of martial law in Poland. It complains about the alleged failure of the government to strengthen the Department of External Affairs. My colleague, the distinguished member for Fraser Valley East (Mr. Patterson) dealt with this question with eloquence.
The opposition party also complains about the alleged failure to eliminate patronage in the operation of the Department of External Affairs, but this complaint does not come from the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) because during the tenure of the Clark government he was the champion. He affirmed that he was or would be the champion of patronage. The opposition also complains about the alleged failure to support Britain and the rule of law in respect to the current crisis in the Falkland Islands.
Others from this side have adequately dealt with the other question or aspects of the motion. I will mainly deal with the question of the Falkland Islands. I would like to address myself to this question because of the situation that it represents today. It represents a demonstration of support for a principle of international relations which is perhaps the most important event in mankind's struggle for the supremacy of the rule of law since the Korean War, when the nations of the world united to resist an act of flagrant aggression. I say this because what is happening in the Falklands today is a reaffirmation of
Supply
the principles so clearly laid down in the United Nations Charter that international disputes must not be resolved by armed force or the world will subside into the rule of the jungle.
It has taken modern world society ten years of violent, total warfare in World War I and World War II to come to the belated realization that war can no longer be the plaything of states and generals in charge of such states and that it must be replaced by the rule of law. That is the reason the government has taken the stand it has in opposition to Argentina's clear act of provoked aggression-


John Carnell Crosbie: What stand?


Maurice Dupras: -and territorial greed. I was glad to hear the minister clearly enunciate that again in his speech today.


John Carnell Crosbie: What speech?


Maurice Dupras: I was also glad to hear the minister reiterate the government's view that it takes no stand on the question of the sovereignty of the Falkland Islands, which is the core of the current dispute on the grounds that this is a matter for negotiation and agreement between Britain and Argentina.


John Carnell Crosbie: What nonsense!


Maurice Dupras: Clearly Britain has a very strong case for its claim to sovereignty, but we must concede that Argentina also has a case, a case which it has maintained for many years. I would like to read an editorial from the Ottawa Citizen of May 7, 1982, which states:
That the Falklands have been under British control since 1833 is a fact. Whether the Falklands are British and the British have the right to continue to control over them is for the world court or for an arbitrator and not for one of the parties to the dispute to decide.
That is the government's position. It is clear from the evidence I have just cited that, contrary to the views of the opposition party, it is indeed in accordance with the views and principles of the Canadian people.
The issue, therefore, is not the question of sovereignty but the method by which Argentina has sought to resolve a dispute. The minister, in his speech, pointed out the history of the past two decades of negotiation between Britain and Argentina up to and including the most recent negotiations which concluded only a few days before Argentina's unilateral action. Negotiation is the civilized modern manner to resolve these disputes as demanded by the Charter of the United Nations as so aptly stated by The Globe and Mail editorial on May 11, last:
The transfer of sovereignty must be negotiated by Argentine diplomats, not imposed by Argentine admirals.
This is the position of the government as reiterated by the minister in his remarks today. It has been the position of the government throughout and was eloquently expressed by Canada's representative to the United Nations in his interventions before the Security Council as illustrated by the minister.
It seems clear from some of the remarks made by supporters of the opposition party's motion that the Canadian role should

June 1, 1982
Supply
be in support of Britain regardless of the issue of principle involved. This is not, however, the position of the government or the view of informed Canadian opinion as demonstrated by the following quotation from an editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press of May 2, last, which states:
Muddy thinkers have suggested that those who are supporting Britain in this dispute are doing so for reasons of tradition or of support for a last fling at colonialism. Nothing could be further from the truth. Canada, the United States, the European Economic Community and others are applying economic and diplomatic pressure to Argentina because of the principles that force must not be allowed as a way of conducting international relations and because free peoples have a right to self-determination, no matter how small the numbers involved.
In the wintry seas of the South Atlantic, Britain is placing at risk the lives of its soldiers, seamen and airmen so that these principles may be upheld. It would be far better if this were not necessary, if Argentina would listen to reason and behave like a mature and responsible state rather than an international outlaw.
The financial and human cost to Britain of this principled action has been high. It is a price that democracy should be prepared to pay, however, both for the immediate reasons and because of the undoubted contributions that this action is making to international stability. If the member states of the League of Nations had shown the kind of resolute commitment to lawful behaviour now being shown by Britain, the tragic trail of the 1930s might not have led to the Second World War. Had Japan paid a high price for its Mukden venture in 1931, had Nazi Germany and Fascist Italy been subject to crushing sanctions and the threat of joint military action in the mid- 1930s when they were flexing their muscles, all three countries might have enjoyed the blessing of their dictatorships collapsing or being overthrown.
All over the world today, cruel and greedy dictatorships arc closely watching the development of the Falklands crisis. Had Britain taken the easy way out, washing its hands of the 1800 Falkland Islanders and conceding Argentina the right to grab them and their land by force, the world now would be seeing a rash of such military ventures. Whatever the outcome of this crisis, much credit for sustaining decent standards of international behaviour is due to all countries, including Canada, that have participated in opposing Argentina's lawlessness.
That is precisely the point of view of the government and the basis on which the government's actions have been taken. It is clear from the editorial I have just cited that it is a position widely endorsed by the Canadian people and proves the shallowness of the opposition's argument that the government has failed to respond to the views and the principles of the Canadian people.


John Carnell Crosbie: You've done nothing.


Maurice Dupras: The minister in his speech demonstrated that Canada acted quickly and resolutely in response to Argentina's action.


John Carnell Crosbie: Did what? How did Canada react?


Maurice Dupras: It acted in full support of the principle of international law which Britain, at tremendous cost to itself, has undertaken to support. As stated by the Winnipeg Free Press on May 18:
The world stands in debt to Britain already for the costs it has incurred and the risks it has taken in support of that freedom.
The opposition motion argues that Canada has failed to support the United Kingdom and the rule of law in international affairs in this matter, but the facts obviously demonstrate clearly the fallacy of this argument. As the minister pointed out, Britain's main request to Canada was to support
them in upholding the rule of law, and this we have done forthrightly and repeatedly.
As the minister mentioned, the British government has expressed its full appreciation for our action. In respect of more practical support, the minister has assured the House that no British request has gone unanswered, and I think that we can all take satisfaction from that fact as well. The opposition attempt to demonstrate that Canada is a meek, disinterested observer in this matter lends no credit to itself or to its responsibility as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.
I was humiliated in committee about three weeks ago when members of the Conservative Party said that Britain should need our help, that she cannot win the war by herself. I was surprised and disappointed in this, because, as I said already, we have satisfied all of their requests; and I have pride enough and knowledge enough of their capabilities to know that they do not need Canada's effort or its contribution.
In respect of the international negotiation process, the minister explained that Canada has repeatedly indicated its willingness to facilitate negotiations or to participate in any agreed settlement that might emerge from the negotiation process. That is in accordance with our traditional image and role as a responsible member of the international community. The House should fully support the government, Mr. Speaker, but what I am really worried about is this.
[ Translation]
Mr. Speaker, what I am really concerned about in this conflict is the post-conflict period. Not a single opposition member has thought about this side of the matter or what Canada could do and what its role will be after the conflict. If the people of the Falkland Islands are given a choice, they will surely prefer to retain British citizenship and refuse, for very obvious reasons, to live under Argentine rule.
It seems to me, and the facts appear to be supporting this more and more, that the support Argentina has received in this conflict from the Latin American community is based on some vague romantic principle instead of on more tangible values such as respect for human rights, freedom of religion and freedom of expression. Mr. Speaker, what frightens me is the consequences the conflict will have on this community and on the credibility of the institutions involved-I am, of course, referring to the Organization of American States. What will be left of the credibility of this institution? Will the old alliances and friendships that existed for so many years be able to survive the conflict? Will certain countries be willing to accept Argentina's new-found friendship with the Soviet Union, for instance? Will our neighbours to the south continue to enjoy the influence they seem to have over a number of countries in Central and South America?
Mr. Speaker, all these questions have drawn very few comments or proposals for solutions from the members of the opposition. I feel that there is here a very basic and valid reason why the Canadian government should maintain the position it has adopted and which I described in the first part
June 1, 1982

of my speech, and why, once the conflict has been settled, it should concentrate on what is to happen after the war. In addition, Mr. Speaker, we must remember that many South American countries are developing countries, and that Canada, the United States and Great Britain have committed funds provided by the taxpayers of our respective countries towards reducing poverty and finding solutions to the problems facing society in developing countries, the majority of South American countries being considered as belonging to the South, in this respect.
The countries in the southern hemisphere of the Americas are understandably very distressed, and it would certainly not be appropriate to criticize them or the United Nations or the Organization of American States, because even if the latter two organizations have often failed politically, they have also to their credit some very important, though perhaps lesser known, achievements in a number of areas including literacy programs, public health, human rights, status of women, financial administration, statistics, history and geography. The Organization of American States has been very successful in all of these areas.
1 believe that it will be necessary to rethink the need for continental solidarity and to seek a new approach to our common security. We shall have to find a formula that will restore peace, trust and honour to all citizens in all the countries and territories of the American continent. After this war, it will be necessary to consider a reorganization of the American states which could be based on a treaty of perpetual union with guarantees for common defence, peaceful solution of conflicts and maintenance of existing borders. Representatives of the various nations involved would have to analyse the principles and theories in favour of a union of the countries of this continent and the means by which this can be realized. Finally, a continental assembly involving all North and South American countries would have to be established for the purpose of finding a solution and rebuilding the Organization of American States.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, very few countries on the North or South American continent will be able to lead such an undertaking, and it is clear that this role will have to be played by Canada, because its influence and prestige are without equal in Central and South America; it has no colonial past and also because it has acted wisely in the position it has taken throughout this conflict, thus ensuring that some day, Canada's voice of reason will enable it to play a major and essential role in restoring peace and renewing the entire Organization of American States. Mr. Speaker, Canada is held in respect. Since the beginning of this century, it has been asked to collaborate with and to join, the Organization of American States. However, 1 would prefer to see my country join an Organization of American States after it has been renewed and modified to give each country a more distinctive place within the Organization than it has at the present time. 1
Supply
see you are about to tell me that my time has expired, Mr. Speaker.


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, a few weeks ago a national poll showed that the concerns of Canadians were, first of all, high interest rates and their impact on family and business life; second, concern about their homes and their ability to keep them; and third, the matter of survival, nuclear war, and the whole state of the world in which we live. An opposition party trying to be responsible in terms of the actions of a government looks day by day at the ability of that government to meet the needs and to be seen to be addressing the needs of the people. Day by day in this House in recent weeks we in the official opposition have addressed the concerns of Canadians about the effects of interest rates and the effects of inflation and the concerns of home owners, and today it is fitting that in the name of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) we should lift up for discussion throughout the day the matter of the failure of the government to give leadership in this third area, which these polls show is of prime concern to Canadians, in terms of Canada's place and the leadership of this government in the community of nations.
The motion we are debating this evening deplores the failure of the government to represent Canada properly and adequately in our external relations. Then by way of giving some focus to that broad statement, the motion zeros in on the matter of Canadian leadership, statements and actions with regard to Poland. It goes on to talk about the failure of the government to support the United Kingdom and to support the rule of law in international affairs in relation to the invasion of the Falkland Islands. It then goes on to deal with the failure of the government to retool and reinvigorate those who go out as ambassadors and commissioners on behalf of Canada in our foreign service. It then talks about the cavalier and cynicismbreeding mechanism of patronage in this department and as we have seen it in other areas. Therefore, this evening I am anxious to reflect some of the concerns about which I hear and about which those on this side of the House hear respecting the leadership of this government-or I should say the failure of leadership-which are referred to in the motion before the House.
Through the years we have come to think of Canada as a middle power. In his comments the minister spoke about responsible leadership by a middle power. He spoke about the responsibilities of Canada, but we have now come to a point where Canadian foreign policy has become so ad hoc, so expedient and so inconsistent that Canadians cannot get a picture of what is happening. As is the case with respect to economic policies from day to day, we do not know what to expect, and just as our businesses and our families cannot plan over the long term, so in the matter of foreign policy we are not able to plan or predict how we will act. Increasingly our foreign policy has become directly tied to economic struggles,

June 1, 1982
Supply
and one begins first of all to see what is the economic downside and no longer what are the matters of principle.
It has already been said in this debate that it was in 1971, when there was last undertaken a major survey or review of foreign policy in which the Canadian public, interest groups, universities and those with knowledge could begin to be heard so that there could be a statement before the public. As one who has had the opportunity with other members of the House to be part of the subcommittee studying Canada's relations with Latin America and the Caribbean, 1 have been increasingly aware of the importance of this study, even if it is now being done sectorally rather than globally, as was the intention of the Clark government. In paragraph 6 of the interim report which was tabled in this House we addressed the whole matter of failure in this regard. The report says:
More to the point, our study reflects growing Canadian interest in Latin America and the Caribbean. The only previous Parliamentary investigation directly related to our work was the Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs on Canada-Caribbean Relations. That report, completed over ten years ago, formed part of a general foreign policy review conducted in the early 1970s. Our work entails a broad examination of Canada's relations with both the Caribbean and Latin America, regions that have changed profoundly over the past decade. Those changes have, in turn, important implications for Canadian foreign policy in the 1980s.
Later on in paragraph 17 of that report we again address the failure in our foreign policy and the need for the government to address it. We said:
There may be a danger of an exaggerated and naive view of Canadian influence, but there is an even greater danger of downgrading and neglecting our opportunities for influence. The evidence received by the subcommittee suggests that Canada enters the 1980s with a valuable asset in its relations with Latin America and the Caribbean: a generally good reputation for sensitivity and concern. The Government must beware of the risk of eroding this reputation with hasty or ill-advised policies.
I suggest that in relation to foreign policy the calls of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in his recent speech for a new code of international ethics is not matched by the mechanism and the tools to present that to the House. The statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) this afternoon that Canadians demand that Canada make a contribution to world order is reflected in the polls, and part of the reason the polls show this concern is that there is a failure of leadership in that area. For the minister to suggest to this House that the government speaks for the main stream of Canadian life is to be well away from the concerns of Canadians day by day.
Let me turn for a moment to our Canadian foreign service and the instrument by which we are represented. We have already heard two of our colleagues on both sides of the House speak from their experience in Canada's foreign service. The whole McDougall report deals with a broad area, as was outlined in the opening comments of the hon. member for St. John's West, of failure on the part of the government. The hon. member for St. John's West reminded us that Ms. McDougall outlined in her report the decline in morale, communication problems, mistrust between departments, the identity crisis, the malaise in the service, failure at the management level and the fact that she had not even been consulted on the recent rearrangements.
There are four main areas outlined in that report, and first among those was the area of the family and environment. Family concerns, the report says, were top priorities of employees of Canada abroad. Spouses are tired of being treated as mere appendages of employees. They need more support because of problems in relation to many moves and their support capacity respecting the careers of foreign service employees.
In that report there is a scathing indictment of the failure to come into modern days in terms of the role of women. In the last throne speech the government made an unprecedented five references to women and the enlightened legislative initiatives in relation to women which would be brought before this House. We have yet to hear a comment on this report by the Prime Minister, who commissioned it, the Secretary of State for External Affairs or the minister responsible for the status of women. The report uses terms similar to those used in the recently-tabled report on wife battering. It discusses the tensions and stresses of living abroad representing our nation and the resentment and dissatisfaction of many wives of foreign service personnel due to the pressures on them which are different from the ones which bring about violence in large measure in Canada. However, those pressures are real in relation to family life.
It goes on to speak about the opportunity for leadership in recognizing the spousal contribution-in most cases the spouse being a woman-as official residence administrator and the responsibility that is taken on in that case. It proposes incentive premiums for spouses of foreign service employees and suggests a mechanism for personalizing the whole career pattern through basic personnel, family support services and family counselling services. These are all a part of the business of humanizing and morale building for the repesentatives of Canada abroad. They are also part of a pattern for a government that has a purpose and a plan in relation to women. Surely the neglect of this report and the mass of information it contains is an indictment in itself and is an example of the failure of leadership.
Let me say a word about the implications of what is happening today in the south Atlantic. We have heard some comments about the implications of Canada's policy of continuing to supply nuclear bundles to a government which has openly said that it intends to use its capacity in a destructive way and which has not satisfied the agreements. We have already begun to look at the implications of that. Why are Canadians so deeply concerned about this failure? Surely it is because they begin to see that the mechanisms for heading off confrontations are not in place.
We have a picture of the build-up and the confrontation going on in Port Stanley today as a result of the British armada setting sail for three or four weeks. We have the scenario of the world media following it. We have the scenario of diplomatic nations at work, but we have no mechanism that can stop the bloodshed at this moment. There were three or
June 1, 1982

four weeks' warning of this confrontation. We are told now, however, that if there was a nuclear strike on Toronto, Vancouver or Halifax or any North American city, we would have 12 minutes' warning during which the leaders of the world could negotiate. It is small wonder the Poles are concerned about the lack of mechanism and leadership to deal with the situations facing them today.
In a speech the Prime Minister called for a new code of international ethics. Never have we needed it more, but where are the plans? Where is the leadership from the government in face of the realities of today?
There is a need for new mechanisms for world order. At the forthcoming special session of the United Nations on disarmament which opens on Monday next, there is an opportunity for Canada and other nations to put in place some mechanism to head off the type of confrontation we see now. In the future such confrontations will not use conventional warheads but will use nuclear warheads.
Last September, at the United Nations, nearly 100 parliamentarians, representing 25 or 30 countries, met and introduced a resolution on peacekeeping. When we watched the Secretary General of the United Nations attempt to be an intermediary in the present crisis we realized that he has no authority.
The question of whether Canada could make forces available for peacekeeping must be dealt with. Our forces need to be re-equipped in order to carry out such a responsibility. Those parliamentarians drew up a resolution which said that, believing that it is in the interest of world order, there should be enforceable world law and disarmament and recognizing the need for a permanent administration, the establishment of a standby United Nations peacekeeping force and for members of that peacekeeping force to owe complete allegiance to the United Nations and not to the national contributing governments, and being aware that at present the contributing nations can withdraw forces at any time as well as realizing that not all members for the Security Council pay for forces which they voted to establish, and continued as follows:
Urges the United Nations to establish a standing peacekeeping force individually recruited, such recruits to be carefully screened to ensure that they are of high calibre and character; and also
Urges the United Nations to establish an international satellite monitoring agency to provide impartial information about the integrity of international boundaries and the deployment of the world's military forces.
There are options, Mr. Speaker, so that as the world moves from crisis to crisis there would be an authority to which Canada could contribute. Recently in the matter of the law of the sea we have begun, in a small way, to agree to limiting our sovereignty. In the matter of air piracy and terrorism in the air, we have begun to agree to mechanisms of order so that we can begin to limit that type of piracy. Surely national terrorism and national piracy have to be addressed in terms of the future of the human family. If we fail to do this, all who advise us tell us that the next generation of nuclear missiles will be as mobile as a house trailer in the hands of an Idi Amin or someone else, or in the hands of Argentina or some other
Supply
government with its back to the wall. More by accident than design we may find ourselves faced with the use of these terrible and terrorizing instruments.
The motion before the House tonight suggests that there are opportunities for leadership by Canada in the area of human rights, peacemaking, peacekeeping, and for sending what has been in the past one of the most able and respected foreign services, abroad. We can to this with integrity and with purpose.
It is because of the weight of public opinion that we on this side introduced this motion and urge the government to give the leadership which is its responsibility.


Jesse Philip Flis: Mr. Speaker, the decision by the Soviet Union and the Polish communist authorities on December 13, 1981, to govern Poland with a military junta was like a knife in the heart of the Solidarity movement in Poland. This is a peaceful social movement, demanding nothing more than the same rights and freedoms that we have entrenched in our constitution, proclaimed by this Parliament on April 17, this year. They demand nothing more than the right to have free workers' unions which would be recognized by the employer, in this case the Polish government.
There has not been a more crucial crisis in the world since the December 13, 1981, Polish crisis. We have had many other very serious crises such as El Salvador and the Falkland Islands, but in my opinion none were as crucial as that of Poland. I have never been so disgusted, Mr. Speaker, with an opposition motion as I am with this one.


John Carnell Crosbie: Get some backbone and support the motion.


Jesse Philip Flis: This is a motion which lumps in the Polish crisis with the McDougall commission and patronage in the operation of the External Affairs Department. The official critic tells me to get some backbone. Mr. Speaker, I am standing here with backbone-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jesse Philip Flis: -and that is why I am taking part in this debate. This is the importance that the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) places on the violation of human rights in Poland and the implementation of martial law therein.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Look to your own government.


Jesse Philip Flis: I appeal to the Right Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) to do this country a favour and please-please-replace his present official external affairs critic with someone who is more responsible and knows what the hell he or she is talking about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jesse Philip Flis: He is like a fish out of water, wriggling helplessly, flopping on the sand for survival.

June 1, 1982
Supply


John Carnell Crosbie: You are an idiot.


Jesse Philip Flis: Scoring political points is more important to the official opposition and the hon. member for St. John's West, than helping the people of Poland and Canadians of Polish descent.


Robert Lloyd Wenman: Why are you afraid to speak against the government?


Jesse Philip Flis: Let me explain what I mean, Mr. Speaker. Martial law was imposed on Sunday, December 13, 1981.


Mr. Cousineau:: Why don't you just listen and shut up?


Jesse Philip Flis: The next morning, Monday, December 14, I called a meeting of the Polish emergency committee of Canadian parliamentarians, made up of members of all parties. The cochairman is the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski). But he did not initiate such a meeting; he did not think the imposition of martial law was serious enough. A member from this side of the House had to call the meeting to formulate a motion to present in this House on December 14 and this is the motion which was worked out by representatives from all three parties. I am very proud of the members who were present such as the hon. member for Brampton-George-town (Mr. McDermid), the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle), and members from this side of the House. This is what we worked out:
Whereas Canadians are greatly concerned over the recent developments in Poland, and whereas Canadians strongly adhere to the principles of the Helsinki Accord with special references to basic human rights and freedoms, and whereas Canadians support the citizens of Poland in the struggle to acquire those basic freedoms to which they have a right, and whereas Pope John Paul II yesterday asked that solutions be arrived at without violence, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle):
The hon. member for Brampton-Georgetown had agreed to second this motion but when I arrived in the House he came running over to me and said "Jesse, sorry we cannot support that motion." I found out later why they could not support it. The motion read as follows:
That the House urge all nations of the world to refrain from any political or military actions that may in any way interfere with the internal affairs of Poland and that this House express the wish that Poland's internal difficulties will be solved by peaceful negotiations between the Polish government and the Polish people.
The Speaker asked if there was unanimous consent, which the NDP and the Liberal Party gave, but the Conservatives said no, Mr. Speaker. They said no to a motion worked out by all three parties, yet when it came to put the motion in the House they refused to support it because they wanted one of their own motions-less effective-without any consultation with the other two parties, to go forward first. That is what I mean by their being more interested in scoring political points than helping Canadians of Polish descent or the people in Poland.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Why don't you talk to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)? What did you say to the Prime Minister?


Jesse Philip Flis: Another example of this was at a public meeting in Toronto on Thursday, December 16, 1981. Again, all three parties were present. About 3,000 people were gathered in front of Nathan Phillips Square. Following the meeting representatives from all three parties-I remember it as if it were tonight-were still on the platform and they agreed to meet the next morning in Ottawa to formulate a motion incorporating the resolutions of the Canadian Polish Congress and the thousands of Canadians gathered at Nathan Phillips Square.
The next day in the House of Commons a motion was presented without any consultation with the all-party committee which was set up for that purpose, among other things. The resolutions were very good. To give you an example, it said:
1.	To press for the immediate lifting of martial law in Poland and the release of all Solidarity officials.
2.	To press for the reinstatement of the rights of workers to form free trade unions.
3.	To publicly state that no intervention by third parties into the internal affairs of Poland will be tolerated.
4.	To send to Poland, for distribution by non-government organizations, significant economic aid in the form of food, medical supplies and agricultural machinery and feedstuffs in order that the people of Poland survive the coming winter.
All these resolutions were acceptable to this side, but again the Tories wanted to play their grames. They did not want to co-operate with the other two parties, they wanted to beat everyone to the punch. We could have modified one of those resolutions and probably got unanimous consent in this House.
The mover of today's motion read the resolutions presented to him by Mr. Przetakiewicz, whose name he could not even pronounce, again showing the disrespect he holds for Canadians of Polish descent. Does the hon. member know who Mr. Przetakiewicz is? I would like to read to him from the information bulletin called "Solidarnosc", edited by Mr. Przetakiewicz. On the very back it says:
Solidarity Information Offices abroad are not officially authorized to represent 'Solidarnosc'.


John Carnell Crosbie: So what. Do you think the Polish government is going to authorize it?


Jesse Philip Flis: That is the attitude, Mr. Speaker: so what. I ask the external affairs critic for the official opposition not to disgrace the name of Solidarity by lumping it together in the same motion with the McDougall commission, and department patronage. The hon. member is so ignorant that he has not even taken the time to learn that it is the Canadian Polish Congress which represents all of the major Canadian Polish organizations in Canada including the Polish Canadian action groups and Mr. Przetakiewicz group. It is the Canadian Polish Congress which is the official spokesman on the views of Canadians of Polish descent, and if the hon. member does not know how to organize things, I would be willing to arrange a meeting with the head executive board of the Canadian Polish Congress for him and his leader since they appeared to be unable to organize even this small task. I am pleased to say that from the time Solidarity began in Poland, Canadians of
June 1, 1982

Polish descent, and all of the major Polish Canadian organizations, have had an open door to this government.


John Carnell Crosbie: They went speedily through the door and out again with nothing accomplished.


Jesse Philip Flis: The critic says nothing was accomplished. I will tell him what these consultations accomplished. Consultations with the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) led to refugees being allowed to stay in Canada on a one-year permit, allowing them to work and be eligible for all the benefits that Canadians are eligible for.
These consultations led to the policy where people from Poland who wanted to come as permanent immigrants were processed much more quickly without too many questions being asked. Last week when the minister appeared before the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration he agreed to meet again with representatives from Canadian Polish organizations to review current immigration policies and visitor-visa policies for the Polish people.
I have lost track of the number of meetings the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) has had with the President of the Canadian Polish Congress, Mr. Kaszuba, and other leaders of Canadian Polish organizations. I know about them because I was present at most of the meetings. These consultations led to the $500,000 which this government gave to the International Red Cross to help the Polish people with medicine, food and clothing. These consultations led to the $300,000 which this government gave directly to the Canadian Polish Congress so that the food, medicine and clothing would go to the needy people in Poland via the church, not via the communist government. These consultations led to the provision of food for the Polish people through our grain credits.
We have had meetings with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) to see whether there was surplus food in Canada which we could sell cheaply or donate to the people of Poland. I was a little shocked to learn that we have very little surplus food in Canada. We are the bread basket of the world yet we have very little surplus food. It is by consultation with Canadians of Polish heritage that we have managed to help not only the people of Poland but also Canadians by reuniting thousands of families.
What have the Tories done? Let me ask the official opposition and the New Democratic Party for that matter, what they have done of a constructive nature to help Canadians whose brothers, sisters and parents are in Poland? The hon. member for St. John's West goes shooting off his mouth across this land and in this House. What has he accomplished? He has discriminated against me personally today in this very chamber by referring to me as "the Polish Pimpernel". When I rose on a question of privilege, he withdrew his words. But that was too late. The damage was done. Just look, Mr. Speaker, they all laugh. They laugh at racist remarks like that. They laugh and they discriminate against a member in this House.
Supply


An hon. Member:: What is the matter with you?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jesse Philip Flis: I can hear the word "turkey" and I can hear other things. I welcome these words because I want it recorded in Hansard so I can send copies across this country for Canadians of Polish descent to read.
As I said, the gentleman withdrew his words when I jumped up on a question of privilege. But it was too late. The damage was done.
On January 27, 1982, the hon. member for St. John's West asked a question of the Right Hon. Prime Minister. As reported in Hansard at page 14373 he said:
Madam Speaker, I would like to move from the world of fantasy land to the world of Po-Land.
He pronounced Po-Land disrespectfully. But it is in Hansard for everyone to read. It does not look discriminatory when one reads it, but the way the hon. member makes these comments is very repulsive. The official critic said this afternoon that he and his party have the full support of the Polish community. With that kind of attitude toward Canadians with backgrounds other than his own, he would be lucky if he could muster even 1 per cent support of the Polish community. I can verify that.


John Carnell Crosbie: Be careful. I might run against you.


Jesse Philip Flis: The hon. member says that he might run against me. I say to him "Come into the riding of Parkdale-High Park and I will run against you." The people will speak. They will not put up with that kind of discrimination or that kind of negative attitude. The hon. member was elected to help build a country for the future not to tear it apart; nor to pit one group of Canadians against another group of Canadians. Canadians judge us in this House by our attitude, our behaviour, our sincerity and our respect for all Canadians. We are all Canadians regardless of our roots. Canadians are not very impressed by our foul language which comes from the mouth of the official critic of the external affairs portfolio. I appeal again to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition to find himself a critic who will not be an embarrassment to his party, to this House and to this Canada.
There are other incidents of members of the Official Opposition who have made similar unkind remarks, but for the sake of time I will pass over them.
The official opposition likes to take credit for what other federal parties have accomplished. The hon. member for Edmonton South (Mr. Roche) in his speech today said that it was his party that initiated the Vietnamese boat people program. His statement is totally false. The program for breaking the log jam of boat people was initiated by the Liberal federal government 18 months before the Tory government came into power. It was this Liberal Party which put out a challenge to the Canadian people that the federal government would match one for one the number of refugees sponsored by the private sector to a maximum of 50,000 refugees.

June 1, 1982
Supply


Walter David Baker: It was Mayor Dewar who did that.


Jesse Philip Flis: When the Conservative government came into power, it reduced the limit of 50,000 refugees to 35,000. Where is their humanity, compassion and sympathy? And where is their assistance for refugees?
Today I spoke with Mr. Jan Kaszuba, president of the Canadian Polish Congress, head executive board and Chairman of the Free World Polonia Co-ordinating Council. I highlight the fact that he is chairman of the Free World Polonia Co-ordinating Council. The word "Polonia" may be new to some members in this House. It means "the Polish people". I think it is quite an honour for a Canadian to be elected president of the free world council representing 24 countries and 10 million people of Polish descent beyond the boundaries of Poland. Mr. Jan Kaszuba, the president, is a great Canadian.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jesse Philip Flis: I would like to share with this House the latest resolutions put forth by the Canadian Polish Congress. First, is for the government to declare a total embargo on trade with the Soviet Union and suspend all present negotiations as they are the ones responsible for the crisis in Poland. Second, to stop all trade dealings with the government of the Republic of Poland, with the exception of food. The Polish Congress goes on to explain why they make this exception. Third, to recall the Canadian ambassador in Warsaw to express indignation for the violation of human rights in Poland. Fourth, to restrict or cancel consular representation of the people's republic of Poland and bring them on par with Canadian representation in Poland. Fifth, to send representations to the General Assembly of the United Nations to stop the violation of human rights in Poland.
Let us put our partisan politics aside on some issues and let us see how many of these resolutions we can implement as a government. When I say as a government, I mean the official opposition and members of the New Democratic Party. When we want to we can place our political differences in abeyance as we did last Wednesday when members and senators from all parties joined the Polish Alliance of Canada at a banquet celebrated on Parliament Hill to commemorate the seventy-fifth anniversary of one of the oldest and largest Polish organizations in Canada.
In closing, if we could work in harmony during one evening outside the chamber, surely we could work together inside the House to help Canadians help the people of Poland.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his allotted time has expired.


René Cousineau: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could we obtain unanimous consent in order for the hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Albert Gamble: Mr. Speaker, I was inclined to observe, as I listened to the performance of the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis), that there must be something missing when, having just read the latest proposed resolution of the Canadian Polish Conference, he could sit in his seat and support a party which opposed a resolution that was proposed in the House on May 17 by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), which included the following specific provision:
-and finally, that the Canadian government replace the present symbolic and ineffective sanctions with more meaningful ones and therefore implement a full range of trade, diplomatic, and cultural sanctions against Poland and the Soviet bloc until the state of war is lifted in Poland, and human, citizen, and trade union rights are reinstated.
Of course that resolution did not obtain the approval of that member's party. While he is showing his irrate fit of temper at the hon. member for St. John's West, let me ask him what is his reaction to the comments of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and how he can still remain having regard to those comments within the Liberal Party. He said:
Hopefully the military regime will be able to keep Solidarity from its excessive demands.
That was the comment of the Prime Minister immediately after the imposition of martial law. Just yesterday a newspaper carried a story about the potential release of Lech Walesa. In that newspaper article is quoted Polish Deputy Prime Minister Jerzy Ozdowski who reportedly said the following with respect to Solidarity:
It was a movement so young that it didn't take into account the realities. It was bypassing the political conditions and was striving to attain changes which were impossible to implement.
What were the changes? The attainment of freedom and liberty in a country which has long been denied it by another nation, the Soviet Union, against which the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park has not given us a whisper of complaint. Yet, his ancestral country has been subjected to the most tyrannical, imperialistic nation in the world, one which has historically robbed nations around it; imposed martial law where it could; invaded and occupied Afghanistan; used surrogates from Cuba to occupy and assist in the conduct of a civil war in Angola; gobbled up the Baltic states; took over and swallowed up, within the great empire of the Soviet Union, the Ukraine; and has never yet stepped out of a nation that it has occupied. Why has the hon. member, who has the interest of these freedom loving people at heart, not spoken out against this tyrannical regime?
I will tell the House why. It is because it would be out of character for that member of the Liberal Party to speak out against the best interests of the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister went on to say:
If a military regime has the effect of preventing a civil war, I cannot inherently say it is bad.
We are talking about a regime which took over a movement that was finally trying to bring to that brave people the freedom they deserve, and the Prime Minister's comments
June 1, 1982

were to the effect that "I praise them because they helped to avert a civil war." There is no evidence that a civil war would have occurred without the intervention of that monster from the east, the Soviet Union. Also the Prime Minister went on to
say:
We have no evidence of Soviet troops shaking their sabres on the border.
Where was the man? Was he asleep? Did he fail to recognize that on the day before September 13, the commander in chief of the Warsaw Pact was in Warsaw giving directions to their vassals? Did he fail to recognize that for months before the Russian military might had been mounted on the border of Poland, shaking, their sabres so that everyone in the world could hear? They seem to have done that to the escape of the attention of a member of the House who professes to be a champion of the people of Poland. This is offensive to me because it lacks real substance. I should like to have him stand up in his place and condemn the perpetrators of this evil. This has not happened and it is time it did.
If we listen to the comments of the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle), we are confronted with a variety of slants. It is time that the House began to recognize a slant which has taken place in Canada where we are blind to aggressive moves by a power which is determined to destroy our systems around the world and has used in the process wellmeaning intellectuals who believe that the best thing we can do is to throw up our hands and surrender because it is a horrible offence to protect ourselves against a potential enemy. There is no doubt that there is an enemy there. It is an enemy which has proved itself historically from the beginning of the time when Lenin and his gang of thugs took over the Soviet Union.
We have seen just recently what occurs when a nation has no defence. Had the Falkland Islands been armed to the teeth, it would never have been invaded by the nation which perpetrated that invasion. Argentina would never have sent its ships, airplanes and its men against the Falkland Islands had it been defended. It is important to bear in mind that we in the House ought not to have to experience first-hand what happens when a country is ill-prepared. We should take some guidance and gain prudence from what has happened elsewhere. We have a mighty nation spread over a great continent with hundreds of miles of unprotected territory. For people to suggest that it is appropriate for us in some way to throw down our defences and join some peace pact, knowing that those monsters lurk out there from the Soviet Union, is an abandonment of reason.
I submit with respect to this issue that our place is within NATO and that we have an obligation to protect our country. To fly off in fits of fancy, trying to imagine a better world for all men and women, is to reject common sense and good reason. I submit to the House that the issues which confront us today are those to which the House should direct its attention. We should prepare ourselves and strengthen the Western World. We should not condemn those who join with us in providing the best protection for ourselves and for those other freedom-loving people around this planet.
Adjournment Debate


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being ten o'clock p.m., it is my duty to inform the House that pursuant to Standing Order 58(11) proceedings on the motion have expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, if I may go back just a wee bit, my colleague, the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis) asked a question of the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Kaplan) on May 26, 1982, relating to the question of compensation for costs incurred on behalf of Miss Susan Nelles for her prosecution on four counts of murder from which she was not only discharged by a judge in Toronto but was, in fact, exonerated in the course of that judgment.
The answer given by the Solicitor General at that time was:
Madam Speaker, as the House knows, the administration of justice is a provincial matter. The investigation and the charges that were laid were all done under the direction of the provincial authorities. I think, with respect and with the sympathy, that I share for her plight, the hon. member should direct his attention to the government responsible for the decision and for the prosecution.
I give that by way of background information.
That answer disturbed me a great deal; the fact that there should be an attempt to slough off what I would like to tell the House what I believe is a moral responsibility on the basis of the British North America Act as to what is the responsibility of the province and the federal government.
On May 28, 1982, I raised the matter again in the House of Commons. I asked the Solicitor General whether or not, given the responsibility that certainly lies with Ontario, there was not a moral responsibility with respect to the judicial system of the country and especially the criminal law system of the country for some compensation with respect to costs for a person found in the position of Miss Susan Nelles of Belleville. On that occasion the minister went farther than he did with the hon. member for Prince Edward Hastings. He said:
-I will note the hon. member's representation and I will bring it to the attention of my colleague, the Attorney General of Canada.
I asked him another question and his answer was:
-I note the hon. member's point. I will bring it to my colleague's attention.
In the blues that I saw, "colleague's" had the apostrophe after the "s" which would have meant his colleagues, the members

June 1, 1982
Adjournment Debate
of cabinet. In the official record of Hansard, "colleague's" has been singularized, I suppose dealing with the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien).
I want to say to the House that there is a moral gap in the criminal law. There is some jurisdiction, some responsibility generally in this field for the subject as evidenced by the report of the Ontario Law Reform Commission in the study done by them in 1977. They said at that time:
-it is not difficult to conclude that the existing system is totally inadequate and should be replaced by a full costs system.
They recommended the combination of federal legislation and in part by federal-provincial arrangements to provide a Canadian criminal cost system with certain features. One of them was to be the granting of costs in cases like this.
I ask the House to consider that a charge was laid by the police after investigation. I do not know what occurred during the course of that investigation but in any event, at the end of it a Canadian citizen was discharged after 14 months. Her reputation was trotted out before the Canadian public. As a professional, she is likely ruined in terms of her profession and no one, whether here, Toronto or elsewhere, can say that it is morally right that the old system ought to apply and that a person like her ought not to be assisted somehow.
The federal government has a responsibility. If the report of the Law Reform Commission is not enough, I want to suggest to my colleagues that we ought to urge upon the government to go together with provincial governments to change that system. But in this particular case I want to urge some recompense, even if in part, for a legal bill that amounts to about $150,000 or $200,000. Surely, if a plaintiff who brings an action is wrong in a civil case and is therefore charged in costs when he loses, it equally ought to apply that the Crown which brought an action under the criminal law jurisdiction when it is shown to be wrong because the charge has been dismissed, ought to also be penalized in costs.
This Susan Nelles case is just the indicator of the inequity in the system. It is time that some equity was brought to the system of criminal justice and we have the chart in this report.
I do hope that my friend, the parliamentary secretary, can report on some progress tonight in this matter.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the question raised by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is one which engages a great deal of public sympathy. At the same time, I believe it raises a number of important questions of principle. It would, of course, be entirely inappropriate for me to comment on the particular facts of this specific case. It is my understanding and belief that the matter is presently under review by police investigation. As well, it has been the subject of a provincial inquiry under the chairmanship of Mr. Justice Dubin.
The hon. member, however, has quite properly raised the wider questions of principle and policy related to the general
question of compensation for accused persons who are subsequently discharged or acquitted. As he noted in his question, "The Government of Ontario has a responsibility with respect to some compensatory arrangement in a case where an accused has been exonerated." I think that this is an extremely important point to consider, given the division of responsibilities in the field of justice under the terms of the Canadian Constitution.
As the hon. member well knows, the Parliament of Canada has the authority to enact legislation with respect to criminal law and procedure, under the terms of Section 91(27) of the BNA Act. The provinces, on the other hand, have the responsibility for enacting legislation related to the administration of justice, under the terms of Section 92(14).
The Criminal Code provides for provincial authorities to carry responsibility for the investigation and prosecution of almost all offences under the Criminal Code. Thus, police forces under the authority of the provincial attorney general or another provincial minister, and Crown prosecutors, also carried the burden of criminal investigation and prosecution in Canada. It is important to observe the division of responsibilities in the field of justice in order that appropriate accountability may be maintained, as well as in order to ensure the most effective use of resources in the important public task of discovering and prosecuting crime.
The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton went on to suggest that there may, as well, be a case for federal consideration of the general issues involved, and referred to a study paper published some nine years ago by the Law Reform Commission. The proposal set out in that study paper which, I might add, did not take the form of a formal recommendation from the commission, suggested that consideration be given to the establishment of a system to pay the costs of all acquitted and discharged accused persons based on economic need, with any such compensation system to be administered by provincial criminal injuries compensation agencies. I might add that no working paper or report has since been published by the commission recommending the adoption of that position, but the president of the Law Reform Commission of Canada has indicated that the general question will be examined again in the context of the criminal law review which has recently been initiated by the federal government in close co-operation with the provincial attorneys general.
[ Translation]


ENERGY-EXPORT OF POWER BY HYDRO-QUEBEC-POSSIBLE DIFFICULTIES
Mr. Pierre Deniger (La Prairie):: Mr. Speaker, may I refer the House to the question I directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) last Thursday on the subject of Bill C-108, an act containing amendments to the National Energy Board Act. This bill has given rise to outrageous politicking on the part of Quebec and Newfoundland, on a subject that is purely a matter of economics. Only Lise Bissonnette, in her editorial in the newspaper Le Devoir of
June 1, 1982

May 20, published under the heading "The gnat and the camel", showed a clear understanding of the real problem, which is not the so-called corridor, which indeed Mrs. Bisson-nette calls a "scarecrow", but an amendment that will allow the National Energy Board to revoke or suspend a licence if in the opinion of the Board, the public's convenience and necessity so requires. According to Mr. Joseph Bourbeau, Chairman of the Board of Directors of Hydro-Quebec, a neighbour of mine in Brossard, this amendment might jeopardize electric power sales worth nearly $10 billion, and it would not be very wise to allow, and I quote:
-the government unlimited discretion, let alone invite a specialized agency to go beyond its terms of reference.
The expression "public convenience and necessity" included in the bill also appears, for instance, in the Aeronautics Act; as counsel I have had occasion to argue this point of "public convenience and necessity" in connection with the Aeronautics Act, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that this kind of amendment would grant far too extensive powers to the National Energy Board and to the governor in council, and could well draw business decisions into the political sphere. That is the contentious aspect of this bill, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I asked the minister to amend his bill and withdraw this provision, which according to Mr. Bourbeau would solve the problem because we would then revert to the original legislation.
As for Hydro-Quebec's concern about regulatory authority, more specifically with respect to the environment, which could very well cause some confusion in negotiations on export contracts and cause federal-provincial relations to deteriorate still further, I may remind Canadians, as our Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources did previously in the House, that the National Energy Board will have the power to issue a licence, but the licence holder will be governed by current provincial legislation, and as far as Quebec is concerned, this means environmental legislation and, of course, land protection legislation. This is already a daily occurrence in Quebec with respect to Trans Quebec & Maritimes PipeLine. Therefore, I do not think these concerns have any basis in fact. To get back to the corridor, the Parti Quebecois can indulge in all the allegations and motions and press conferences and symbolic references it likes, the corridor is just a "scarecrow", to quote the editor-in-chief of Le Devoir. In fact, when he appeared before the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation last Wednesday, the Chairman of the Board of Directors of Hydro-Quebec made it quite clear, and I quote:
I could not care less about the corridor.
And that is because as a project, the corridor is technically and economically just not feasible and is not a viable proposition. First of all, it would be far more expensive to transport electricity and to build such a corridor from Newfoundland than to let Hydro-Quebec transport electric power via its own grid to Ontario, the United States and New Brunswick. Second, the
Adjournment Debate
corridor would require not just one line but two, to guarantee supply, which would double the cost. Third, it is clear that it is in the interest of Newfoundland to come to terms with Quebec.
The people of Quebec must remember that the present act does not contain any provisions that would oblige Hydro-Quebec to allow Newfoundland to use its grid, and that the power to expropriate for electric power exports is technically and economically feasible only if the expropriation takes place over a very short distance. Actually, the government included the expropriation clause at the request of Calgary Power, to resolve a regional problem, since, as the House is aware, Mr. Speaker, Newfoundland is far more interested in using the Hydro-Quebec grid to transport electricity than in building a corridor.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, the gist of Mr. Bourbeau's testimony was that the dispute between Newfoundland and Quebec could be negotiated without any trouble if the politicians withdrew from the scene and negotiations between Newfoundland and Quebec were handled, not on the basis of symbols, but in a businesslike fashion by businessmen, namely, by Hydro-Quebec and the Churchill Falls Development Corporation, and not by Mr. Peckford and Mr. Levesque.
In concluding, I may remind the Parti Quebecois caucus that as far as this case is concerned they are absolutely not aware of the facts.


David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, when concern was expressed in this House on May 27 by the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Deniger) about a proposed amendment to the National Energy Board Act as embodied in Bill C-108, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) stated that if a clause in that bill that would make it possible to modify a power export licence would cause problems in relation to an export contract, he would not hesitate to amend the bill to ensure that there was no prejudice to such a contract.
This matter refers to Section 84 of the National Energy Board Act. Currently under Sections 84(1) and 84(2) of that act, the board, with the approval of the governor in council, could not revoke or suspend an export licence unless any term or condition of the licence had not been complied with or had been violated. Under the proposed Section 84(1 )(b) the board, with the approval of the governor in council, would be given the additional power to suspend or revoke a licence if, in the opinion of the board, public convenience and necessity so required.
The language of proposed Section 84(1 )(b) is based upon a similar provision in the Aeronautics Act which has been interpreted by the Supreme Court of Canada.

June 1, 1982
Adjournment Debate
I might say that there were objections to the application of proposed Section 84(1 )(b) to exports by the Canadian Bar Association and by Elydro-Quebec. These objections were made on the ground that the exact meaning of the words "public convenience and necessity" could not be precisely defined. The proposed amendment, according to Hydro-Quebec, could also raise doubts in prospective customers' minds as to the reliability of Canadian electricity exports and would therefore render negotiations of export contracts even more difficult than they are already. Even if contracts could be negotiated, the additional uncertainty might result in a lower border price than would otherwise be obtained. Hydro-Quebec further argued that there would be an effect on existing contracts. This proposed change could, therefore, impact on export contracts worth several billion dollars.
After weighing these arguments, the minister agreed to consider modification of this proposed subsection in Bill C-108 relative to its application to electricity exports. Serious consideration is being given to this matter by the minister and, indeed, it is presently under review by the Standing Committee on Energy Legislation.


INDIAN AFFAIRS-JAMES BAY AGREEMENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION ON TAIT REPORT RECOMMENDATIONS. (B) SAFETY OF WATER SUPPLY
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, on May 18 1 rose to ask the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) when he might expect a decision from the cabinet on the review of the implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. His reply to me was, "Soon, very soon." I am here tonight to see if I can find out what "soon" means.
I have here a copy of the agreement, and it is 454 pages long. It was signed on November 11, 1975, by representatives of the Canadian government, the government of Quebec and representatives of the Cree and Inuit who live in northern Quebec. They gave up much of the territory they had inhabited for centuries-since time immemorial-for a cash settlement that is to be paid out over a period of 20 years and also for a number of benefits which are to accrue to them. Such benefits are housing, education, fire protection, roads, fresh and pure water in their villages, air strips and a number of other things. Unfortunately, many of these things have not been forthcoming.
Last March representatives of the Cree and Inuit came before the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development and told us of a great number of cases in which this agreement has been seriously breached. We heard of conditions that would make the Third World look pretty good. In one instance we heard of seven children dying in 1980 because of gastroenteritis which had been caused by unsanitary conditions. We heard of tuberculosis throughout the northern villages of Quebec. We heard a litany of complaints that it was a very bad situation.
At this point the committee made a report to the minister pointing out the terrible things that were going on in northern Quebec. He agreed that the situation should be reviewed and appointed an official from his department to go to the area. The official did so and presented an 87 page report to the minister, with recommendations. I understand that this report went before cabinet in January.
On February 18 the minister called a meeting of the Standing Committee of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to discuss the review. He thought that it would be through cabinet by February 18, but unfortunately that was not the case and so we could not discuss it. Every day since then we have expected the decision to be handed down.
On May 14 the chairman of the Standing Committee of Indian Affairs and Northern Development asked the minister when we could expect a decision from cabinet and the reply was that it would be available reasonably soon. I asked the same question a week later and the answer was "soon, very soon."
Today the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development was tabled. Item 12 of the report states as follows:
Recalling your committee's earlier report to the Minister respecting the implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, your Committee is dismayed by the delay of the federal Cabinet in reaching a just decision based on the recommendations of the department's review, providing for adequate funding according to the terms and conditions of the agreement.
This contract was entered into between the Cree, the Inuit and two governments. It has been broken. It was supposed to be the hallmark of future land claim settlements in Canada. It is a sad situation that we have not been able to honour the agreement. I put the question to the parliamentary secretary, when can this decision be expected?


Mr. Ray Chenier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, the member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway) as well as other members of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development have expressed concern regarding the time it has taken for cabinet to consider the report on implementation of the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. It is unfortunate that it has taken longer than originally anticipated to adequately study this issue and to develop appropriate remedial measures. I am pleased, however, to inform the House that cabinet is in the final stages of considering this matter and I anticipate that the decisions made by cabinet will go a considerable way in resolving the difficulties being experienced by the Cree and Inuit.
The member for Cariboo-Chilcotin is rightfully concerned with the safety of the water supply in the Cree Community of Paint Hills. I assure him I share his concern and steps have been, and will be, taken to improve the situation as quickly as possible.
June 1, 1982

[ Translation]
Far be it from me to try to minimize the situation in Paint Hills. However, to set the facts straight, I think I should inform the hon. member that, contrary to what he said in the House on May 18 of this year, the gastroenteritis epidemic which spread through Paint Hills in 1980 did not result in any deaths. A report on the epidemic prepared by Dr. Gary Pekeles in March, 1981, indicates that the number of cases of gastroenteritis in Paint Hills in the spring and summer of 1980 was not any higher than usual.

The hon. member made reference on May 19 to an apparent conflict between information contained in the minister's letter of March 19, 1982, and water tests conducted on March 9. The March 19 letter to Chief Hughboy of Paint Hills indicated that there did not appear to be any serious water quality problem at that time.
The March 9 test results, however, indicate a serious contamination problem. The fact is that when the minister wrote the letter on March 19, department officials had not yet been notified of the test results. In fact, correspondence from Chief Hughboy indicates that he himself did not receive an official "Notice to Boil" letter until March 19.
Last year, in an attempt to improve general health conditions in the community, a remedial measures program was put
Adjournment Debate
in place. I would like to point out that this program was designed and implemented by the Cree themselves with advice from DIAND. It included covering the spring used for drinking water, fitting it with a pump, instituting door-to-door water delivery in safe containers, and a general community clean-up. During 1981-82 our department spent $217,774 in funding this program. It is continuing this year and the department is working with the Cree to resolve the problem.
Although the program has improved conditions somewhat, it is clear that a very serious problem still exists and that the only long-term solution is the construction of permanent infrastructure facilities. A funding proposal for a total water and sewer system has been prepared by my department which will be seeking Treasury Board approval very shortly. The regional director and Chief Hughboy have met here in Ottawa to accelerate approval and construction.

New measures resulting from a study of the James Bay agreement now being considered by cabinet could also be expected to improve the situation very shortly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.
At 10.27 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Wednesday, June 2, 1982