April 17, 1973

PRIVILEGE

MR. HALIBURTON-MANNER OF RELEASE OF REPORT ON OFFSHORE LOBSTER FISHERY

PC

Charles E. Haliburton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Charles E. Haliburton (South Western Nova):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege this afternoon in connection with a matter of extreme interest and concern to my riding of South Western Nova. The matter relates to the fishing of offshore lobsters.

In this House on April 5 I directed a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) about a certain study that was supposed to have been undertaken nearly two years ago. Subsequently, both in the House and in the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, I raised this issue. On April 4, in response to a question, I was told by one of the officials of the Department of Fisheries that the report should be available within a few weeks. May I stress he said it "should be ready within a few weeks' time".

Within a week, namely, on April 10, the report that I had been asking for for a month or five weeks was released to a newspaper reporter in Halifax and reported pretty fully in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald of April 11. The publication of the contents of that report and the stories that went out on the wire press have caused serious embarrassment to me since this was a matter occurring within my constituency in which, as I say, I had great interest. It caused me additional embarrassment since I had, after all, been requesting this report and the people there knew I had been requesting it. Indeed, it was in fact released on April 10 as a result of the pressure that had been brought to bear on the government through my questions. Further embarrassment attaches because of the fact that I was asked to comment on the report by various members of the media.

Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):

That this matter and the nature of the procedure for releasing such statements be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. HALIBURTON-MANNER OF RELEASE OF REPORT ON OFFSHORE LOBSTER FISHERY
Permalink
NONE

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

No affiliation

Mr. Speaker:

Before the motion could be put to the House for debate and disposition the Chair would have to rule that there was a prima facie case of privilege. Although the hon. member may have a grievance or complaint, I have serious doubts whether his point would amount to a question of privilege which ought to be referred to either the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections or another committee of the House. I think the hon. member has made his point in his presentation to the House in relation to the grievance of which he has

complained, but I doubt that the interests of the House would best be served by having a debate at this time.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. HALIBURTON-MANNER OF RELEASE OF REPORT ON OFFSHORE LOBSTER FISHERY
Permalink
PC

Charles E. Haliburton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Haliburton:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Topic:   PRIVILEGE
Subtopic:   MR. HALIBURTON-MANNER OF RELEASE OF REPORT ON OFFSHORE LOBSTER FISHERY
Permalink

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

EASTER ADJOURNMENT

LIB

Allan Joseph MacEachen (President of the Privy Council; Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Liberal Party House Leader)

Liberal

Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council) moved:

That when the House adjourns on Wednesday, April 18, 1973, it shall stand adjourned until Monday, May 7, 1973, provided that at any time prior to that date, if it appears to the satisfaction of Mr. Speaker, after consultation with the government, that the public interest requires that the House should meet at an earlier time during the adjournment, Mr. Speaker may give notice that he is so satisfied, and thereupon the House shall meet at the time stated in such notice, and shall transact its business as if it had been duly adjourned to that time; and

That, in the event of Mr. Speaker's being unable to act owing to illness or other cause, the Deputy Speaker or the Deputy Chairman of Committees shall act in his stead for all purposes of this order.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   EASTER ADJOURNMENT
Permalink

Motion agreed to.


NATIONAL DEFENCE

LIB

James Armstrong Richardson (Minister of National Defence)

Liberal

Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):

Mr. Speaker, as hon. members know, two major objectives of our defence policy are to protect Canadian sovereignty and, in co-operation with the United States, to make an effective contribution to the defence of North America. These objectives are achieved in part through Canada's participation with the United States in the North American Air Defence Command agreement which is known to all of us as NORAD.

The NORAD agreement was originally signed on May 12, 1958, for a period of ten years. On March 30, 1968, the agreement was renewed with some additional provisions for a further five years. As the end of the five-year renewal period is on the 12th of next month, the Canadian and American governments have been giving consideration to the renewal of the agreement.

The United States government has been actively engaged in the development of modernized air defence systems. Canada has been kept fully informed of the

April 17, 1973

Easter Adjournment

progress being made and has actively co-operated in some aspects of the work being done.

Although development of the new systems is now at an advanced stage, it has not reached the point at which the two governments are able to decide upon the extent to which the systems for the air defence of North America should, at this time, be changed and improved.

As further time is required before decisions can be reached by either country, it has been determined that the best course of action to meet the requirements of both governments is to extend the present NORAD agreement for a further period. It has, therefore, been agreed between Canada and the United States that the NORAD agreement will be extended in its present form for a further period of two years commencing May 12, 1973, and that an appropriate exchange of diplomatic notes will shortly be exchanged for this purpose.

Hon. members already know that the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence has made a special study of the NORAD agreement and has tabled a report in the House on this subject. I am particularly pleased to be able to point out that the government's decision to renew the NORAD agreement is consistent with the recommendations contained in the report tabled by this committee.

As I have described in some detail the policy of the Canadian government on NORAD before the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, and as the reasons for the government's decision to renew the agreement for two years are already in the public record as a result of evidence given before this committee, I do not believe it is necessary to elaborate further at this time.

In this statement I do, however, wish to emphasize that the government's decision to renew the NORAD agreement for two years will assist Canada in a meaningful way to achieve the central objectives of our defence policy.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Sub-subtopic:   ANNOUNCEMENT OF EXTENSION OF NORAD AGREEMENT FOR FURTHER PERIOD OF TWO YEARS
Permalink
PC

J. Michael Forrestall

Progressive Conservative

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):

Mr. Speaker, first of all, may I express our appreciation to the minister for having made his statement available to us a good hour before the House met this afternoon. I also want to welcome the statement and to indicate to the minister that it is at least the minimum position acceptable to us in respect of sharing of responsibility for North American defence.

The importance of maintenance by Canadians of the sovereignty of our northern air space requires this minimum position. Our role should continue to be that of surveillance, detection and identification. Whatever the outcome of the present testing by the United States of such technological advancements as over the horizon, back scatter radar, AWACS and the improved manned interceptor programming, Canada will have to go it alone or go via this route. In other words, one way or another we must ensure that the means of maintenance of our own sovereignty are within our own control. We feel strongly that such planning can only be done, and we hope it will be done during this two-year period, not in the context of the NORAD agreement alone but also in light of our over-all bilateral defence arrangements with the United States. We

hope the contingency plans in respect of what Canada does at the end of the present two-year agreement will take that into consideration.

It is my hope that the standing committee will exercise its investigative prerogatives and call before it witnesses and all the agreements, protocols, notes and memoranda that exist-I imagine there are some three or four dozen- for the purpose of coming up with an integrated role for Canada in the defence of the North American continent which will achieve the purpose of serving our own national interests as well as the interests of our collective responsibilities. We recognize that our responsibility is not only to ourselves but also to our neighbours. We welcome this announcement and express the hope that the long-term implications of NORAD and continental defence concepts can be taken under very active consideration not only by the minister's department but by the standing committee in the months that lie ahead.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Sub-subtopic:   ANNOUNCEMENT OF EXTENSION OF NORAD AGREEMENT FOR FURTHER PERIOD OF TWO YEARS
Permalink
NDP

Francis Andrew Brewin

New Democratic Party

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):

Mr. Speaker, we in this party did not accept the recommendation of the majority of members of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, and we do not accept the statement of the minister as satisfactory. In our view Canada should take advantage of the termination of the NORAD agreement and let NORAD die a natural death.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Sub-subtopic:   ANNOUNCEMENT OF EXTENSION OF NORAD AGREEMENT FOR FURTHER PERIOD OF TWO YEARS
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Sub-subtopic:   ANNOUNCEMENT OF EXTENSION OF NORAD AGREEMENT FOR FURTHER PERIOD OF TWO YEARS
Permalink
NDP

Francis Andrew Brewin

New Democratic Party

Mr. Brewin:

Our reasons are simple. NORAD was founded in 1958 and renewed in 1968 to meet an apprehended threat of an attack on North America by manned bombers from the U.S.S.R. Defence against the bomber was and continues to be the most important of NORAD's objectives according to General Lane, Deputy Commander of NORAD, who gave evidence before the committee as recently as March 2 last.

1 It is our conviction that the threat of attack by manned bombers is non-existent, again for simple reasons. In the missile age when both superpowers possess the ability to destroy the society of the other, even after an all-out attack by the one, in a response to the original attack, or second strike, there is no possibility of an attack by manned bombers, because to send over bombers to attack would be madness and, indeed, suicide as it would invite the destruction of the country that made such an attack. The minister recognized this in the statement he made to the committee the other day. Let me quote just one sentence from that statement:

The deterrence of an actual attack depends not on air defence capability, but in assured retaliatory capacity.

We agree entirely with that statement.

The contribution that Canada can make should be through detection and identification which may require surveillance and interception. This is an entirely different concept from that of NORAD. Canada should control and survey its own air space. It should co-operate with the United States and give information to the United States. But it is not necessary for this purpose for Canada to be locked into NORAD.

It was suggested by the minister before the committee that the committee report, and, indeed, the committee accepted the suggestion, that if Canada withdrew from

April 17, 1973

NORAD this could seriously harm Canada-United States relations needlessly and antagonize the United States administration. This is dangerous timidity and a denial of Canadian sovereignty as well as being insulting to the United States. Of course if we withdrew from NORAD on the basis that we wanted no truck or trade with the Yankees this would cause difficulty, but if we demonstrate, as we can, that a new framework is needed for Canada-United States co-operation in air defence of North America and that NORAD is outdated, there is no need to assume there would be resentment by the United States.

Lastly, we take issue with the way the decision was made. In fact, the decision has been announced in a casual way by the minister. He did not even see fit to give the reasons for it but merely referred to his evidence before the committee. This is a serious matter. This engagement in a treaty with our neighbour involves in monetary terms alone hundreds of millions of dollars. Yet at this time we have this announcement in a casual way respecting the agreement which is to be perpetuated by an exchange of notes. It is true it is only for a two-year period. In our view, details in respect of international and defence relations are for the executive, but when substantial and durable commitments are made this should be propounded in parliament. If this has not always been so in the past it should be so in the future. The government should submit the renewal of the NORAD treaty by resolution for debate and ratification by this parliament.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Sub-subtopic:   ANNOUNCEMENT OF EXTENSION OF NORAD AGREEMENT FOR FURTHER PERIOD OF TWO YEARS
Permalink
SC

Gérard Laprise

Social Credit

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):

Mr. Speaker, I would like first to thank the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Richardson) for sending us copies of his statement in the two official languages an hour before the House convened. I think all ministers who have statements to make when the House resumes its sitting should take such an initiative.

Mr. Speaker, the minister just announced what everybody was expecting, that is the two-year renewal of the Canada-U.S. agreement on NORAD.

I was somewhat surprised by the position taken by the members of the NDP as expressed by their spokesman who would have liked to see an end to this agreement with the United States. Up to now the danger of an attack would have apparently come from the U.S.S.R. and it is in that direction that Canadian control and defence measures were oriented.

I might compare this means of surveillance and defence with the measures taken by someone who had a beautiful house containing valuable jewels, paintings and ornaments, and protected by three watchdogs to keep off burglars. As long as the watchdogs were there, the enemy would not be tempted to break in, but the moment they were gone, you could expect to be robbed.

This is somewhat like the attitude that must be taken to NORAD. There are powers that might like to come and cause trouble in our country. But as long as we have a lookout system, they are reluctant to put their schemes into action.

So far, we have two main blocks: the American block, on the free block, and the Soviet block. But there is now a third block in the making, that of Communist China, which is becoming a major military power, which will

Cape Breton Development Corporation

soon be as strong as, if not stronger than, the other two. We have just heard that China's military budget has doubled in only seven years and that over 10 per cent of this budget goes towards the purchase and development of military materiel. That is worth thinking about. I should like to repeat something that was said by Mr. Camilien Houde, the former mayor of Montreal, that armaments were not made to be put on Christmas trees.

The committee was also informed that Russia is now building up a fleet of 180 heavy missile-bearing bombers capable of flying anywhere in North America and returning to base without refuelling.

I therefore think it is important to have a highly developed warning system and we know that the United States are at present developing an even better system than the one we have now.

Given those facts, Canada would be wise to renew this agreement for a two-year period, which would give us sufficient time to get acquainted with improvements which the United States intend to make to their warning, control and defence system and to review our financial participation of $150 million to that system, which is about 12 per cent of the total budget of NORAD. I think that it is not excessive and it would be much more costly if Canada alone assured its defence.

Therefore, the members of the Social Credit party approve the renewal of this agreement for two years. By that time, we will be in a position to see what our southern allies could provide for the protection of Canada, so that we may avoid the fate of France which during two world wars was used as a battlefield for Europe. Indeed, Canada should not be used as a stepping-stone by any country which would decide to attack the United States.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   NATIONAL DEFENCE
Sub-subtopic:   ANNOUNCEMENT OF EXTENSION OF NORAD AGREEMENT FOR FURTHER PERIOD OF TWO YEARS
Permalink

CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION

PC

Robert Muir

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):

Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 to request the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis), concerning a matter of urgent and pressing necessity with regard to the Cape Breton Development Corporation's preretirement leave plan.

In view of the fact that the then minister of regional economic expansion, the present Minister of Transport, stated on December 9, 1968, in reply to a question posed by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond, as found on page 3700 of Hansard:

... I think that we can do like the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond and say that the pension is not high enough. There is a lot to be said for that.

I also find that $3,000 a year is no fortune, as I said earlier. But the amount can be discussed.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Sub-subtopic:   PRERETIREMENT LEAVE PENSIONS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Permalink
NONE

Lucien Lamoureux (Speaker of the House of Commons)

No affiliation

Mr. Speaker:

Order, please. I am not sure whether that is part of the motion. As the hon. member knows, he

April 17, 1973

Canada-U.S. Auto Pact

should not submit argument in support of the motion which he is proposing for the consideration of the House. I am sure the hon. member appreciates that.

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Sub-subtopic:   PRERETIREMENT LEAVE PENSIONS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Permalink
PC

Robert Muir

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Muir:

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. I just laid that foundation for the benefit of the newer members who were not here in 1968.

In view of the fact that the preretirement leave plan still provides the same amount as in 1968, and in view of the tremendous escalation in the cost of living that has placed such a burden on persons such as those under the preretirement leave plan, many of whom were forced into retirement, I would urge the government to take immediate steps to have the Cape Breton Development Corporation initiate a re-examination of the amounts available for both married and single recipients under the preretirement leave plan-

Topic:   ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS
Subtopic:   CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Sub-subtopic:   PRERETIREMENT LEAVE PENSIONS-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION
Permalink

April 17, 1973