March 8, 1974

?

Some hon. Members:

Carry on.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Francis Alvin George Hamilton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):

I have said I am optimistic. We can avoid an international recession if we use the brains we have-the resourcefulness of our civil servants and of our elected members. I have faith that in the monetary field they can produce the ideas if only they will get down to the job of grappling with the situation.

March 8, 1974

The Address-Mr. Ouellet

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

André Ouellet (Postmaster General)

Liberal

Hon. Andre Ouellet (Postmaster General):

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate warmly Their Excellencies Mr. and Mrs. Jules Leger on their appointment and I also extend them my best wishes in the discharge of their high responsibilities.

I would also like to congratulate the member for Spadi-na (Mr. Stollery) and the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) who have well discharged their task in proposing and seconding the Address in reply to the Speech from the Throne.

I cannot refrain, Mr. Speaker, from pointing out also the outstanding intervention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during the debate last week. I think that columnist Charles Lynch was right when he stated:

In his opening speech of the session it was a different Trudeau- involved, scrappy, funny and confident. It was easily Trudeau's best speech ever in parliament.

That performance does not surprise me at all. It reflects very well the leadership, the stability, the ability of the Prime Minister of Canada. I think it is not superfluous to compare that leadership in Canada to that we can find now in most industrial countries of the free world. In Europe, if you except a few totalitarian regimes, most countries are governed by shaky coalitions or are simply not governed at all.

Almost every country in the Common Market suffers from political unstability. There is no government in Italy, we do not know exactly what type of government they will have in Belgium, Chancellor Willy Brandt's regime is on the brink of disaster, Premier Messmer, in France, has had to reshuffle his cabinet in order to hang on and the British have just given themselves a government that was truly elected by the skin of its teeth.

I think that the situation is not much more rosy in the United States where they are wondering from one week to the other when President Nixon is going to resign. Canadians can therefore rejoice in the fact that they have political stability thanks to a statesman who governs with vigour and dynamism. In my view, all Canadians have realized that in these difficult times they needed a strong man to lead the country. The leader of the official opposition (Mr. Stanfield) may be a likeable chap, but he has not and will never have either the strength or stature to be the leader or Prime Minister of this country. In my opinion, it is quite clear that his many attempts to overthrow the government are as useless as his efforts to convince the Canadian people that he is a "valid alternative" to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). His efforts are fruitless and will remain eternally so. No matter how hard he struggles and frets, he will fail because, as the popular saying goes: "He simply hasn't got it!"

I should like to avail myself of this opportunity this afternoon to deal with a matter of very great concern to me. It is a fact that, in addition to my duties as Postmaster General, I have been entrusted by the House with the responsibility of marketing commemorative postage stamps and coins to help finance the Olympic Games. No

matter what a number of hon. members in the opposition may think, I am as eager to fulfill my responsibilities as Postmaster General as I am to sell the commorative stamps and coins. I strive to discharge my responsibilities to the best of my ability so as to give satisfaction to the Canadian people in these two areas.

For the benefit of the House, I want to come back on some declarations made here that have no doubt caused great prejudice to the whole Olympic program. I think that those allegations affect me in so far as I am in charge of the sale of Olympic coins and stamps. It is necessary that neither doubt nor smirch should depreciate the Olympic organization, and that is why I want to set the facts in their true light and bring some order back in a situation where the privileges of this House have been used to tarnish the reputations of certain individuals and highly commendable organizations.

Mr. Speaker, hon. members know very well what I am talking about. I am talking about the recent statements made in this House by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) on the sale of television rights to the 1976 Olympic Games. To set the record straight may I first be allowed to point out that the television rights to the Olympic Games are owned by the International Olympic Committee and not by Montreal, COJO or Canada. And the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley should know that very well. So COJO sold its rights on behalf of IOC. And I quote from section 48 of the 1972 IOC regulations:

The television broadcasting rights to the games will be sold by the organizing committee by delegation of the International Olympic Committee and subject to its approval.

Since the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley made those very serious charges without substantiating them with evidence, I had the opportunity to meet personally and ask those mainly concerned in that business. Commissioner General His Excellency Roger Rousseau, Mr. Snyder of the Olympic Committee and member of that committee dealing with the adjucation of that television contract, Mr. Arlidge, President of ABC, all told me that the hon. member was completely off the track and the victim of either his imagination or his maliciousness. I leave it to the House to determine whether it is his imagination or his maliciousness.

Members of COJO told me that with respect to the 1976 games a protocol identical to that of Munich and previously Mexico was adopted for the sale of television rights with one exception-COJO hired an expert for the negotiation of television rights and on the advice and recommendation of the organizing committee for the Munich Games. It is through the advice of that expert that a goal was set of $25 million as compared with $4.5 million obtained by Mexico City in 1968 and $13.5 million collected by the Munich Games in 1972, for the sale of television rights to the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I should like to give the House the information that I received on the state of the negotiations. As you know, three American television networks were entitled to submit tenders for the games broadcasting rights. I am told that all of them were invited to do so. However, Munich authorities had warned the organization committee not to give the networks the opportunity to set up a

March 8, 1974

common front which would have allowed them to set in advance the maximum amount payable for broadcasting rights in the United States.

It is therefore with full knowledge of the facts that the organization committee sought expert advice to obtain the best possible contract. This is why there were no public calls for tenders; the committee did not want to be boxed in by such a move and perhaps forced to accept an amount that it considered too low.

Mr. Speaker, the negotiating committee came to an agreement in principle with the ABC network for the amount of $25 million on November 17, 1972. This agreement was then ratified by the COJO and ABC boards. A contract duly prepared by the legal services of both parties was signed on January 3, 1973.

I find it simply absurd that the member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) could not even differentiate between an agreement on principle and a formal contract when speaking of this matter. Throughout the negotiations, the CBS and NBC networks had the possibility of making better offers than the ABC proposition of which they were fully aware.

In its own interest, COJO encouraged CBS and NBC to make offers, even after the official signature of the contract. Until the ratification of the agreement by the International Olympic Committee, that is May 12, 1973, the CBS and NBC networks were absolutely free to approach the International Olympic Committee with a better offer. Nothing was done under cover, as it were; all three networks knew perfectly well what they had to do. The hon. member should know that it is the International Olympic Committee that had the last word. Since the contract was ratified only in May, they had enough time to make any offer they wished.

I am assured by COJO officials that there lies the real reason for the reserve clause put into the contract by ABC, because the other networks could make directly a better offer to the International Olympic Committee.

Therefore, the CBS and NBC networks had all the time required to make an offer, even after that of ABC, and they deliberately chose not to exercise their option. The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley tried to make the House believe that the IOC repudiated the way in which the contract was awarded when he quoted Lord Killanin, president of IOC, as saying, and I quote his words as reported on page 90 of Hansard:

Future television negotiations will be conducted jointly by the organizing committee and the IOC board.

The sentence is quoted out of context and I say once again to the hon. member that he is either ignorant or malicious.

Mr. Speaker, it is true that COJO asked for the censure of IOC by negotiating a contract whereby the latter must share the cost of television technical services as well as the income. Those services will cost something like $9 million. The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley will therefore be happy to learn that COJO will use those $9 million to make up part of the $25 million it will pay the CBC as official telecaster of the games. If Lord Killanin is unhappy, it is not because IOC feels the contract was unsatisfactory but because he realizes that as a result of

The Address-Mr. Ouellet

the decision of the Canadian committee IOC will get less than it had originally hoped. In any event, I want to quote Lord Killanin, and it is important that I do so, since the hon. member tried to impute motives to the president of IOC. Lord Killanin said: "It is very clear that the contract between COJO and ABC was in order; that is why the International Committee sanctioned it in May last."

And in a press release from Lausanne, one can read this:

Lord Killanin, president of the International Olympic Committee, declared that he is convinced that claims of irregularities in the awarding of television contracts for the 1976 Olympic games are without foundation.

Mr. Speaker, in Munich in 1972, the international broadcasting rights for television were sold for $17.5 million. The Innsbruck winter games in 1976 will be sold for some $10 million. By comparison, COJO sold the rights for the United States for only $25 million and it hopes to sell them to Japan, Europe and to the rest of the world at a price much more reasonable and much higher than that paid in the past by those countries. This is why it has hired an expert to help it negotiate these contracts and obtain the best conditions and as much money as possible. Mr. Speaker, $25 million is the biggest amount which has ever been paid for television rights. The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley should be delighted about such a contract rather than trying to reflect discredit upon the Olympics Games.

On January 11, 1974, this member made in this House unfounded statements particularly when he declared as you can read at page 9280 of Hansard and I quote:

... when the National Broadcasting Corporation had in fact indicated that they were prepared to bid up to $32.9 million, without any strings attached?

The representatives of COJO have told me that NBC never made such an offer. Furthermore, newspapers reported that one of the people in charge of NBC had denied that the network was prepared to pay such an amount.

On page 9280 of Hansard, the same member states that Mr. Carl Lindeman, Vice-President of the CBS network, was told point blank that he would have to pay $5 million to the Quebec government as payment for contract negotiations with COJO.

Mr. Speaker, I have this to say: When any one makes a statement with such implications, such a serious statement, he should verify his facts, he should not say whatever he thinks. Mr. Carl Lindeman does not belong to the CBS network, as the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley claims, but he is Vice-President of the NBC network in charge of sports. This shows clearly how accurate the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley can be in his statements.

The hon. member by his statements in and outside the House has brought such doubts about the integrity of ABC that the network communicated with him to ask him for details and a retraction, because he was hurting the network's reputation. This is what the hon. member was forced to do. In a letter addressed to Mr. Roone Arledge,

March 8, 1974

The Address-Mr. Ouellet

President of the ABC network, sports section, last January 30, he wrote as follows and I quote:

To clarify some of the misquotes in the press following my so-called allegations, I want to make it clear that at no time did I accuse or suggest that ABC was aware of any underhanded or illegal dealings that I believe arose as a result of the ABC contract with COJO. Nor have I ever indicated that the negotiations conducted by ABC in obtaining the exclusive television rights were ever "shady" or illegal or in any way improper.

I do, however, want to reiterate my belief that somewhere along the line, funds did in fact find their way into the Quebec provincial Liberal coffers as a result of the completion of the contract.

I hope this clarifies my position in this matter.

It is signed by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek).

There! We see the true face of the hon. member. Forced to retract because of a doubt he had spread about the integrity of the ABC network, he retracts; but he continues to claim that money was paid to the Quebec Liberal Party. He has no proof of it, but he continues to throw mud, to discredit Quebecers. This is the typical way to act for some members of the Progressive Conservative Party!

I think a television program "the City at Six" which was broadcast on March 1 following the second intervention in the House of Commons by the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley is a pretty good resume and a pretty good answer to the allegations made by the hon. member. In a press notice in the parliamentary gallery he announced his intervention in the throne speech debate in these words:

I hope to, among other things, explain my position on the Olympic issue, as well as disclose further evidence as to the irregularities of the awarding of the contract.

The following is a portion of a transcript of the TV program to which I have referred. Bob Jeronomie, TV broadcaster, said:

There was to have been a bit of drama in the House of Commons today. Otto Jelinek, the Conservative MP, had promised to document his charges of bribery in connection with the awarding of television rights for the 1976 Olympics.

That did not happen. Mr. Jeronomie continued:

Tim Knight has worked on this story for weeks now. He got a copy of the agreement between ABC and COJO, he went to Ottawa and New York city and he talked to the people involved. Here is his report.

Mr. Knight interviewed Mr. Rousseau, Lord Killanin, Mr. Josephson and Mr. Arlidge, and all of them absolutely denied any wrongdoing in this matter. He said that when he interviewed the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley and asked what proof he had, what evidence and documents, that there were some shenanigans going on there and that some money had found its way into the Liberal Party of Quebec, the hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley answered:

As far as the money finding its way into the Liberal Party, I have absolutely no proof at this time.

Mr. Knight concluded his inquiry by saying the following:

The problem is, of course, that it is incredibly difficult to prove innocence, but it seems to me that unless Otto Jelinek or somebody else does come up with a lot more details and facts than they have-there is no foundation for all these rumours or these allegations. All the principals involved deny any kickbacks, any bribery. It is a fact that NBC or CBS could have challenged the ABC deal at any time up to May last year. Then, and only then, did ABC officially get the television rights to the Montreal games. There is some friction, of course, between the International Olympic Committee and COJO here in Montreal, but that's not unusual in a contract as big as this. All in all, this reporter throws this case out of court for lack of evidence.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I think the time has come for the Progressive Conservative Party to reveal its true intentions, without ambiguity, about its position on the Olympic Games in Montreal and Kingston, in 1976.

The hon. member for High Park-Humber Valley (Mr. Jelinek) claims to be the spokesman for the PC party on Olympic matters. He was one of the first to take the floor after the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) in the name of his party in this House, during this debate. So he surely speaks in the name of the Progressive Conservative Party. But he does not deserve to speak in its name on matters relating to the Olympic Games. He has explicitly and clearly proven that he is incompetent or that he is not in good faith. In my opinion the time has come for the official opposition to seek in its ranks someone else to speak on Olympic matters. I know that several members of the opposition are undoubtedly favourable to the games. If I may, I would like to suggest to the Leader of the Opposition to ask the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser) or the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling) or the hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) to speak about the Olympic Games but let him get rid of this man who makes charges that are likely to be very prejudicial to the 1976 Olympic Games. This is not worthy of a member of parliament. Otherwise, I will have to conclude, as will the people of Canada, that Progressive Conservative members are opposed to the games. They cannot keep on playing that game. When they go to Montreal, they tell the people that they are pleased, but when they go in other parts of the country, they say that the games should have been divided, one part being held in Montreal, another in Toronto and another still in western Canada.

This hon. member who already took part in Olympic competitions is perfectly aware of the fact that the games cannot be divided in this way. He knows perfectly well that the games must take place in one main location. Since the beginning of this debate, the Progressive Conservative party have indulged in peanut politics. They unduly and incorrectly pestered us in committee, through the voice of this member who keeps on sullying Quebecers. The Progressive Conservative party continue to divide people in this country whereas, thanks to the games, we should unify Canada. And all of us should be very proud that these games will be held in Montreal and Kingston in 1976. Athletes from all parts of Canada will take part in the games. People from all parts of Canada will come to attend these games, both in Montreal and Kingston.

Therefore, I say that the Progressive Conservative party show their real position, otherwise we will understand that they are always sitting on the fence and that in the end they are opposed to everything stemming from or

March 8, 1974

directed to the province of Quebec. The Progressive Conservative members are against French Canadians and they always have the odd greenhorn to sully people.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Prosper Boulanger (Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):

Order, please. Does the hon. member for Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance) wish to ask a question or is he rising on a point of order?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Georges-C. Lachance

Liberal

Mr. Lachance:

I wish to put a question to the minister, Mr. Speaker.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Prosper Boulanger (Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole)

Liberal

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):

Since the time allowed to the hon. minister is not completely expired, the minister may, if he so wishes, answer a question. Does the minister agree?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

André Ouellet (Postmaster General)

Liberal

Mr. Ouellet:

Agreed.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

Georges-C. Lachance

Liberal

Mr. Lachance:

Mr. Speaker, could the minister give us the date of Lord Killanin's statement?

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

André Ouellet (Postmaster General)

Liberal

Mr. Ouellet:

Yes, Mr. Speaker. The President of the International Olympic Committee made this statement at the beginning of March, and I have here a copy of the Toronto Sun of Tuesday, March 5, reporting Lord Killanin's statement.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Donald Frank Mazankowski (Progressive Conservative Party Caucus Chair)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) for relinquishing his position today and allowing me to take his place since I have another engagement on Monday. I should also like to express my appreciation to the hon. member for Huron (Mr. McKinley) who was instrumental in making these arrangements.

The Speech from the Throne in the main has recognized a number of economic issues which prevail both at home and abroad. Whether or not the issues to which the government has made reference will be resolved as time progresses is really another matter which is dependent upon the attitude of the government and, indeed, the course of its legislative program. One would have to possess a short memory not to note that basically this Speech from the Throne is very similar to the Speech from the Throne delivered at the commencement of the previous session a year ago, possibly with the exception of a little more emphasis on energy and agriculture and items such as the status of women. The government really is saying that basically we have the same problems today as we had a year ago, gravitated by a year of government inaction. It is saying, in effect, "We have failed to correct them, but give us another chance and we will stumble along with the aid of the NDP, hopefully for another year."

The Speech from the Throne speaks of a serious disturbance in the international economic situation arising from problems of supply and the price of a number of commodities, particularly oil. It makes reference to problems relating to food, the shortages of foodstuffs here in Canada and throughout the world, the dramatic increases in the price of food, the causes and the effects, and it proposes some solutions. It proposes to increase production of a number of agricultural products. This is rather a turn-about

The Address-Mr. Mazankowski because only a couple of years ago the government was paying farmers to slaughter chickens, it was paying farmers not to grow wheat and penalizing the dairy industry for producing dairy products. It speaks of inflation, and in that area the government is in a league of its own. It refers to inflation as a phenomenon, for which no real concrete solutions are proposed. It speaks of the necessity for increased job opportunities. It speaks of matters relating to greater control over our economic affairs. It speaks of the need to overcome regional inequalities and disparities, and a few more crumbs are thrown out for the west. Of course, it mentions housing, transportation, the enhancement of our quality of life, aid to small business, industrial development policy, science policy, and so on.

Out of force of sheer necessity any government would be bound to recognize these problems which are very real, but we on this side of the House are in no way convinced that a year from now these problems will not be with us still, for in our opinion the major objective of the government is to cling to power. Moreover, it lacks the vision, the expertise and the determination to grapple effectively with the matters mentioned in the Speech from the Throne, matters which in effect threaten the economic fabric of our nation. I will have a little more to say about that later, particularly in relation to agriculture and transportation. However, before doing so I want to refer to another matter, one which concerns me very deeply. The throne speech has made reference to a number of economic disturbances. I shall refer to a disturbance of a social nature which in my opinion transcends the most important of the economic issues which we face.

I refer to the escalation in the decay of the human and moral standards which prevail in our society, a growing permissiveness, a growing disregard for discipline and the upholding of our laws, both human laws and those which are enacted by government legislation. I see the decline in our spiritual and moral fibre as a major threat to this nation and to neighbouring nations. I see the stability of family life being undermined by the direction of government legislation and its seeming disregard for the concept of the family unit which is a vital and integral part of our social structure. I see our educational system creating conflict and confrontation between generations and within family units. I see governments and society in general acquiescing in laws, written and unwritten, which are contrary to the laws of humanity and nature, where for example a person who has ambition and initiative is penalized if he looks after himself.

I see the incredible increase in the incidence of abortion, approaching a 30 per cent increase on an annual basis. And to think that in this chamber we have a number of so-called progressive-minded people who promote the concept of free abortion on demand! This is a philosophy which contravenes all the laws of nature and God. What hypocrisy, Mr. Speaker, when on the one hand we become deeply grieved and emotionally stricken over the loss of one baby, one man or one woman through violence or some other extraordinary event, or through some stupid accident, and on the other we spend great sums of money on protecting the safety of individuals, on search and rescue and on environmental protection devices-all aimed at preserving life. I agree with that, because I believe life is sacred; yet we condone, and in many cases promote, mass

March 8, 1974

The Address-Mr. Mazankowski

murder in the name of preserving the emotional health of a mother-this in the name of birth control.

The deliberate destruction of human life through abortion is without foundation in human reason and is opposed to human nature. The destruction of human life for selfish motives is contrary to all the laws of God and man.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Donald Frank Mazankowski (Progressive Conservative Party Caucus Chair)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Mazankowski:

Mr. Speaker, I believe that we in this House and in this country had better realize that fact. We find ourselves in a society in which television and the other media engage in the perpetration of filth, violence and pornography, financed in many cases at public expense and referred to as "reporting it as it is." Much of this can only be categorized as cheap, unimaginative trash. Whatever precautions a parent might engage in, it is absolutely impossible for any parent completely to immunize his children against this kind of trash.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Donald Frank Mazankowski (Progressive Conservative Party Caucus Chair)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Mazankowski:

We find ourselves in a society where discipline and punishment have been replaced by permissiveness and reform and in some cases reward, where the criminal is treated as an unfortunate misfit, in many cases receiving royal treatment under the name of rehabilitation while his victim is the hard luck guy. We find ourselves in a society where moral and spiritual attitudes receive no consideration in the quality of a man or in the evaluation of his ability to develop his full potential and contribute to society. We see an increase in the use of alcohol and drugs. We see an increased incidence of venereal disease. These are things that treatment alone will never conquer; they are social diseases, most of which are the result of the sad behavioural problem which we have in this society.

So we must ask ourselves-why? We live in a society with all the technical, intellectual and medical expertise and we have made great progress in these fields, but in terms of human progress it can only be categorized, in my humble submission, as shaky and questionable. Much of this is the result of a deliberate route taken by government and by liberal intellectuals many of whom, I would suggest, are over-educated for their brains, whose behavioural attitudes are based on ease and expedience rather than on firmness and natural sense.

Although our educational system is rather sophisticated and advanced, it has failed to provide us with the necessary tools properly to communicate with one another, to live in harmony, to understand, to co-operate, to tolerate and to accept human life-all forms of human life-as something sacred.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Donald Frank Mazankowski (Progressive Conservative Party Caucus Chair)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Mazankowski:

Yes, Mr. Speaker, the major afflictions which affect our society are by no means limited to the pollution of our air, water and land but are, rather, pollution of the mind. The prerequisites for satisfactorily grappling with this problem are discipline, clear thinking, regard for spiritual values, and work. I do not want to pose as one who has a monopoly on morals and who is a paragon of virtue. Nor do I suggest for one moment that the state and the government can legislate behaviour and

morality. But I do say that our legislative measures and our educational systems can, and must, be tailored to restore and rededicate the family unit as the major pillar of our society.

We must adopt ways and means to strengthen family ties, for discipline begins in the home and that is where the breakdown commences, given the numerous counteractions which are deliberately perpetrated. These institutions must work in harmony, rather than in conflict with the family unit. Furthermore, the government must take firm and immediate action to stop the merciless acts which masquerade under the guise of therapeutic abortion. This is murder and is contrary to the laws of human nature. It is shameful, and it must be stamped out.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
?

Some hon. Members:

Hear, hear!

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
PC

Donald Frank Mazankowski (Progressive Conservative Party Caucus Chair)

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Mazankowski:

Never in my life have I witnessed anything so blatantly wrong, with no response from government. The state is charged with the responsibility of preserving the priceless heritage of life, and particularly of those who are innocent and unable to fend for themselves. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we have reached the point in time where we will soon have to make a choice, and that choice is clear: it is whether we shall stand and fight for a philosophy of life, or whether we shall stand idly by and surrender to a philosophy of death.

I want now to deal with the subject of transportation for a few moments, particularly grain transportation and movement in this country. Grain movement in this nation has reached a very critical state. Shipments are behind something like 135 million bushels this year compared to last year. In Vancouver there are at present 14 ships waiting to be loaded, and ten more are reported due within the week. The Thunder Bay terminal is half full, with four weeks to go to the commencement of the shipping season on the St. Lawrence River. This is not a new problem but it has become particularly apparent to me since becoming a member of this House.

The railways have failed to discharge their responsibility, which is to move commodities and people across this vast land. They have a mandate to perform and they are not living up to it. The government has a responsibility to force the railways to carry out their mandate and their obligations. Just today Statistics Canada reported that for the first two months of this year railway car loadings were down 3.5 per cent compared with the same period last year. This comes at a time when all steps, supposedly, are being taken to get goods moving; at a time when the economy is moving fairly briskly and when the demand for moving bulk commodities is at an all-time high.

We hear from the minister in charge of the Wheat Board (Mr. Lang), from the railways and from some farm organizations that the only way we can resolve the problem of grain transportation is to abandon the Crowsnest pass freight rates. Mr. Speaker, that is really what the railways want and what the minister seems to be engaged in with the railways. The hon. member for Crowfoot (Mr. Horner) called it a lobby, but I refer to it as a conspiracy. I believe that the railways, the minister in charge of the Wheat Board and some men in farm circles are engaged in a

March 8, 1974

conspiracy, in effect, to undermine and, hopefully, abandon the Crowsnest pass freight rates.

I believe we have sufficient evidence of that, Mr. Speaker, because while we hear the cry for more rolling-stock and the need for more boxcars to move grain, we note that there are cars sitting around the country. On sidings at Perdue, Saskatchewan, for example, some 20 boxcars had been loaded with wheat since December. Cars located at Provost, Alberta, had not turned a wheel for four weeks. Three hundred hopper cars sat in Vancouver during September and October and their alfalfa pellets were not unloaded until November 13. Also, 25 government hopper cars were waiting at Kindersley for seven days for spotting orders; 26 hoppers were sitting at Glenavon, Candiac, Montmartre, Odessa and Vibank for over two weeks before the Christmas holidays; three-quarters of a mile of boxcars were sitting idly at Claresholm for a month, and there was a similar situation at Cayley and Aldersyde; there were 40 cars northeast of Cranbrook which had not moved for a month. Why, Mr. Speaker?

I am not sure that more rolling-stock will solve the problem. I say this is a deliberate attempt by the railways to squeeze the government and the producers, who need to move grain now, into abandoning the Crowsnest pass freight rates; and they are convincing a few people. I remind them and all hon. members that the removal of the Crowsnest pass freight rates will not automatically solve the grain transportation problem. Shippers of other commodities such as fruit, lumber and even the floral people, are complaining that they cannot move their goods adequately by rail, and these items do not come under the Crowsnest pass freight rates. The government has an obligation, and the railways have an obligation to see that the grain is moved. I warn the government and reiterate to the minister that if the government thinks it can open up the hornets' nest of revising the Crowsnest pass freight rates, it will create a situation which will drive every western Liberal into oblivion.

Yesterday we awaited the statement of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Marchand) with great anticipation. He had advised the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) in the morning that he would be making a profound statement on transportation policy. The statement was that this government really does not have a policy, has not had one since 1967, and even that one was not good. He admitted that and said they will look at devising a new policy. That was the profound statement that he indicated he was going to make. I reiterate, Mr. Speaker, that the Crowsnest pass freight rates are a Magna Carta to western Canada's farmers. If they are tampered with, we on this side of the House will fight the issue right into the ground.

I want to deal for a moment with the cattle industry, which is in a very serious state. The climate in the cattle industry at the present time, particularly the feeding industry, can only be described as frightening. The flood of U.S. cattle into Canada, resulting in depression of prices coupled with high and increasing input costs, threatens the life of a major Canadian industry. It is a very major industry because the spin-off and the ancillary effects of the cattle feeding industry allow many allied industries to flourish in western Canada. Last year, for example, 128,000

The Address-Mr. Fleming

feeder cattle were shipped to the United States for feeding purposes; over 208,000 slaughter cattle were shipped back to Canada. This means, basically, that the Canadian cattle feeding industry has found itself uncompetitive with the United States. Canadians, therefore, are relying on U.S. feedlots to produce much of Canada's beef, resulting in a staggering loss of economic activity in this country. This year, to the end of February, in the order of 25,000 head of slaughter cattle crossed the U.S. border into Canada. It took eight months to reach that figure last year. This gives one some idea of the flood of imported cattle in comparison to what normally occurs.

What are the implications of this situation, Mr. Speaker? To put it simply, it will result in a shortage of beef down the line, and in much higher prices. The following appeared in the Alberta Farm Economist for the winter quarter, 1974:

In the short run, producers may lose money at times when consumer demand weakens, yet the production level will continue with little variation. However, in the long run, the law of supply and demand will automatically choke off supply if the rapidly rising livestock production costs are not covered by market returns. Livestock and meat prices should be allowed to rise, following the market indicators, and thereby guarantee an adequate meat supply at equitable prices in the future. If livestock and meat prices do not move upward and the major inputs for livestock production continue to yield very lucrative returns to producers, consumers will eventually face a lower meat supply at very high prices.

That paragraph is to be found at page 2 of the publication. In a nutshell it tells us what we can expect if we do not solve this crisis. Last August, when beef prices skyrocketed, the government moved quickly. I urge the government to move as quickly in the present circumstances in order to save this important industry. Today, feeders large and small are losing between $100 and $150 per head. They cannot survive in this economic climate. The government must act with great haste at this time, just as it acted last year, to protect the consumer.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
LIB

James Sydney Clark Fleming

Liberal

Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):

Mr. Speaker, I begin my remarks by extending best wishes to His Excellency the Governor General and to Madame Leger in their new responsibilities. I think it does honour to Canada to have men and women of such calibre representing us. Truly, they are a great example of the excellence which Canada can develop. Being able to say that there are Canadians of that style, calibre and nature to represent us does great credit to this country. I also wish to extend best wishes to the Hon. Roland Michener and Mrs. Michener. I hope they will find happiness and that their time will be more restfully spent.

Following tradition, I extend congratulations to the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I do so with special pride for I believe that my colleague from metropolitan Toronto, the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery), has brought a refreshing approach to this traditional honour paid to him. He has a special insight because of his experiences as a world traveller. I think that because of his perspective, which comes from knowledge of poverty and hardship and of the political systems of people in other countries, he is better able to judge how good or how bad things really are in Canada. I also congratulate the seconder, the hon.

March 8, 1974

The Address-Mr. Fleming

member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier). It is obvious that his extensive academic background in political affairs has added much to his ability to serve his constituents well.

I perceive three major thrusts in the Speech from the Throne. The first is an effective and sensitive response to the factors of inflation. This is not the most politically easy response, true, and not a simplistic response but it is one that is fitting for our circumstances, one that can work within our system and will help us overcome our problem and help our people generally. It is not a simplistic approach. The simplistic approach has been tried and found wanting. I feel that the sooner the official opposition drops its wage and price control proposal, the sooner it will gain credibility with the people of Canada. Wage and price controls are painful and costly in application, painful and more costly in exercising and most painful and most costly when you try to escape from them. They have been tried in the United States but did not work, as the President himself admitted. They were tried in Great Britain and brought about the worst class confrontation to hit that great nation in many a decade.

Selective and sensitive reaction to the problem is not the easiest way of dealing with it, but it involves the most realistic approach. We have already seen examples of the government's realistic approach in its aid to pensioners. It is all very well to pooh-pooh these government expenditures. It is all very well for the Conservatives to make a great song and dance about amounts contained in estimates and supplementary estimates and to claim we are spending ourselves out of existence. It is those same people who thought they could outdo what the government, the NDP or even the Creditistes want to do. They were the ones who would give the Canadian people more. One day they talk out of the left side of their mouths and on the next out of the right side. When it came to helping pensioners, they talked out of the left side of their mouths, but when it came to estimates they talked out of the right side. Somehow they always seem to talk more easily out of the right side of the mouth.

Aid to pensioners has been increased by more than 25 per cent in the past 18 months. That is not to say that our pensioners will have as much as they deserve, or as much as will enable them to buy some of the luxuries available to people in the labour force today. I admit that we must try to do more. Nevertheless, the government's action shows that a great deal has been done. That expenditure accounts for part of the increase in spending. As I say, the money is to be spent in the months ahead.

The government has also increased family allowances. Surely to goodness, when we are faced with inflation which is world-wide-and this has been said a million times, despite the hearing difficulties of the opposition-it is up to us to help the needy. We have acted by bringing in these increases. Actually, in our first major increase we just about tripled family allowances so that children who are helpless will not suffer and children from poor homes will not be an additional burden. Having done these things, the government in a sensitive and selective way acted to help consumers by supporting the price of bread and of milk, two basic commodities which are essential to the health of Canadians.

The government acted in the field of energy. I will deal with that matter in a minute. Again, in this field there was explicit action in treating Canadians fairly and protecting them from increased oil prices in the world. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the cabinet will, as set out in the Speech from the Throne and in accordance with the commitment given last summer and early last fall, act as necessary and continue to take advantage of our resources in Canada so that we may protect our own people and, especially, protect the defenceless. The government's past actions have again proved that sensitive and selective action is right and that we should not adopt the simplistic formula which has failed both in Great Britain and in the United States. The government said it would follow this course. It has given a public commitment that all the negative stridency of the opposition party cannot hide.

There is a further point in this Speech from the Throne which apparently has been overlooked by the media. The point is that little attention has been given to the pledge or to the commitment of the government that it would consult with the provinces after it had considered a number of proposals. The government gave the pledge or commitment that it would act selectively, which is what brought in pension increases, family allowance increases and protection to consumers. The throne speech says that, particularly under the Ministry of National Health and Welfare, further necessary aid will be coming and that these proposals are still under discussion with the provinces.

So the first thrust of the speech is with regard to selective, sensitive action against inflation, protecting the defenceless and doing our best to help all Canadian consumers. I believe there is a second element or thrust to the throne speech. Measures must now be taken for the long-range protection of consumers across Canada. Nothing is more important than measures taken to encourage our farmers and fishermen to produce more. Because of the boom and bust conditions experienced by these workers in the past, nothing can be of greater assistance to farmers, fishermen and consumers than a stabilization program, especially in general agriculture, including prairie grain farmers.

These measures must not be enacted to be effective for one year only; they must be effective from this point forward. Notice that I said they should include the prairie grain farmers as well. Did I hear members mention that that would involve government action in western Canada? Supplies will be increased, fair farm incomes will be assured and Canadian consumers will reap the price advantages of Canadian produce. All this, much to the political agony of my friends opposite, will develop as this session progresses.

The third thrust of the throne speech has to do with regional disparity and its correction. That thrust does not specifically have to do with DREE. That program, of course, is giving assistance to areas of need such as the Maritimes, the like of which has never before been seen. I might mention, however, that DREE is not a success story in eastern Canada alone. Take the Medicine Hat story. That town is in Alberta, in case anybody has forgotten. DREE grants have been the basis for the development of energy resources and related industry in that city in

March 8, 1974

Alberta and are bringing it unparallelled success in industrial growth.

The value of building permits in any urban area in a particular year is an indicator of the expansion of the area. In 1971, in Medicine Hat building permits were let in the amount of $889,000. Shortly after that, DREE began to give major assistance. In 1973, that $889,000 total soared to $21 million. The projected amount for next year in Medicine Hat, Alberta, is $150 million.

Coming from an urban area such as metropolitan Toronto, with the environmental problems and urban sprawl problems which we have, I would almost be frightened by such rapid expansion. Never let it be said the government is not attempting to assist in giving very real assistance to all parts of Canada, including the west. No one can claim that either the great resource-maker in the sky or the federal government forgot Medicine Hat. Similar extensive federal aid went to south Lethbridge and Slave Lake in Alberta.

Some hon. members might resent an easterner attempting to discuss the west, but I am concerned as one of those so-called wicked, greedy easteners. I spent some time in Alberta during the recent recess; in fact, in the general area of the hon. member opposite. My purpose was twofold. It was, first, to try to learn of their anger and frustrations. I think we all, as parliamentarians from all sides of the House and all parties, are deeply concerned about any situation that is divisive of our national unity. I was also there to better understand their problems and to express, as too seldom reaches western ears, some eastern problems-if you can convince westerners that we have problems-and some of the great advantages and potentials of their part of Canada as we in the east see and enjoy them.

I noted in Tuesday's Globe and Mail a quotation of the words of the Premier of Alberta with regard to the cushioning of rising oil prices in eastern Canada, the government's pledge to do that and to attempt to discuss it with the province. The Premier of Alberta said, "Well, that's Ottawa's problem." I wonder if back in 1961, when the national energy policy was established by the government of Canada, what might have been different if in fact Ottawa had said, "Development of your resources is your problem. Go to it." The federal government imposed regulations forcing Canadians west of the Ottawa Valley to pay more for western Canadian oil than offshore oil-that is, from the Ottawa Valley westward-even though in Edmonton, a few miles from the oil fields, it was more expensive than buying offshore oil.

Eastern problems or western problems, they are Canada's problems and not just Ottawa's problems if equality of opportunity, education or economic well-being are involved. They are not Ottawa's problems translated into a particular government or particular party. It is Canada that has to cope with them. This country cannot survive if the federal government alone must bear the burden and solve the discrepancies in lifestyle across Canada. East, west, central or north, the responsibility belongs to us all as long as any one of us says, "I am a Canadian."

The Address-Mr. Fleming

There has been cause for western anger and frustration. I understand it better, having spent some time talking about it in the west with westerners. So did the Prime Minister and his cabinet colleagues because of the western economic opportunities conference. The anger and frustration in the west has built up over many years. You can see it very clearly, not so much when you talk to their leaders, who are very strident in what they tell us is wrong, but when you talk directly to westerners in their own homes. That same anger and frustration, amassed for so long, is now being nurtured by an opposition apparently blind to real progress or unwilling to recognize it because of opportunistic, political motives.

I think we succeeded in showing the rest of Canada the problem and showing the west there is interest here in Ottawa. Surely, if that was done on a raw political base it was a foolish move. If it was done to find solutions it was a good move, despite some political disadvantage to it. For the Prime Minister and the cabinet to go west and face the western press, which has hardly been our best friend over the years, and face at public meetings the leaders of those provinces was a daring, forward and honest move. It was done publicly, openly and on their own ground. There is no cheaper or easier shot these days in the west than to take on the federal Liberals, but is there a time when political stridency hurts more than it helps you politically in a particular party? Is there ever a time when it will hurt anyone else more than those seeking the regress of their long-standing grievances?

It was pointed out at the western economic opportunities conference that freight rates are a major problem in the west. At that conference the Premier of Alberta presented the federal government with 20 complaints of alleged tariff inequities. Over the following months that figure grew to almost 200. Day by day we hear the strident scream that nothing is being done. That conference was held last July. We are intensively investigating 200 different tariffs. If you want answers and some equity in the west because you have been treated poorly, surely you want responsible, proper answers so that the tariffs will be corrected forever in the future. Give the government a chance to look at it properly to analyse what the solution should be.

Estimates of revenues amassed by the 1961 national oil policy, as carried out through the years until a few months ago to help develop western resources, have ranged as high as $500 million. I am willing to admit that one of the problems was that all the money from most of Ontario and points westward went into developing the resources for not only Alberta but for all of Canada. We see the wisdom of that now and are further acting to see that the entire country can be supplied from western resources. The fact is that perhaps there was too much development of the refineries in the east. That situation should be corrected.

Obviously, the west has had real reason to say they have been disadvantaged in developing secondary industry, but judging from the actions of the last day or two by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gillespie) the pledges and commitments that were publicly made will be met by the government. This situation is in the process of being corrected; there is no doubt about that. Errors and mistakes have been made on both sides over

March 8, 1974

The Address-Mr. Fleming

the years. Alberta accused Ottawa of not consulting. The Premier of that province actually refused at one time to talk to the federal government. At one point he even threatened to sever relations. That is great Canadianism! Yet the same Premier developed the Syncrude plan over many months. He drew up a deal directly involving federal revenues. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Macdonald) heard about Syncrude in a television newscast in a hotel room in Calgary.

Canada is blessed with almost unparallelled opportunities. We know that, despite the leering of my friends opposite. We have unparallelled opportunities, and we have a federal government listening to problems in all regions of Canada, especially the west although there is little political advantage to that at the moment. We have these almost unparallelled opportunities through no planning or foresight of our own. Canada-or is it just Alberta and Saskatchewan-is rich in resources; but the mari-times, Quebec, northern Ontario, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon have some real pockets of poverty and regional inequity.

If in practice there have been failures, or at least delays in helping Canada, has the spirit of our nation and its regions ever been "the haves shall have it and the have-nots shall not"? Were government omissions, shortsightedness or insensitivities in the past, at any level, ever a justification for that approach now or in the future? No matter how strident my friends opposite are regarding the past, in the long run who will suffer from a course of confrontation, regionalism or politically fortified frustration? Not the west in this case. Only, and especially, those Canadians who have suffered most all along.

No government in recent times has, with fewer political rewards to reap, concentrated more on seeking solutions to problems and inequities in western Canada. Never before in Canadian history-and I include my own province-has any region stood on the threshold of so much wealth and economic well-being as Canada's west. Before any oil embargo was announced by Arabia, this government volunteered to go into the lion's den and seek out the abcesses. Thus the western economic opportunities conference. It continues pledged and obliged to correct the wrongs of which the west has complained. Surely those pledges would not otherwise have been put so clearly in the Speech from the Throne, and the government would not have gone out west if they had not been prepared to do that. I only hope the pioneer spirit of westerners, of which we hear them speak and of which they are so proud-and so they should be-will make them Canadians first as their fate-found abundance moves them into the forefront of the Canadian economy in the decade ahead. There can be no doubt this is what their position will be.

The inequities in freight rates are to be remedied. Western farmers will prosper on a continuing basis as they never have before. The industrial development of the west will boom, as it has begun to do already, for instance in Medicine Hat, with the assistance of DREE. Over and above all this, the west's abundance of energy assures it of unparallelled wealth. Surely it is a time when Canadianism, not regionalism, should be bursting from them and from their leaders.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink
NDP

Francis Andrew Brewin

New Democratic Party

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):

Mr. Speaker, I join with others who have preceded me in this debate in congratulating the mover and the seconder of the address in reply to the Speech from the Throne. I propose to deal with one subject and one subject only, and that is Canada's position in the international world.

I note that apart from a reference to the effect of the fuel crisis on the third world, there is no mention in the Speech from the Throne to international affairs. This is perhaps because, it must be acknowledged, international affairs are not the most attractive subject politically. Nevertheless, they are of tremendous importance to Canada. It is obvious that neither Canada nor any other modern nation can live in isolation, and it is trite to remark that the world is getting smaller and increasingly interdependent. Canada's welfare and even her survival depend on peace and security in the world as a whole, and we are bound to pay attention to the subject.

It is said that international affairs should be treated on a non-partisan basis. To some extent I agree with this statement. There are, naturally, many aspects of Canada's international relations upon which Canadians of all parties are in substantial agreement, and in such cases they can and should work together. However, there are very real differences of outlook and real differences in regard to international policy on specific issues. It is, in my view, worth while discussing these differences here.

I propose, therefore, to put emphasis on the points on which there is disagreement between my party, the New Democratic Party, and the present administration. I think it will become apparent that these differences are very real. First of all, I think there is a substantial philosophic difference. The government, in 1970, introduced a series of papers under the general title "Foreign Policy for Canadians." These papers reveal what can only be described as a desire to maintain a low profile in international affairs and a weariness with such activities as peacekeeping and, generally, a reaction against overemphasizing Canada's role.

We recognize, of course, that Canada is not, in terms of military power or influence, a major actor on the international scene. We believe, however, that there are aspects of international affairs in which Canada's leadership is both natural and essential. I refer to such questions as the development of international law in the protection of human rights and in the whole field of humanitarian internationalism.

We share with some other countries an obligation to give leadership. I mention, for example, Sweden, Australia, Holland, West Germany, Norway, Denmark and New Zealand. There are, of course, many countries in the so-called third world which are in a similar position. We have not had, in my view, the clarity, precision, vigour or dynamic leadership which Canada could have given in these fields. There has been lack of a sense of urgency. In my view there is an urgent need to build a world community. The present administration, according to its own declarations, and indeed according to its practice, tends to put emphasis on narrow national self-interest and upon economic growth. For example, we find in "Foreign Policy for Canadians" six ingredients of Canadian foreign policy as follows:

March 8, 1974

(1) to foster economic growth

(2) to safeguard sovereignty and independence

(3) to work for peace and security

(4) to promote social justice

(5) to enhance the quality of life, and

(6) to ensure a harmonious national environment.

These are described as the six main themes of national policy and no one could quarrel with any of them, any more than they would think of quarrelling with motherhood. But on page 32 of the main pamphlet an effort is made to assign priorities and we find that economic growth is given the highest priority. Social justice and the quality of life are a mention. Peace and security, and sovereignty and independence are somehow placed in some degree of relative insignificance.

Mr. Speaker, we challenge this philosophy. Economic growth may be important, but as a determinant of foreign policy or the highest priority for consideration, we think it is both old-fashioned and wrong to put so much emphasis upon it. In our view, the emphasis should be on peace and security. Canada has no greater interest than in the maintenance of a stable and peaceful world. This, in turn, depends upon the development of a world community and the development of social justice not only within nations but between different groups of nations.

We also place supreme importance upon the maintenance of Canada's sovereignty and independence. Canada should indeed be a good citizen in the community of nations, but the best basis for this would be the preservation of Canada's own sovereignty and independence against threats to that independence not only military but economic, cultural or intellectual. For too long we have borrowed many of our attitudes in international affairs from large countries with which we have been associated by history and geography. For many years we were dependent upon the United Kingdom, and now our dependence is upon the United States of America. To some extent this may be inevitable, but in our view it has gone too far.

Mr. Speaker, I now propose to deal with three or four specific aspects of Canada's foreign policy. These illustrate the differences in outlook which I have outlined. The first of these subjects is development in the third world; the second, the situation existing in Viet Nam; and the third, Canada's relations to southern Africa.

There is no graver issue threatening the stability of the world than the growing disparity between the so-called rich and poor nations. The standards of living and consumption in one-third of the world vastly exceed those in the other two-thirds. The gap continues to grow. Grim poverty and hardship is the fate of large sections of humanity. Indeed, we are told on good authority that there is a prospect of serious famine in vast regions of the world this year. This is a time when the resources of the world are expanding and will expand, and it is a time when the culture of the western world has spread throughout the whole world and aroused expectations. Social justice within countries is based on a measure of equality. Social justice in the world depends upon a measure of equality between different nations and regions of the world.

The Address-Mr. Brewin

I wish to mention two aspects of the relations between the developed and developing world. The first is aid and the second is trade, but neither should be considered in isolation from the other. The developed world has failed miserably to make an adequate contribution through aid. No countries, including Canada, have lived up to the standard set by the United Nations and in the Pearson report. This report called for not only a substantially increased volume of aid but also for changes in the nature of the aid given-the untying of aid, the expansion of multilateral as against unilateral aid, and in general the removal of aid from the taint of neocolonialism and selfinterest on the part of the developed nations.

Canada, it is true, has made some comparative progress, and although I am sure CIDA is not a perfect institution, I would like to pay tribute to its work. During the course of the last year I visited both Tanzania and Bangladesh and had a chance to see at first hand some of the results of Canadian aid through CIDA. I believe that in these countries, at any rate, Canadian aid has been effective, and is highly spoken of by the recipient countries. However, we still fall below the international standards that have been set. The Pearson report mentioned a target of .7 per cent of the gross national product as a reasonable measuring stick. Canada contributes something between .4 and .5 per cent. Most of our aid is still tied. The greater proportion of it is unilateral.

The need for increased aid is particularly urgent at the present time. The Speech from the Throne mentions that the third world has been especially hard hit by the energy crisis. These countries import oil and other forms of energy, not for recreation or luxury but to keep their plans for development going. The increased cost of energy endangers the patient efforts of countries like India, Bangladesh and Tanzania, to take illustrations only, to reach the point of take-off from which their drive for development can be self-sustaining. All their carefully laid plans which we have supported can be wrecked by the rising cost of energy.

Canada has contributed foodstuffs to various areas of the world but as the prices have moved up, the same dollar value of aid produces a much smaller actual volume. We have to step up our aid in dollar terms if we are to maintain even the existing level. But aid alone is not the key to development, although it may be helpful. The main key is, in fact, the establishment of effective trading relations between the third world and the rest of the world. In the past GATT, UNCTAD and other international efforts to regulate world trade have been dominated by the developed countries. The share of the third world in world trade has dimished rather than increased. The prices of primary products upon which many third world countries rely have been grossly inadequate.

Canada and the other developed nations must listen to the pleas of the third world. They must provide special drawing rights, they must lower trade barriers so far as developing countries are concerned, and they must assist marketing and other methods of expanding trade with the third world. If there is disruption to industry in Canada, then legislation should be passed for adjustment assistance to those affected.

March 8, 1974

The Address-Mr. Brewin

We now pass to the question of Viet Nam. As most members of this House are aware, there exists in Viet Nam at the present time a grave human problem of tremendous magnitude, exceeding in depths of human misery and cruelty anything that is occurring in any other part of the world. There is the clearest evidence that a very large number of political prisoners, over 100,000 in fact, have been subjected to continued detention and inhuman treatment, including torture. We have had before this House a host of reliable witnesses, British, American, Canadian and French. We have spoken to those who have spoken to these prisoners and heard their stories. We have seen vivid and authentic films of young men crippled by the treatment they have received in jails.

A large number of these persons are guilty of no offence except that they have sought peace between the warring factions in Viet Nam. They support neither the present regime nor the PRG or the communists. Their offence is one of neutralism and desire for reconciliation. This issue has aroused the conscience of many Canadians. Most of the members of this House-and I am sure that if the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) were here he would confirm this-have received numerous and spontaneous letters on this subject. A group of members of parliament and senators representing the three major parties of this House, most or many of them members of the external affairs committee, have presented a brief to the Secretary of State for External Affairs urging that Canada take the lead in bringing this subject to the attention of the Human Rights Commission of the United Nations for investigation.

We have furnished ample legal authority that in international law this is a proper course to adopt and in accordance with precedent. The minister has encouraged us with expressions of deep interest and has promised to give the matter the fullest possible consideration, but so far he has not come up with an answer. We understand he has been in consultation with other like-minded nations. Our own limited inquiries have revealed that the Italian foreign minister, the Netherlands foreign minister, the Swedish prime minister, the parliamentary secretary to the minister of economic collaboration in West Germany, the West German parliamentary secretary of foreign affairs, and the prime minister of Australia have indicated their deep concern with this problem. If we took the matter to the United Nations, we would not stand alone in our humanitarian concern.

We do not wish to interfere in the internal affairs of another country, but there is no doubt that where there is a consistent pattern of gross violation of human rights- and that condition certainly exists in South Viet Nam- then the international community has a right and an obligation to intervene, not indeed by military methods but by making clear what world opinion is. Even the most authoritarian governments are sensitive to world opinion. This is a case where Canada can give a lead, and I hope the members of this House will indicate to the Secretary of State for External Affairs their hope that the request of the non-partisan committee which has interviewed him on this matter will receive favourable consideration.

I now wish to refer to another aspect of Canada's policies in Viet Nam, and I do this on my own responsibility

and not on behalf of the committee, though some members of the committee may agree with me. It is perfectly clear that despite the clear words of the Paris agreement of 1973 calling for the total withdrawal of American advisers and paramilitary personnel, for the negotiation of the release of political prisoners, for the establishment of civil liberties, and for the formation of a national council of national reconciliation and concord, both the Thieu regime and the United States government have disregarded these provisions of the Paris agreement. Indeed, an article from the New York Times was reprinted in, I think last Saturday's Globe and Mail giving a detailed account of the situation. It indicated as follows:

The United States, far from phasing out its military involvement in South Viet Nam, has descended from a peak of warfare to a high plateau of substantial support dispatching not only huge quantities of weapons and ammunition but also large numbers of American citizens who have become integral parts of the South Vietnamese supply, transport and intelligence systems.

It may be said that this is a matter for the United States and not for Canada. But what has Canada's position been? First of all, we are talking about increasing our diplomatic representation in Saigon. Secondly, we have completely refused to recognize the PRG which was one of the parties to the Paris agreement and was thereby accorded juridical status amongst the nations. We act as though the PRG did not exist.

As far as North Viet Nam is concerned, we have indeed granted diplomatic recognition but we have totally failed to make that meaningful. Accredited to the Hanoi regime is our ambassador in Peking. He surely has enough to do representing our interests in the People's Republic of China without taking on North Viet Nam as well. In the meantime, we rely for day to day diplomatic contacts entirely on the British ambassador and his staff. So far as I know, we have not even discussed reconstruction aid with the Hanoi regime. Whatever the future of Viet Nam may be, it is highly probable that the authorities now installed in Hanoi will have something to say about the future of that country. It really does not make sense for us to play favourites with the authoritarian and unstable regime at Saigon and ignore in practice both the North Vietnamese and the PRG.

There is another aspect of this matter, and that is that the Saigon regime is deeply dependent upon the United States and outside aid to be able to maintain its present system of repression and continued war. International institutions, in which Canada has a part, will be called upon to extend aid to South Viet Nam, if they have not already been called upon. There have been reports to the International Bank for Reconstruction and Development- incidentally, the reporters went nowhere except to Saigon and got all their information from the people there-and it is possible that the World Bank and many other institutions will be called on in a deliberate plan to get the rest of the world including Canada to finance the maintenance of the present regime in Saigon.

The immense, terrible war damage in all parts of Viet Nam cannot be repaired until the terms of the Paris agreement are accepted by all sides. Canada was one of the signatories to the final act of the International Confer-

March 8, 1974

ence of Guarantees of the Implementation of the Paris Agreement. We have assumed responsibility in this field and I suggest it is time we showed some responsibility.

I now turn to the last subject I want to discuss, and that is South Africa, a key area in the whole future of the world. Canada, consistent with its ambiguous stance as announced in its foreign policy papers has supported UN resolutions which condemn Portuguese colonialism, apartheid in South Africa and the illegal regime in Rhodesia. The government policy papers are abundantly clear-and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) has spoken in this vein himself-about the moral revulsion felt by Canadians toward these racist regimes. Canada's actions have been very different from her rhetoric. Canada has aided and assisted the development of trade relations with South Africa and Angola. Canada still extends to South Africa a preferential tariff, supposedly based on membership in the Commonwealth many years after South Africa left the Commonwealth on the very issue of racial policies.

Canada has failed to give adequate recognition to the liberation movements in Angola, Guine-Bissau and Mozambique whose populations are fighting for freedom. Some people talk about them as terrorists, but I suggest they are not more terrorists than any other people fighting for liberation and freedom in their countries, and these people occupy in most instances the greater part of the area of their countries and have the support generally of the international community.

In 1972, I think in December or November, Canada supported a resolution in the United Nations which recommended-this is an almost literal quotation-that all governments render to the people of those countries, and in particular to the populations of the liberated areas of those territories, all moral and material assistance necessary to continue their struggle for the achievement of the inalienable right to self-determination and independence. Canada, with 97 other nations, voted for this resolution. I suggest we committed ourselves to it. It is true that the Canadian delegation then proceeded to explain away its support for that resolution with reservations and qualifications.

Recently, the Secretary of State for External Affairs announced that Canada would in fact give, through CIDA, non-military support to non-governmental agencies, one of which is the World Council of Churches, which were assisting the development of those areas which have been liberated from colonial occupation. There were a few critical editorials and letters to the newspapers which seemed to have caused this government to hesitate. I hope this hesitation amounts to a mere tactical retreat and that the government will stick firmly to its announced determination. I suggest to do otherwise would be to signal to the people of Africa and to people throughout the world that there is no consistency between our words in the United Nations and our actions, and it would indicate that in the struggle for freedom Canada is neutral.

We should take such practical steps as withdrawing trade commissioners from South Africa and Angola, as trying to persuade Canadian companies with investments in that area not to exploit the apartheid practices prevalent there, and we should withdraw the preferential

The Address-Mr. Baker

arrangements with South Africa and give practical but non-military aid to those liberation movements.

There are other subjects I should like to pursue, as obviously international affairs range pretty widely, but time does not permit me to do so. However, I should like to make one reference to the fact that, despite the contempt that is sometimes heaped upon the United Nations and despite the disillusionment expressed by this government in its foreign papers with peacekeeping forces, the UN and its peacekeeping forces constitute an essential element in the maintenance of precarious peace in the Middle East.

The views which I have expressed may be thought to be idealistic. Personally, I am not afraid of that word. Unless our international policies are at least tinged with idealism, we will condemn ourselves to futility. I understand that the foreign policy of any country must be based upon self-interest, but that self-interest should be enlightened self-interest. I think enlightened self-interest in fields of development, in our relations with Viet Nam and in our relations with South Africa requires the policies I have outlined.

In closing, let me assure the government and this House that more and more people, and I include among them particularly young people and church people, are in fact deeply concerned about these issues and look to the government for the leadership they have not received in full measure in the past.

Topic:   ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Subtopic:   SPEECH FROM THE THRONE
Sub-subtopic:   CONTINUATION OF DEBATE ON ADDRESS IN REPLY
Permalink

March 8, 1974