1965-05-10

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
22620-'10h

[Stage Direction]
queen's printer and controller op stationery OTTAWA, 1965
[Stage Direction]
Monday, May 10, 1965

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)

Mr. Fisher: 1.	In March has there been any derailment on the C.N.R. main line between Sioux Lookout and Nakina?
2.	If so, what was the date, the number of the train, the composition of the crew, the number of cars derailed, the length of time before through-traffic was restored, the numbers of trains rerouted as a result of the derailment and the present service position of the crew of the derailed train?
3.	Has the C.N.R. an estimate of the loss from damage and the extra costs from the rerouting?
4.	When was the track and the ballast at the place of derailment put down?
5.	How often, from what stations, by how many persons and in what manner is the track patrolled?
6.	At what point was the train last inspected, if at all, by the train crew, or any of its members?
7.	At what point was the train last inspected by employees, other than train crew?


Mr. Jean-Charles Cantin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
On March 10, about 12:10 a.m., train No. 404 with crew consist of five had 42 cars derailed at Staunton, Ontario. The accident was caused by a broken bolster on trailing truck of a carload of coal. The car was interlined foreign-owned. The accident was not due to track condition. There were no serious personal injuries but damage to railway property. Transcontinental passenger trains and some freight trains were detoured until early morning March 12 when the line was restored to service. Total cost of the accident is being assembled. Investigation reveals no violation of the Company's operating rules or careless handling by employees concerned.


MANITOBA-EXPENDITURES ON HOSPITALS AND NURSING STATIONS
Mr. Slogan: 1.	What were the expenditures for the following establishments for the fiscal years 1955 to the present for (a) Pine Falls Indian hospital (b) Little Grand Rapids nursing station (c) Berens River nursing station?
2.	What were the federal contributions to Berens River hospital?
3.	How do these expenditures for the above establishments break down as to salaries, capital expenditures, repairs and maintenance, and supplies?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1954-55		(a) $	(b) *	(c) *
1955-56				
1956-57			32,700	
1957-58				
1958-59				
1959-60				
1960-61				
1961-62				
1962-63				
1963-64				
1964-65			34,794*	20,737'
Questions

May 10, 1965
Salaries	Supplies	Repairs & Maintenance	Utilities	Other	Equip- ment	Buildingss	$	$	$	$	s	$Fort Alexander Indian Hospital, Pine Falls, Manitoba	1954-55	41,413	16,007	2,922	1,252	1,421 1,049	-1955-56	46,010	19,499	641	1,328	1,598 2,110	-1956-57	47,680	19,825	3,871	1,362	2,825 4,354	-1957-58	56,594	23,684	1,159	1,410	1,589 1,365	-1958-59	61,149	23,348	1,492	1,455	1,841 6,289	68,7191959-60	74,668	30,926	2,915	1,593	1,525 5,645	39,4341960-61	92,083	30,064	1,442	1,777	1,758 748	2,5701961-62	106,236	34,470	2,172	2,694	1,923 4,558	-1962-63	106,669	32,837	600	4,384	2,484 322	1581963-64	99,424	25,838	662	3,184	1,620 336	-1964-65	81,484*	16,766*	502*	2,240*	1,195* 371*	-Little Grand Rapids Nursing Station	1954-55	-	-	-	-	-1955-56	-	-	
'	-	1956-57	3,361	4,909	-	-	- 5,262	19,1681957-58	8,427	7,114	3,174	-	316 2,993	24,8891958-59	12,732	4,599	1,914	-	657 563	2,9771959-60	, 13,291	7,782	578	-	570 227	1960-61	, 13,148	6,605	857	-	1,006 492	1,8031961-62	. 15,711	6,748	533	-	580 3,541	-1962-63	. 9,144	5,721	867	-	504 131	-1963-64	. 12,769	5,944	719	-	869 160	-1964-65	. 19,517*	10,510*	278*	-	1,218* 3,270	-Berens River Health Centre	1954-55	. 	-	-	-	-1955-56	-	-	-	-	1956-57	. 	-	-	-	1957-58	. 	-	-	-	-	1958-59	. 	-	-	-	-	1959-60	-	18	-	-	1011960-61	3,137	3	-	- 2,606	26,7121961-62	. 6,544	6,282	438	-	1,806 5,136	7,5991962-63	. 8,175	8,143	789	-	393 369	-1963-64	. 12,972	3,237	573	-	570 9	-1964-65	. 14,276*	4,253*	238*	-	602* 1,369*	-
"Interim only.


FILMING OF FORT LATOUR EXCAVATIONS, N.B.
Mr. Bell: 1.	Has the National Film Board and/or the C.B.C. received a request from the Municipality of Saint John, New Brunswick, to film or televise the Fort Latour excavations?
2.	If so, will a program, based on the history of the historic site from the Red Paint Indian, French and English settlements, to the Loyalist occupations of Saint John be produced?
3.	Will this matter be investigated and discussed in detail with the mentioned municipal group?


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of Stale):: I am informed by the National Film Board and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows:
1.	Yes, representations have been made to the National Film Board on behalf of the municipality of Saint John.

2.	While the Board does not at this time contemplate a separate film on the history of this site as described in question 2, consideration will be given to this topic in a broader film concerning the history of Acadia.
3.	Yes, the municipal group mentioned will be included among those people contacted at the research stage of the proposed film on the history of Acadia.
1.	The defence of Fort Latour was one of a number of suggestions received as a program of historic interest.
2.	It will be considered along with other suggestions for special Centennial programming and a decision reached in due course.
3.	Yes, if it is decided to use it as a television program.
May 10. 1965


FEDERAL EXPENDITURES, GEORGETOWN, P.E.I.
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	What financial assistance has been granted by the Government of Canada to the ship building and allied projects at Georgetown, Prince Edward Island?
2.	Is it the intention to erect a new post office building at Georgetown?
3.	Since May 1963, what grants has the Atlantic Development Board made to projects within Prince Edward Island?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Departments of Transport and Post Office as follows:
1.	The Canadian Maritime Commission advise as follows: "none".
2.	There are no plans for the construction of a new post office building at Georgetown, P.E.I., at this time.
3.	The Atlantic Development Board advise as follows:
The Government has approved financial assistance to projects within Prince Edward Island, as follows:
Georgetown: a water supply from wells and sewage facilities for a fish and agricultural food processing plant $700,000; Montague: a causeway and water supply from wells for an agricultural food processing plant $90,000; Summerside Industrial Park: water and sewage mains $100,000; Trunk Road Program: the construction or improvement of sections of trunk highways $1,000,000.


APPLICATION FOR POSTMASTER. BREADALBANE, P.E.I.
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	Have applications recently, been invited for the position of postmaster at Breadalbane, P.E.I. and, if so. on what date?
2.	How many applications were received?
3.	Who was the successful applicant?
4.	When will he commence his duties?
5.	Is it the intention to erect a post office building at Breadalbane and, if so, when is contruction to commence?


Mr. Alexis Caron (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1. Yes, in form of the usual notice to the Canadian Legion which expired on 29th August, 1964.
2.	Nine.
3.	The appointment of Mrs. Phyllis Snowie has been approved.
4.	As soon as the necessary arrangements can be made.
5.	No.
Questions


MANUFACTURERS OF AUTOMOBILE PARTS AND ACCESSORIES
Mr. Stenson: 1.	How many companies are there in Canada who are manufacturing automobile parts and accessories?
2.	Where are these firms located and how many are there in each province?
3.	How many of these manufacturers have made representations to the Minister of Industry respecting the new Canada-U.S. trade agreement?
4.	How many of those making representation have indicated they will be adversely affected by the agreement?
5.	What measures is the government contemplating to compensate those manufacturers adversely affected?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: 1.	There are approximately 505 companies in Canada producing motor vehicle parts and accessories.
2.	Their locations by provinces are: Ontario 415, Province of Quebec 75, Manitoba 10, other provinces 5.
3.	The industry has expressed its views to the Government principally through trade associations, which represent several hundred firms which manufacture or distribute automotive parts.
4.	The representations made by the trade associations have been favourable to the objectives of the Agreement. Seventeen companies have indicated that they believed they may be adversely affected by the program.
5.	The plan contains a number of safeguards of importance to Canadian parts producers. These include: (1) that the Canadian value added in vehicle production be maintained at least at the 1964 level; (2) that a much more stringent formula be used in calculating Canadian added value; (3) that all increases in production of vehicles over 1964 levels for sale in Canada have a 60 per cent Canadian value added; (4) that the motor vehicle producers increase the value of their annual output in Canada by $260 million not later than model year 1968.
These measures will greatly expand Canadian production of automotive products in Canada and the Parts Manufacturers' Association, the Motor Vehicle Producers and the United Auto Workers have gone on record in endorsing the benefits of the plan. It is recognized that a plan of the magnitude and importance of the automotive program, while involving very substantial expansion, may also create transitional difficulties for certain producers. In this regard, the Government is giving detailed consideration to certain proposals to assist workers and manufacturers

May 10, 1965
Questions
who might benefit by special measures during the initial period when the plan is being implemented.


HARBOUR DREDGING, INGONISH BEACH, N.S.
Mr, Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): Has the Government received the report of the survey into the necessity of dredging of the harbour at Ingonish Beach, N.S. and, if so, what are the plans of the department?


Jean-Charles Cantin: So far as
the Department of Transport is concerned, no report received, and the Department would not have plans for dredging.


LOANS UNDER SMALL BUSINESSES LOANS ACT
Mr. Caouette: 1.	How many loans have been granted under the Small Business Loans Act in (a) Canada (b) the province of Quebec (c) Villeneuve county?
2.	What is the average amount of the loans granted?
3.	What is the total amount of the loans granted?
4.	In what municipalities in Villeneuve county were such loans made and what was the amount of each?
5.	On what criteria is acceptance or refusal of such loans determined?


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: 1. (a) 11,215, to December 31, 1964; (b) 2,932, to December 31, 1964; (c) Not available.
2.	(a) $9,013; (b) $10,598; (c) Not available.
3.	(a) $101,083,427; (b) $31,072,419; (c) Not available.
4.	Not available.
5.	Loans under the Small Businesses Loans Act are made by the chartered banks. Under the terms of this legislation, a bank officer is required to scrutinize applications for government guaranteed loans with the same care
that is required of him by the bank in the conduct of its ordinary business.


R.C.M.P. WRITS OF ASSISTANCE
Mr. Howard: 1.	Since January 1, 1963, has any writ of assistance been obtained by, or on behalf of, any members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and, if so, how many under each relevant statute?
2.	Are any members of the said police force currently in possession of such writs of assistance and, if so, how many under each relevant statute?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: 1. Yes. Customs Act, 169; Excise Act, 184; Narcotic Control Act, 38; Food and Drugs Act, 38.
2.	Yes. Customs Act, 825; Excise Act, 956; Narcotic Control Act, 118; Food and Drugs Act, 118.


FEDERAL EXPENDITURES, SKEENA CONSTITUENCY, B.C.
Mr. Howard: For each of the last ten fiscal years, how much money has been spent in the federal electoral district of Skeena by or through the aegis of the Departments of (a) Public Works (b) Fisheries, and (c) Transport?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Departments of Public Works, Fisheries and Transport as follows:
Fiscal Year	Amount
1954-55	$ 326,888.23
1955-56	660,210.09
1956-57	347,709.40
1957-58	402,281.88
1958-59	441,107.47
1959-60	910,531.79
1960-61	880,844.21
1961-62	258,453.70
1962-63	1,414,561.93
1963-64	723,862.89
Fisheries
Year	*Department	Research Board	Total1955-56	$ 601,645	$ 167,730	$ 769,3751956-57	660,863	153,076	813,9391957-58	689,104	238,665	927,7691958-59	673,313	253,186	926,4991959-60	863,576	227,974	1,091,5501960-61	891,883	286,755	1,178,6381961-62	897,262	406,377	1,303,6391962-63	884,792	407,995	1,292,7871963-64	906,132	456,727	1,362,8591964-65	900,000	(Estimated) 450,000 (Estimated)	1,350,000$7,968,570	$3,048,485	$11,017,055
*Note: Department's expenditure based on Fisheries District No. 2.

May 10, 1965

1955-56	$ 1,357,700
1957-58	2,821,000
1958-59	6,656,000
1959-60	3,445,000
1960-61	2,085,000
1961-62	2,947,000
1962-63	2,030,000
1963-64	1,682,000
1964-65 (To March 31,	1965) 1,967,000


INVESTIGATION INTO RECORDING INDUSTRY IN QUEBEC
[Stage Direction]
Questions
3. Amount	of	Pension	Number$ 25.01	to	$ 29.99	839$ 30.00	to	$ 39.99	1,629$ 40.00	to	$ 49.99	1,289$ 50.00	to	$ 59.99	987$ 60.00	to	$ 69.99	923$ 70.00	to	$ 79.99	949$ 80.00	to	$ 89.99	975$ 90.00	to	$ 99.99	1,004$100.00	to	$124.99	2,630$125.00	to	$149.99	2,376$150.00	to	$199.99	3,545$200.00	and over	4,325
Mr. Caouelie: 1.	What was the outcome of a request made by FONORAMA INC., in August 1964, to the Board of Broadcast Governors for an investigation into an alleged "Scandal in the Canadian recording industry in Quebec"?
2.	Did the BBG acknowledge receipt of this request?
3.	Did the BBG act upon this request and, if so, what are the results of its investigation?
4.	If no investigation was made, why was one not made?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Board of Broadcast Governors as follows: 1. The Broadcasting Act does not give the Board of Broadcast Governors authority to investigate an alleged "scandal in the Canadian recording industry in Quebec".
2.	Yes.
3.	See 1.
4.	See 1.
In a number of cases the amounts of pensions paid by Canadian National Railways do not represent the total pensions payable to employees for railway service. Pensions payable by the C.N.R. to international employees (service in both Canada and the United States) relate to their service in Canada only. Such employees also receive annuities payable under the U.S. Railroad Retirement Act or the Social Security Act for service performed in the United States. For example, in the group receiving pensions of under $25 from the C.N.R., there are over 68 former international employees who also receive U.S. Railroad Retirement or Social Security annuities in respect of C.N.R. service rendered in the United States. The balance of this group consists of employees who elected early retirement (before age 65) with reduced basic ($25) pensions, and employees who had very short service and small contributions.


PENSIONS OF RETIRED C.N.R. EMPLOYEES
Mr. Knowles: 1.	How many retired employees of the Canadian Naitonai Railways are in receipt of pensions of less than $25.00 per month?
2.	How many are in receipt of a pension of $25.00 per month?
3.	How many are in receipt of pensions of (a)
$25.01 to $29.99 per month (b) $30.00 to $39.99 per month (c) $40.00 to $49.99 per month (d) $50.00 to $59.99 per month (e) $60.00 to $69.99 per month (f) $70.00 to $79.99 per month (g) $80.00 to $89.99 per month (h)	$90.00 to $99.99 per month (i)
$100.00 to $124.99 per month (j) $125.00 to $149.99 per month (k) $150.00 to $199.99 per month (1) $200.00 per month and over?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The Management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
As at December 31, 1964-
1.	388.
2.	2,392.


EXPENDITURES ON TWINNING OF WELLAND CANAL
Mr. McMillan: 1.	What capital expenditures were made in the 1964-65 fiscal year in preparation for the twinning project of the single locks on the Welland canal?
2.	What capital expenditures are anticipated in preparation for this project in the present fiscal year?


Jean-Charles Cantin: The St.
Lawrence Seaway Authority advises as follows:
1. Calendar year 1964, $3,987,500.
2. Calendar year 1965, $18,997,000.


USE OF RADAR BASE, PARENT, QUE.
Mr. Laprise: Has the government found alternative uses for the radar base at Parent, Quebec?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The facilities at the radar base at Parent, Quebec, including buildings and services, were

May 10, 1965
Questions
declared surplus and disposed of by Crown Housing Act and administered by approved Assets Disposal Corporation on March 31, lenders. Provincial totals of the amounts out-1965 to Laforest et Freres, Pointe aux Trem- standing on these loans are not available, bles, Montreal, Quebec.


EXPENDITURES ON TRANS-CANADA
[Stage Direction]
FARM CREDIT CORPORATION LOANS	HIGHWAY IN B.C.
Mr. Laprise: 1.	How much has the Farm Credit Corporation outstanding in loans being repaid (a) in Canada (b) in Quebec, and (c) in the county of Chapleau?
2.	What amount is presently owing to the Corporation by farmers (a) in Canada (b) in Quebec, and (c) in the county of Chapleau?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: The Farm Credit Corporation advises that the answer is as follows: 1. Number of loans outstanding: (a) 47,404; (b) 3,684; (c) Statistics for the number and amount of loans outstanding are not maintained on a county basis.
2. Amount of loans outstanding: (a) $443,560,275; (b) $37,432,657; (c) See 1(c) above.


SECURING OF INFORMATION FROM SMALL BUSINESSES
Mr. McBain: Is it the policy of the government to have the Bureau of Statistics secure information from a small business concerning the operations of a competitor in the same line of business and, if so, what is the purpose of securing such information?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: No. However, on occasion the assistance of a neighbouring business is requested after the Post Office has informed the Dominion Bureau of Statistics that a particular business is no longer at a given address. Thus in a recent survey, neighbouring businesses selected from city directories were requested to assist the Dominion Bureau of Statistics by providing information related to whether or not premises at a particular address were still used for business purposes, the name of the business at the location, if any, and the date the previous occupant ceased to operate.


C.M.H.C. MORTGAGES IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Basford: What is the total of current mortgages under C.M.H.C. in the Province of British Columbia?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: The amount of mortgage loans and agreements for sale on residential property, owned and administered by C.M.H.C., in the Province of British Columbia, was $122,961,972 at March 31, 1965. This amount does not include joint, insured or insurable loans made under the National
[Mr. Drury.J


Mr. Basford: 1.	What is the federal expenditure to date on the trans-Canada highway located in the Province of British Columbia?
2.	During the same period, what has been the expenditure made by the Government of British Columbia on this project?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Public Works):: 1. The federal share of sections constructed by the province totals $117,750,428.52 to date. An additional $41,538,121 has been spent to date on trans-Canada highway construction in the National Parks in British Columbia where construction is entirely financed by the federal government.
2. This Department has no records of total expenditures made by the government of British Columbia relative to the trans-Canada highway.


FARM LOANS IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Basford: What is the total of current loans under the Farm Loans Act in the Province of British Columbia?


Harry William Hays: I am informed by the Farm Credit Corporation that for the Province of British Columbia there are 1,809 loans outstanding for an amount of $22,922,310 under the provisions of the Farm Credit Act.


TENDERS FOR BUOY SERVICE, RIVER PHILIP, N.S.
Mr. Coates: Were tenders called for the maintenance of a buoy service at River Philip, Cumberland County, N.S. and, if so, what are the names of the individuals who submitted tenders and the amount of each tender, and to which tenderer was the contract awarded?


Jean-Charles Cantin: Yes. Tenders were submitted by Mr. Walter Cameron for the sum of $150 per annum, by Mr. Emerson A. Chase, $180 per annum, and by Mr. Robert F. Allan, $100 per annum. The contract was awarded to the lowest tenderer, Mr. Allan, who has the necessary equipment to handle the buoys.
May 10, 1965


EGG IMPORTS
Mr. Nesbitt: 1.	How many dozen eggs have been imported into Canada from the United States from January 1, 1965, until April 21, 1965, and of what grades were these eggs?
2.	Have these eggs been consumed in Canada?
3.	What prices were paid for these eggs by Canadian importers on a grade basis?
4.	What is the selling price of these same grades of eggs in the United States?


Mitchell William Sharp: 1 and 3. There are as yet no
statistics on imports of eggs during any month of 1965. When available these statistics will show the number of dozen eggs imported and their value, but will not show their grade.
2 and 4. Information requested is not available.


PASSPORT REQUIREMENTS
Mr. Caouelie: 1.	What are the regulations to be followed in order to obtain a passport, in each category of passports?
2.	What reasons justify refusal of a passport?
3.	Does the Canadian Government have any control over Canadians visiting Communist countries?
4.	How many Canadians visited Cuba in 1963 and 1964?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. The Canadian government issues passports to Canadian citizens so they may possess evidence of their identity and national status when entering another country. Eligibility for a Canadian passport depends on whether or not the applicant is a Canadian citizen, either natural-born or naturalized, as defined by the Canadian Citizenship Act. There is no statute governing the issuance of passports.
Three types of passports are issued-ordinary, special and diplomatic. Any Canadian citizen may normally receive an ordinary passport. However, in certain instances, depending on the nature of their governmental or parliamentary duties and purposes of travel abroad, some Canadians are entitled to receive either a special or a diplomatic passport.
2. Authority to issue or refuse passports is derived from the royal prerogative, which is exercised in this field by the Secretary of State for External Affairs on behalf of the Canadian government. The Secretary of State for External Affairs therefore has discretionary authority to grant or refuse a passport. It is unusual in peacetime for the Secretary 22620-71J
Questions
of State for External Affairs to refuse to issue a passport to a Canadian citizen. There is, however, one category of cases in which passports are temporarily withheld; when the Department of External Affairs lends public funds to repatriate a distressed Canadian to Canada, his passport is impounded until he has repaid his debt to the government. Apart from cases of this kind, it is rare in peacetime to refuse to issue a passport to a Canadian citizen.
3.	No. There is no exit control of persons leaving Canada. No geographical limitation is placed in passports; they are made valid for travel to "All Countries". Applicants are not required to divulge travel plans. Although a printed leaflet is inserted in all passports advising Canadians who are planning to visit certain communist countries to notify the Department of External Affairs of their travel plans, this is not a legal requirement, and it is not a form of control of foreign travel.
4.	Registration of visitors at Canadian diplomatic or consular offices abroad is invited on a voluntary basis in most countries. In 1963 and 1964 respectively, 80 and 155 visiting Canadians completed registration cards at the Canadian embassy in Havana. Because this registration is not a legal requirement, these statistics are not to be considered a complete record of Canadian visitors to Cuba in the years mentioned.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS TO CANADIANS WORKING IN U.S.
Mr. Dionne: To date, what has been the result of the representations the Government of Canada has made in connection with an agreement with the United States authorities regarding the eligibility to unemployment insurance benefits of Canadians working in the United States and particularly in the States of Maine and New Hampshire?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: The Employment Security Commission of Maine indicated on October 30, 1963 that it was not prepared to enter into reciprocal arrangements with the Unemployment Insurance Commission of Canada and the same position has been taken by New Hampshire. There has been no change in the situation since then.


INCOME TAX PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS UNCLAIMED
Mr. Dionne: What were the amounts of income tax deducted on payrolls under the Income Tax Act, which

May 10, 1965
Questions
were not claimed back by Canadian taxpayers during the years 1958, 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963 and 1964?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: (Prior to the 1962 taxation year the records of the Taxation Division did not provide this specific information.) Unclaimed amounts deducted for 1962 taxation year, $48,392,287.80; unclaimed amounts deducted for 1963 taxation year, $45,871,907.74.
The figures for the 1964 taxation year will not be compiled until early in 1966.


EMPLOYEES OF INCOME TAX BRANCH
Mr. Dionne: What is the total number of civil servants in all categories employed in the various offices of the Income Tax Branch of the Department of National Revenue in Canada?


Edgar John Benson: 7,987, as at 31st March, 1965.


WHARF REPAIRS, SOUTH HAVEN, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
What are the plans of the government for repairs to the public wharf at South Haven, Victoria County, Nova Scotia and how soon will any proposed improvements take place?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Tenders will be called shortly for repairs to the deck of the wharf at South Haven and it is expected that the work will get under way late in June.


COAL CONTRACT 8D-5793 GBD (REGD-136NB)
Mr. Bell: With respect to coal contract 8D-5793 GBD (REGD-136NB), Department of Transport, Saint John, N.B., what were the amounts of each tender and who was the successful bidder?


Jean-Charles Cantin: Only one tender was received and order awarded to Raymond M. Parker & Company Limited, Saint John, N.B., who quoted f.o.b. departmental wharf Saint John, N.B., sales tax exempt for 30 tons hard coal (American nut or equal) bagged at $33 per ton for $990; 75 tons soft coal screened (Dominion Sydney or equal) bagged at $22 per ton for $1,650; 2 tons Blacksmith coal (Bulk) at $26 per ton for $52.
The total amount of the order is $2,692.


RESEARCH GRANT APPLICATIONS TO VETERANS AFFAIRS DEPARTMENT
Mr. Orlikow: 1. How many applications for grants for the finance of research projects did the Department of

Veterans Affairs get in each of the past three years?
2.	What was the total dollar value of the projects requested from the Department of Veterans Affairs?
3.	How many of the applications made to the Department of Veterans Affairs were approved in full?
4.	How many of the applications were approved in part only?
5.	How many applications for research grants were turned down in each of the last three years?
6.	What were the reasons for the refusals?


Hon. Roger Teillef (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1962-63	1963-64	1964-651.	66	60	502.	$478,330	$502,557	$433,1933.	60	55	454.	0	2	45.	6	3	16.	Either: (a) Assessed as poor projects by referees, or (b) Progress reports do not warrant continuation, or (c) Project more suitable for support by another agency, or (d) Proposed project is duplication of work being done in another departmental project, or (e) Low priority in view of limited funds available.


ELDORADO MINING AND REFINING LTD.
Mr. Caouette: In addition to mining operations, what are the functions of Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited?


Mitchell William Sharp: Eldorado Mining and Refining Limited, in addition to its mining operations, operates a refinery for the production of nuclear grade uranium oxide from mine concentrates, and the refinery also produces a series of other uranium products, using the nuclear grade oxide as a basis. The refinery is also prepared to process enriched uranium for the production of nuclear fuel for reactors. It is also engaged at present in pilot plant runs leading to the production of cobalt and silver from mine concentrates or speiss received from cobalt-silver producers in Canada; and to the production of zirconium sponge, a product used in nuclear fuels.
The company has also functioned as the government's agent for the purchase of uranium concentrates from other Canadian mines, either for resale to other countries under contracts negotiated by Eldorado, or as a part of a government stockpiling program.
May 10, 1965


LEASE OF POST OFFICE BUILDING, LAC DU BONNET, MAN.
Mr. Slogan: 1.	Have tenders been called by the federal government for the leasing of a new post office building in the village of Lac du Bonnet, Manitoba and, if so, when were the tenders due?
2.	What tenders were received and in what amounts''
3.	Have any of the tenders been accepted and, if so, when does the government intend to move to the new premises?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1. Yes. Tenders closed on February 9, 1965.
2.	Two tenders were received as follows: 1,830 square feet at $4,572 per annum from Lanark Construction; 1,780 square feet at $4,200 per annum from Mrs. Sonia Goren-stein.
3.	No.


CURBS ON CIGARETTE ADVERTISING
Mr. Orlikow: Is the government now considering curbs on cigarette advertising such as proposed by the Federal Trade Commission in the U.S., to wit (a) requiring every cigarette advertisement package and carton to contain a clear warning that cigarette smoking is dangerous to health (b) prohibiting any statement or implication in any cigarette advertisement that smoking promotes good health or physical well-being (c) preventing any advertisement asserting that one brand of cigarettes is less harmful to health than another, unless the advertiser has substantiated that claim in advance?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: As this is a matter of Government policy any announcement will be made by the Government at the appropriate time.


BREAKWATER REPAIRS, CAPSTICK, N.S.
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton: North and Victoria):
Is it the intention of the government to carry out breakwater repairs at Capstick, Victoria County, N.S., during the coming season and, if so, when will this work commence and what are the details of such repairs and, if not, for what reason?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes. Minor repairs are to be made to the approach and to the concrete deck. It is expected the work will be put under way the latter part of June.


POST OFFICE CONSTRUCTION, ST. JEAN PORT JOLI, QUE.
Mr. Ricard: Is it the intention of the Minister of Public Works to have a post office building constructed
Questions
at St. Jean Port Joli, in the County of L'lslet and, if so (a) when will the construction work begin (b) what are the names of the contractors who have submitted tenders (c) what is the amount of each tender (d) what was the purchase price of the land?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes.
(a)	Construction is scheduled to begin this summer.
(b)	Tenders have not yet been called.
(c)	Not applicable.
(d)	Negotiations are now under way for the purchase of a site at a cost of $10,000.


SCIENTIFIC PERSONNEL LEAVING CANADA FOR U.S.
[Stage Direction]
Quesiton No. 328-Mr. Orlikow:
How many Canadian scientists, research workers, engineers, university professors, and medical doctors left Canada to work in the United States in each of the past three years?
Mitchell William Sharp: Specified professional workers admitted to United States whose last permanent residence was Canada, 19621964:
Year Ending June 30th
Occupation	1962	1963	1964Engineers	816	894	789Physicians and surgeons	280	467	440Professors and instructors	89	117	125Scientists, research workers:	Chemists	81	105	121Agricultural scientists	8	9	11Biological scientists	7	18	23Geologists and geophysicists	47	43	35Mathematicians	8	5	8Physicists	33	27	29Miscellaneous natural	scientists	5	2	11Source: United States, Immigration	and
Naturalization Service, Department of Justice.


SHIP &quot;PATRICK MORRIS&quot;-SERVICE BETWEEN NORTH SYDNEY AND PORT AUX BASQUES
Mr. Carier: 1.	Was a ship named the Patrick Morris recently commissioned for use between North Sydney and Ports aux Basques?
2.	What is the nature of the traffic to be carried by the Patrick Morris?


Jean-Charles Cantin: 1 and 2.
The long term plans for this ship envisage it being used as an all purpose carrier, similar

May 10, 1965
Orders for Returns
to the Abegweit in the Prince Edward Island service, handling railway cars, trucks, automobiles and passengers and thus able to assist either the William Carson with automobile traffic or the new railway ferry with freight traffic during the respective peak seasons. It is expected that this will be possible by 1967 or 1968.
However, pending the completion of the new railway ferry and the end loading berths at North Sydney and Port aux Basques, the Patrick Morris is being converted temporarily into a side-loader and will be used exclusively for freight. There are several reasons for this decision.
(1)	It will permit the maximum use of the William Carson for automobile and passenger traffic during the summer period.
(2)	It will be necessary to use the Patrick Morris for freight only to maintain the present freight service pending the availability of a rail car ferry. The use of the Patrick Morris for freight will also improve the quality of that service to shippers as well as its operating efficiency and help to reduce the heavy deficits that would otherwise be incurred by having to move all freight traffic in conventional ships, whether C.N. or chartered.
(3)	Carriage of large trucks and trailers on the Patrick Morris as a side-loader could only be achieved by lengthening the elevators now used to load the William Carson. It is not considered feasible to make such alterations for the two to three seasons that the ship will operate in this way.
(4)	It is not considered desirable to attempt to offer service to commercial highway carriers before the ability to provide the type of service that would be required, viz.-a scheduled service with adequate capacity for vehicles and suitable accommodations for drivers. In carrying freight the ship will not be tied to any schedule but able to make as frequent trips as the traffic demands. The question of additional capacity for automobiles and trucks is being studied as a separate project.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Pugh: 1.	Since January 1963, what are the names, addresses, and dates, of all applications for licenses for community antenna television broadcasting?
2.	Which of these have been granted and what were the dates of granting?

3.	What are the names, addresses, and dates, of all applications for changes in already existing licenses?
4.	What changes have been granted in existing licenses, and what are the dates of each?
Return tabled.


VOTES BY CANADIAN FORCES
Mr. Thompson: 1.	How many votes were counted in each of the areas designated by section 5 of "The Canadian Forces Voting Rules"?
2.	How many votes were cast for candidates in each of the 265 constituencies, by each area?
3.	What were the direct costs of the counting in each of the four areas covering the following item (a) payments for services-e.g., special returning officers, deputy returning officers, scrutineers, clerical assistants, etc. (b) travel and living expenses (c) rent (d) telephone, telegraph and postage (e) any other known direct costs?
Return tabled.
[DOT] (2:40 p_m.)



SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister in a position to make a report to the House and the country in connection with the allegations of espionage against two members of the U.S.S.R. Embassy staff? Will he say what is going to be done about prosecuting the wrongdoers within our own country who, for illicit gain and greed, would sell out their country? And would the Prime Minister, because of the fact that these individuals are allegedly connected with the public service, name all those in respect of whom wrongdoing has been alleged so that our civil service, which enjoys so high a reputation, will not have any members thereof subject to suspicion or innuendo?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the question raised by my right hon. friend has been dealt with in a press release made public, which perhaps ought to be tabled or made an appendix to Hansard so the information which has been made available will be on the records of the House.
So far as the two persons who have been expelled are concerned, members of the Soviet embassy staff, they are exempt from criminal prosecution in this country by their status. So far as the others are concerned, they have co-operated with the police in an effective way in bringing this matter to a head, and no action is at this time being taken against them.
May 10, 1965


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, having been caught receiving large sums of money for a potential wrong against their country, does the Prime Minister not agree that any arrangement whereby no prosecutions will take place for wrongdoers like these because they talked after they were caught is not in keeping with the best interests of this country? Indeed, I point out what happened yesterday in the United Kingdom, where a sentence of 21 years was imposed against a wrongdoer. These people do wrong and then adopt an escape method by assisting in revealing that in which they themselves were wrongly involved.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is my information that the circumstances of the case in the United Kingdom, to which my right hon. friend has referred, are not parallel to those which concern the Canadians he mentioned. However, I appreciate the seriousness of this matter, and in view of the fact that he has brought it up in this way I will be glad to look into it further and then make a considered reply.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I should like to ask a supplementary question. Can the Prime Minister tell us why this information was released to the press late on Saturday after most of the nation's newspapers had gone to press, and in view of the fact the two men involved had been expelled from the country some 12 to 18 hours previously.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will have to make an inquiry as to the timing of the release, but it is my impression that it was released on Saturday because it was about to leak if it had not been given at that time.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: I have a further supplementary question. In respect of the civil servant who is	alleged to have been paid
thousands of dollars to gather information and documents to assist in espionage by another country in Canada, has this money been recovered, or is the man who is allegedly responsible for gathering this information and selling these secrets to be allowed to go scot free?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have just said that I will make a more detailed statement on that aspect of the case after I have obtained all the details.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister not in a position now to give the House some indication of the amount that was received; because certainly if the press release is accurate as to what took place, this is of a serious nature. If it was a small amount
Inquiries of the Ministry involved one would be inclined to say that this fellow is a wrongdoer and that is all, because he was trying to help out. However, because of the size of the alleged payment this is a serious situation. I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the identities of these individuals are to be available so we may know who those people are who would sell out their country in this way.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the statement in the form it is made by the right hon. gentleman. I have told him that I will obtain all the details relating to the points he has raised. I should also like to point out that in the statement issued on Saturday there is included this paragraph:
The approaches made by the two members of the Soviet Embassy very shortly came to the attention of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. As a result of this co-operation by conscientious Canadians, the Police were able to establish the improper intent of the Soviet approaches and to put an end to them before any damage was done to Canadian interests.
However, Mr. Speaker, I want to get all the information available before making a considered reply.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Prime Minister when he is obtaining the information to find out whether these individuals who accepted this money and who are described in the news release are conscientious Canadians.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot accept the statement the right hon. gentleman has made as reflecting on particular Canadians in a particular way. I reiterate that I will get the information which bears on these points and pass it on to the House, at which time perhaps my right hon. friend will be able to come to a more considered conclusion.


John George Diefenbaker: My opinion is a considered one now, if they did accept this money.


Mr. Real Caoueife (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question.
We have all read in the newspapers and heard on the radio the news report that two Russian spies have been sent back home after being well served by federal employees. Does the government intend to reveal the names of those federal employees? Moreover, would it not be in order now to use the satellite- [Text]
*-"Early Bird" to find those two civil service employees who had some acquaintance with the two Russian spies?
May 10, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have already tried to deal with this question and I do not think I can add anything to what I have said.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, in connection with this matter I wonder whether the Prime Minister can inform us how many other Canadian citizens were involved with or approached by these Russian agents in addition to the two who have been mentioned in the newspapers and to whom he has referred? Also, over how much of the country were these activities spread? It is mentioned in the newspapers that information was being secured about the pipe line to the Pacific coast, and it causes one to wonder into what parts of the country these espionage activities extended.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will get all the information I can and which it is appropriate to give to the House. I would remind my hon. friend, and I do so in no critical way, that when a similar matter was raised in the House of Commons in October, 1957, the Secretary of State for External Affairs of that day replied "It is not considered in the public interest to provide information about a matter of this kind".


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise immediately on a question of privilege. This is quite a different matter. These are allegations of wrongdoing. We have had enough hiding in the Rivard case, we have had enough hiding in the Department of Justice, and we want no more of this concealment on the part of the Government.


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: supplementary question to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. In answer to the hon. Member for Red Deer the Prime Minister indicated that he issued a news release on Saturday because it was felt the news was going to leak out. Will the Prime Minister advise us when it was intended to give out the information with regard to this matter, or was it going to be covered up entirely?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, it was the intention to make this matter public in the form of a press release, and I had hoped that would also have been done in the House of Commons today.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has anybody been charged with the offence to date?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.
[Mr. Caouette.l


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is it the intention of the Government to charge anybody in reference to this espionage?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It does seem to me we have had a fairly wide discussion, especially in view of the statement of the Prime Minister that he will be making a full, detailed statement later.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the intention of the Prime Minister to make a statement later, I wonder whether now or when he makes that statement he will tell us if the Canadian civil servant who it is alleged was involved is still in the employ of the Government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That will be in my statement, Mr. Speaker. I cannot answer that categorically at the moment.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is related to one I have asked several times in the last few weeks. Is the Government considering the preparation of a White Paper which would outline the extent of foreign espionage in Canada and disclose the subversive tactics now being used by foreign powers in this country with regard to all aspects of our national life, and not just defence?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, we have not planned to issue a White Paper of that kind. It should be possible when the Committee on External Affairs is set up, which I hope will be soon, for this question to be discussed by that Committee.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Government House Leader and preface it by saying that so far as the Official Opposition are concerned we would like to proceed with the legislative program rapidly. In view of the fact that the debate on the Speech from the Throne and the debate on the budget have been concluded recently, coming as they did closer together than is usual, would the Government House Leader be prepared to proceed with legislation today if we pass the motion to go into committee of supply without debate and call 10 departments? If so, what are the items of legislation he intends to bring forward?
May 10, 1965


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of the Privy Council):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the Government will be prepared to proceed with legislation immediately. When the ten departments are called in the Committee of Supply we would propose to call the item on Senate reform and then, if there is time left after that, the Bank of Canada legislation.



KATE LITERATURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: May
I ask a question about subversive activities a little different from those we have been discussing. I desire to ask a question of the Acting Postmaster General because of certain actions he took in closing certain mail boxes. In the absence of the Acting Postmaster General may I address my question to the Acting Acting Postmaster General, to whom I sent notice of my question early this morning.
My question is, has the attention of the Post Office Department been drawn to the fact that an organization calling itself "Natural Order", with headquarters in British Columbia at 1630 Alberni Street, Vancouver 5, has been using Her Majesty's mails to send out most vicious racial propaganda against Canadians, ethnically Jewish, and including in their mail distribution notification that people can receive literature of a similar nature from Canadian Publications, Gooder-ham, Ontario? I have received these copies through the mail, delivered to constituents in Vancouver. My question is, will,, the Post Office Department or the Acting Acting Postmaster General take action to stop the use of Her Majesty's mails for the dissemination of hate literature?


Alexis Pierre Caron: I will take the place of the Acting Acting Postmaster General and bring the question to his attention when he comes back.


Harold Edward Winch: I am sorry, but I just heard that the hon. Member is the Acting Acting Postmaster General. I did not hear what action he was going to take.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. gentleman's question will be studied very carefully and the matter will be looked into.


Harold Edward Winch: I thank the Acting Acting Acting Postmaster General for his reply.
Inquiries of the Ministry EXTERNAL AFFAIRS



MEETING RESPECTING AGREEMENTS BETWEEN PROVINCES AND FOREIGN STATES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Douglas Scott Harkness: should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in connection with talks which he held over the week end with the Premier of Quebec. What feature of the treaty making power is there for the Cabinets of Canada and Quebec to consider and report upon, in view of the statements which the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have made to the effect that the treaty making power is entirely a Federal matter?
Right Hen. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
There are discussions between the Federal Government and the Provinces continually because of arrangements that Provinces might wish to make with authorities even in other countries, dealing with practical matters but within the responsibility of the Federal Government for foreign policy.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Last night on the T.V. program "Press Conference", the Quebec premier stated that he had taken notes when the Prime Minister of Canada spoke and that the Prime Minister of Canada had taken notes when the Quebec premier spoke; so, both of them took notes. I should like to know if they have come to some agreement.
Last night it was all very well to hear Premier Jean Lesage say that he did not have the right or permission to say what went on. However, to what extent have the Prime Minister of Canada and the Quebec premier reached an agreement or an understanding concerning the kind of agreement which a province could make with another country supposing that provinces have to negotiate such agreements through Ottawa?
Would the right hon. Prime Minister have a statement to make in this regard in order to clearly establish whether the Prime Minister of Canada exercises more influence than the Quebec premier or if the latter exercises more influence than the Prime Minister of Canada under the new "conjugation"?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I doubt whether I should report to the House on the relative influence
May 10, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry of two heads of Government in a matter of this kind, but I should like to tell the hon. gentleman that we had a very useful discussion on questions of mutual interest. Our discussions are to be referred to our respective Governments, and in due course this question which we have been considering will undoubtedly come before the House of Commons.


Mr. Robert C. Coaies (Cumberland):: Is it
the intention of the Prime Minister to hold private meetings with the remaining nine provincial premiers prior to the Federal-Provincial Conference?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have already had discussions with some of the Provincial Premiers including the Premier of Newfoundland, with regard to matters which will be coming before the forthcoming Conference, and I will be delighted to have discussions with any other Premiers who feel such preliminary discussion would be useful.


Robert Carman Coates: A further supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Is it his intention to hold talks with his counterparts in the nine other Provinces, especially with his counterpart in British Columbia?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: I am always delighted to see any provincial representatives at any time.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Pontiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Can he tell us, in order to clarify the answer he has just given, whether it is the government's intention to submit to the house a formula which would allow the provinces, later on, to negotiate international agreements within their own jurisdictions?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, there is no question of a formula being involved. It is a question of each Government understanding the position of the other in matters of mutual concern including, as I have just mentioned, arrangements which may have to be made between Provinces and authorities outside the Province on matters having regard to the responsibility which the Federal Government has for the conduct of foreign affairs.


John George Diefenbaker: I would ask the Prime Minister whether the report in Le Devoir is cor-

rect that the Canadian Government forwarded for the approval of the Province of Quebec a draft of a master agreement or accord. Further, does the Prime Minister give approval to the right of a province-would he reiterate his position in this regard-to enter into agreements as though that province were a Sovereign state?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is quite proper for the Federal Government in working out a cultural agreement with another country-any country-to consult with a province which is particularly concerned in such an agreement and which, indeed, within the main agreement might be working out cultural and educational arrangements of its own. I can see nothing improper in that kind of arrangement at all. Indeed, I think it would be improper if any province which was definitely concerned with matters of this kind arising in the course of the exercise of Federal jurisdiction was not informed.


John George Diefenbaker: With all respect, that does not answer the question. I asked the Prime Minister whether his Government forwarded for approval the draft of a master agreement or accord with France under the terms of which the Province of Quebec would have the right to conclude with France agreements or accords dealing with cultural, educational or economic matters, as reported in Le Devoir.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, there was no question of forwarding to the Government of Quebec for approval a draft agreement between Canada and a foreign country.


John George Diefenbaker: Was there a draft agreement or a draft arrangement forwarded which was acceptable to the Federal Government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The Quebec Government was kept informed of the discussions which were going on between the Governments of Canada and France with respect to this question.


John George Diefenbaker: I see how you have evaded the question.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, the right hon. Prime Minister spent the whole week end in Montreal. He then heard the very clear statement of his colleague, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau), concerning the "conjugation" about which he spoke to us for three days.
May 10. 1965

Can the right hon. Prime Minister explain clearly to the house what the Minister of Justice meant by "conjugation" because no one in Canada understood what the Minister of Justice meant by that word?
We would like to know exactly what he means when he talks about "conjugation" in Canada which permits Canada to enter into agreements, while requesting the approval and consent of the province.
I wish that the right hon. Prime Minister would tell us exactly what is the kind of "conjugation" which his colleague, the Minister of Justice, intended to explain in Montreal during the week end.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Surely it is not proper for me in reply to a question on orders of the day to attempt to interpret what another Cabinet Minister has said. But I will be glad to bring the two hon. gentlemen together so that the misunderstanding on the part of the hon. Member for Villeneuve can be removed.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the right hon. Prime Minister promised the house to examine the notes tabled to determine whether or not Canada was not previously advised of the agreement between Quebec and France.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The notes have been tabled. The hon. gentleman asked the other day whether there had been consultation between the two Governments in respect of these matters and whether there could have been such consultation in view of the fact that the dates on the notes were the same. May I remind him that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, as has already been placed on record in this House, was in touch with the authorities of the Province of Quebec as far back as last summer and that we have been in continual touch with them on these matters since that time. Then, of course, there could not have been signatures of this kind on the same date in the absence of prior conversations, and those took place.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question with reference to the answer the Prime Minister has just given. The letter forwarded by the French Embassy to the Canadian Government stated-and I would have to quote one or two sentences-

Inquiries of the Ministry
Ottawa, February 27, 1965
Excellency,
I have the honour to inform Your Excellency that two meetings were held, on November 4, 1964, in Paris, and November 20, 1964, in Quebec City, for the purpose of considering and developing a program of exchanges and co-operation between France and the Province of Quebec in the field of education.
On the same day the Secretary of State for External Affairs replied to this letter from the French Ambassador thanking the Ambassador for this information and using the words-
[DOT]-in which you inform me that meetings were held in Paris and Quebec-
As well as-
-You kindly informed me also that the entente... was signed today in Paris.
And so on. My question to the Prime Minister in the light of this letter is this. Were there in fact any negotiations prior to the date of this letter, as stated by the Secretary of State for External Affairs about 10 days ago in this House?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes; and perhaps I could restate what the Secretary of State for External Affairs said in this House on April 27. He said then that well before the accord between the Governments of Quebec and France was executed in February 1965, three way discussions took place among the officials of the Canadian, French and Quebec Governments with a view to working out a procedure by which the arrangements which Quebec wished to enter into with the competent French authorities could have international effect. At that time the Secretary of State for External Affairs added that he had been aware of the matter since the summer of 1964, and he pointed out that he had had discussions about it with the French Foreign Minister last December.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I would like to direct to the Prime Minister. This is in line with the announcement over the week end by President Johnson of the United States that he is providing what he calls stringent new regulations for the strengthening of ethical conduct by high Government officials, and in particular he spells out measures to reveal gifts and other financial
May 10, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry interests of these officials. My question is, would the Prime Minister give consideration to similar safeguards with respect to his Government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think any special arrangements of that kind are required.



WORKING CONDITIONS OF POSTAL EMPLOYEES IN PRINCE RUPERT, B.C.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council in his capacity with the Treasury Board, asking the Minister whether he has any knowledge of a brief submitted by the Canadian Postal Employees Association and the Federated Association of Letter Carriers some time ago relating to wages and living allowances of postal employees in the City of Prince Rupert, who are suffering under extremely difficult circumstances in this regard. I should also like to ask the Minister whether he can expedite the answer in respect of that brief.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, I have some knowledge of the brief, but I should like to take this question as notice and provide an answer tomorrow.



BILINGUALISM AND BICULTURALISM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquette (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the hon. member for Fort William in his capacity as parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.
I should like to know whether there is any basis to the newspaper reports according to which Mr. Gilles Desmarais, president of the "Societe St. Jean Baptiste de Quebec", is alleged to have stated that an agreement has been reached between the "Societe St. Jean Baptiste de Quebec" and the federal Department of Citizenship and Immigration for the bringing of students from the Atlantic and western provinces to Quebec City to enable them to take French courses?
If so, could he tell us what is the nature of the agreement and whether the directorate

of Quebec's immigration service has been consulted?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any such arrangement. However, I shall bring the question to the attention of the Minister upon his return.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may welcome the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare back to Canada following her important travels in Europe.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Knowles:: May I ask her this question. In view of what she saw and learned in Britain and in the Scandinavian and other countries, and in view of her experience at the assembly of the World Health Organization, has she come back to Ottawa determined to push for medicare legislation at this session?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend very much for the fact that he has missed me.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps I should say,
"noticed my absence". I should like to say to my hon. friend that I am very grateful for the facilities offered to me in the Scandinavian countries and in West Germany to study their national health schemes, and for the opportunity to have been present with representatives of 117 nations, of which about 35 were represented for the first time by Ministers, at the assembly of World Health Organization in its first week. I return as I went away-determined.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr,
Speaker, as one determined to stick to the rules, I do not intend to make a campaign speech in the question period.
May 10, 1365


Mr. Fisher:: You are retiring.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A slip of the memory, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise a matter of urgent public importance to many persons who live along the lower levels of the various rivers in British Columbia, because of constant reports that the snowpacks at various levels are above average for this time of year. I wish to address my question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Has the Minister any information he can give the House as to the run-off that can be expected in British Columbia rivers this spring and summer?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, this question which the hon. Member for Kootenay West raises is of very great concern to most British Columbians annually at this time of year. We were doing pretty well up to the end of April in that the run-off was greater than normal, probably 40 per cent higher than at like periods last year. However, about May 5 we had a great body of Arctic air move into the Province. In certain sections it dumped several more feet of snow on the higher levels, and this has been reflected in the run of the Fraser River, which on May 2 had reached 218,000 cubic feet per second. There was a recession from that by May 5 to 175,000 cubic feet per second at Hope. In the case of the Columbia at Trail, the same thing was going on, because whereas on May 5 the Columbia continued to rise at Trail, it had receded 2 feet at 12 Mile Ferry. This, of course, will be reflected in a turndown further down the river.
In other words, cold weather has come into the Province and our gain of the last part of April has been turned against us. The Kootenay River is following the same trend, because it fell from 4.83 feet at Wardner on May 2 to 3.69 feet on May 5. The situation is that there are some areas of British Columbia with a higher snowfall than usual, and this is going to be a worrysome time for us. At this time of the year we rely, I think annually, on a measure of good fortune in moving the run-off at regular intervals, and we may have to depend this year on a larger measure of good fortune than usual.
I want to say, however, that in recent years, and not only the last couple of years, the Emergency Measures Organization, the armed services and the Red Cross have been far better organized in these matters than ever before, and I am quite certain that Governments at all levels will immediately be

Inquiries of the Ministry brought into play if anything untoward happens.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Doesn't the Minister think it would be much better to rely upon an ounce of prevention than a pound of mother nature's good fortune?


Arthur Laing: I want to explain to the hon.
Member, Mr. Speaker, that we are co-operating with and have made an offer to the Government of British Columbia in respect of spending $5 million to strengthen the dikes in the Fraser Valley. We are co-operating with the Government of British Columbia, in the person of Mr. Williston, toward the implementation of the Fraser River report which would be, as the hon. Member knows, the final and positive cure in these matters. We are playing our part.


Frank Howard: The Fraser is not the only river in B.C., either.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerald A. Regan (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. Inasmuch as the Russian and United States Governments have signed an agreement, which has now been implemented, whereby inspectors from each fisheries department have been going on fishing vessels of the other country in the northwest Atlantic fishery to determine whether any illegal methods are being used, such as undersized mesh, can the Minister tell me whether the Canadian Government plans to participate in such an exchange to determine whether trawlers in that area are fishing in a legal manner?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, at the last meeting of the International Commission of the North Atlantic Fisheries the suggestion was made by the United States to Canada and the U.S.S.R. that inspectors from the respective countries be allowed to board vessels of other Governments in order to ensure that nets with undersized mesh and other gear are not used contrary to ICNAF regulations. This agreement was accepted and now exists between Canada and the United States, and between the United States and the U.S.S.R. The information gathered from such inspection is available to other member countries, and if we are not satisfied with the information
May 10, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry received we are free to make similar proposals to other countries at future meetings of ICNAF.



REQUEST FOR DEVELOPMENT OF MARKET FOR SHARK MEAT

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question also to the Minister of Fisheries. Last year a fleet of 13 large deep sea shark fishing longliners from Norway made their headquarters at Yarmouth, Nova Scotia, while they carried out operations on the offshore fishing banks of Nova Scotia, and the first ships of this year's fleet have already arrived in port.
In view of the fact that Canadian long-liners operating in the halibut and swordfishing industry presently catch a large number of sharks for which there is no market in Canada, will the Minister of Fisheries inform the House whether any effort has been made by his departmental officials to ascertain the extent of the market for shark meat in Canada and foreign markets?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, I understand that preliminary discussions have already taken place between the Government of Nova Scotia and the Department of Fisheries with regard to carrying on further experiments in order to determine the quantity and availability of sharks in our waters.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: A supplementary question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that Mr. Roy Matthews, Chairman of the British White Fish Authority, stated recently in Halifax that a crisis is facing the world's deep sea fishing industry, with fish stocks becoming depleted, will the Minister of Trade and Commerce endeavour, through Canada's trade commissioners abroad, to establish new markets for shark meat which is landed in Canada in order to provide new sources of revenue for our deep sea Canadian fishermen?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to take the hon. Member's suggestions into consideration and give them as much attention as they deserve.



SOCIAL INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on May 4 a
question was asked of the Secretary of State as to whether quotations had been called for a new form of social security card which would remove the coat of arms of Canada from the card and substitute the new flag. Could the Minister make a reply in this connection?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, no decision has been taken with respect to a change in the present card. If any such decision is taken it will be communicated to the House.


John George Diefenbaker: Is my information correct that quotations regarding this matter have been asked for? My information is that companies are being asked to give their estimates for new social security cards, removed therefrom the coat of arms and the presence of certain things which are not acceptable to the Government. Is it true that quotations have been asked from one or more printing firms which have been communicated with, to ascertain what their tenders would be?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, it may be that discussions have been held with firms with respect to various possibilities, but I can assure my right hon. friend that no decision has been taken. When one is taken it will be announced in the House.


John George Diefenbaker: It is not a question of a decision. I asked a very direct question. Did the Minister's Department or the Department of the Secretary of State ask for tenders regarding a new social security form with the coat of arms removed therefrom because the coat of arms was not acceptable to all members of the Government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I say at once that the coat of arms is acceptable to all members of the Government, as I hope it is to all members of the House.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I have
heard the Prime Minister make statements like that before and then he has had to forget that he answered in that way. I ask the Minister this. Has there been any request made of various printing firms to produce this new social security form, registra-
May 10, 1965

tion form or whatever you call it, with the coat of arms removed? If there has not been any such request, all the Minister has to say is no, but his evasiveness indicates a basis for my question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have not been evasive. I stated in my reply previously that discussions have been held with respect to designs.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, Oh.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I make no apology for that. But what I do say as my firm answer is that no decision has been taken to change the present format of the card, and if any decision is taken it will be announced to my hon. friends.


John George Diefenbaker: Why have the discussions taken place regarding removal of the coat of arms? Is there something wrong with the coat of arms? Does it not meet with the approval of the Minister of Justice?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. We are entering into a debate of the question.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. John N. Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. I have just had handed to me an article which appears in the first edition of the Toronto Telegram alleging that I, among three other gentlemen, received campaign funds from deposed Seafarers' International Union boss Hal Banks.
I want to say before the House and my colleagues that I deny that statement categorically and completely. I also understand that in a later edition of the Toronto Telegram a specific amount is alleged. This allegation is based on the transcript of an interview, apparently, between the hon. Member for Yukon and certain members of the S.I.U. I have neither read nor seen the transcript, but when I heard the news this morning I discussed the allegations with my campaign manager. He has discussed the allegations with my fiscal agent under the Elections Act, and I am advised that my campaign received no financial contribution or financial assistance whatsoever, either during the 1962 or during the 1963 campaign, either from the S.I.U. or from any officer of that union.
Inquiries of the Ministry
I can say that I personally received no contribution during either of those election campaigns either from the S.I.U. or from any officer of the union, so I repeat that I deny completely and categorically any allegations to the contrary. I reserve my right in this Chamber, when I have had an opportunity of reading the transcript-when I find where it is being circulated-and have had an opportunity of reading the later edition of the Toronto Telegram, to make whatever further statement, or to take whatever further action, I may deem necessary.
There is just one further matter I should like to mention with your permission, Mr. Speaker, and it is this. The part of the transcript pertinent to me concerns a conversation between one Mr. John Dormer, who was the editor of the Canadian Sailor, and the hon. Member for Yukon. Upon questioning by the hon. Member for Yukon Mr. John Dormer said that he could not prove his allegations but was depending for their substance upon what Mr. Hal C. Banks had told him. So we are dealing, Mr. Speaker, in the area of hearsay, and I need not remind the Members of this House how Mr. Justice Norris characterized Mr. Banks in terms of being a truthful and forthright witness.


John George Diefenbaker: What did the Commissioner say about the present president?


George James McIlraith: What about the hon. Member for Yukon?


John Napier Turner: I should like to read to the House from page 249 of the Norris report:
He is a bully, cruel, dishonest, greedy, power hungry, contemptuous of the law. In his mouth, the use of the word "democracy" is sheer blasphemy. For him the "big lie" and the failure to remember are ever-ready weapons and shields.
I should also like to refer to that part of the report which deals with what Mr. Justice Norris said about the Canadian Sailor, as reported at page 128:
The issues of the Canadian Sailor filed with the Commission show that it is a dishonest propaganda sheet. On the one hand it directs invective and abuse against those who may differ with Banks-
-as I differed with Banks publicly in this Chamber when the trustees act was brought before the House-
-against other trade unions, and against constituted authority.
Then at page 129 the following appears:
Themes are repeated tirelessly-the technique for the "big lie" is practised unendingly. Distortions of the truth seem unrestricted.
May 10. 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry
The report refers to the Incident when Walter Turner, who is now a reporter with the Montreal Star in Montreal, was fired as editor of the Canadian Sailor and replaced by John Dormer, who was then a rank and file member of the union. The report goes on:
The "truth" to which he refers-
That is, Mr. Banks.
-does not derive from facts considered properly, and objectively, but is the "truth" according to Banks-which the record shows was very often indeed far from the truth and amounted to mere propaganda.
In other words, Mr. Speaker, on the basis of my question of privilege, Mr. John Dormer was the mouthpiece of Mr. Hal Banks; therefore the statement of Mr. Dormer which is contained in the transcript circulated and from which the Telegram derives its story depends on the character and the mouth of Mr. Hal Banks.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that hon. Members accept the hon. gentleman's word, but I would ask the Minister of Labour a question on this subject. Has the Minister received a copy of various reports, affidavits, correspondence and the transcript of a taped interview between the hon. Member for Yukon and various members of the Seafarers' International Union who are dissatisfied with the action of the maritime trustees and the procedure followed for the election of officers of this union? If so, has the Minister anything to report to the House at this time?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I received notice of the hon. Member's question as I was returning to my office from a meeting before we came into the House. I noticed a bundle of material [DOT]on my desk, and I suspect it has to do with this question. I have not examined it, but when I do so I will be glad to answer his question.


Michael Starr: I should like to ask a supplementary question. In view of the question that has been asked, and in view of the question I asked a few weeks ago as to whether the Government intends to reconstitute the Industrial Relations Committee in order that that Committee may complete its questioning of the trustees as to their

stewardship, will the Minister of Labour now indicate whether a decision has been made with his colleagues to reinstitute that Committee and bring the maritime trustees before it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker, a decision has not yet been taken in respect of this particular matter, because that decision is contingent upon a number of other circumstances which will be more clear as time passes. When the circumstances are clear we will make a decision.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Labour.
In view of the important part unions are playing in this country now, would the minister or the government not consider, instead of setting up a commission to ascertain whether American unions have a right to operate in Canada, taking action in order to give us Canadian unions made up of Canadians to protect the rights of Canadians against employers who want to take unfair advantage of Canadians, whom we must defend here in parliament?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think both the Canadian and international unions have these objectives and have carried them out very successfully.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: What about Paul Hall's domination?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reg Cantelon (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport. On March 25 the Minister indicated that a new capital assistance policy would soon come into effect in respect of small airports. I understand there has been some difficulty in working out the regulations, but in view of the fact that I have received an inquiry in this regard I should like to ask him when we might expect to receive the details he then promised to supply.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the working out of the details has been all but
May 10, 1965

completed. We expect these details will be available for distribution, in the course of the next few days, to those who have been inquiring about them, and there have been a great many.



NATIONAL LIBRARY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State. Can he advise the House whether the cornerstone for the new national library building is being laid today and, if so, why this welcome and auspicious event should be so deeply shrouded by secrecy rather than publicized as an important episode in our nation's cultural and intellectual life?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member is quite right. This ceremony will take place at four o'clock this afternoon, at which time I will preside in the presence of His Excellency the Governor General.



CANADIAN CENTENNIAL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State.
Could he tell us whether it is true that there is a deep crisis within Canada's centennial commission and that several employees are about to resign?


Maurice Lamontagne: No, Mr. Speaker.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice, asking him whether there is any foundation to the report which appeared in Le Devoir to the effect that Georges Lemay, a much wanted person in the criminal field, was in Montreal on April 23, 1965, and had entered and left Canada at Rouses Point? Has there been an
Inquiries of the Ministry investigation of this allegation, and is there any foundation to it? The Minister might also tell the House whether the Department of Immigration has any relationship with the Department of Justice in a matter such as this, so as to inform the Department of Justice about these things, particularly in view of the very long search for this elusive Mr. Lemay?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, now we can see how the right hon. gentleman has found a new and favourite subject which he may exploit for the purpose of-


An hon. Member:: Don't be smart; just answer the question.


Guy Favreau: As far as the other aspects of the question are concerned, I will take this as notice, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister of Justice indicating that he has no knowledge of this matter involving a criminal who has been wanted for so long? The Minister of Justice says he will take notice of this question. Apparently there is some political result which will flow from the question, but let me suggest that the political implication is that he does not administer his Department properly, but-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John George Diefenbaker: -covers everything up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister has said that he will take the question as notice.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: have a supplementary question I should like to direct to the Minister of Justice. In view of the fact that the R.C.M.P. stated that the second picture to be flashed on the Early Bird was not that of Mr. Rivard, will the Minister explain to the House why this very efficient method of detective communication was not used to locate the same Mr. Rivard, especially in view of the fact that the C.B.C. stated it was ready to co-operate and asked that this be done?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member will place his question on the order paper, I will supply the answer I now have prepared.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Arnold Webster (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question
May 10, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the announcement last week that Ontario planned to create Canada's first Educational Research Institute, and in view of the fact that the Federal Government is involved in many educational and research programs, is it expected that Dr. Forward, Director of the Scientific Secretariat, will establish formal contact with the new body?
Right Kon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, the Scientific Secretariat will be establishing contact with a number of bodies which are concerned with scientific research, and I believe the particular body to which my hon. friend has referred will be included in that number.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence, of which I sent him notice earlier today. Have nuclear warheads been delivered to R.C.A.F. Station Comox?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as the House is aware, a program was undertaken to equip CF-101 aircraft assigned to Air Defence Command with the defensive capability-both conventional and nuclear-for which they were designed. This program has now reached the stage where a number of these aircraft have such a capability.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: I should like to ask the Minister whether some of these aircraft are located at R.C.A.F. Station Comox.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would be advisable for me to give specifics in this regard. A number of aircraft in the air defence system have this capability.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. As I understood the hon. Member he asked whether these aircraft had been equipped with nuclear arms, not whether they had the capability of delivering them. The Minister has not answered that question, so I will repeat it. Have they now been equipped with nuclear weapons?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, that terminology, that they have a nuclear capability, has always been used only if these weapons are available to them.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Nonsense.



ARMING OF EUROPEAN AIR DIVISION WITH CONVENTIONAL WEAPONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Kon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg Souih Centre): Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence if the planes of the air division in Europe have now been modified so that they are capable of delivering conventional weapons, and have conventional weapons been supplied?
Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, this program is well under way. I cannot give the precise details but I would imagine that the program is well on its road to completion.



BRITISH COLUMBIA-PROHIBITION ON USE OF FLOATING MOORINGS

[Stage Direction]
On the the orders of the day:
Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Can he tell me whether orders have been issued prohibiting the use of floating moorings for small boats off the east coast of Vancouver Island immediately south of Nanoose Bay? If so, what is the purpose of this order, which is causing great hardship to commercial fishermen and other small boat owners in that area?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say offhand because I had no notice of the question, but this area is one where there is a naval installation and it could very well be that some temporary restrictions have been made. I will take the question as notice and get the information for my hon. friend.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Can the Minister tell us whether the proposed amendments to the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act will be brought before the House in sufficient time that they may be passed by July 1, in order that those individuals who come under that legislation will receive the same benefits that will apply to those who come under the Canada Labour Code on that date?
[Mr. Webster.)
May 10, 1965


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give my hon. friend the assurance that the amendments will be before the House by that time, although they are being worked out at present and will be brought forward as quickly as possible. As my hon. friend knows, they are part of the program for this session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will they at least be on the Order Paper within the next few weeks?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am rather shy about giving my hon. friend a deadline.
I do not intend to respond to the temptations with which he beguiled me last session.



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, it is not so much a question I want to direct to a minister at this time as a question of privilege I want to raise with regard to the answer or answers which I received to question No. 117.
I asked how many loans were granted under the Small Businesses Loans Act in Canada, in the province of Quebec and in Villeneuve county; what is the average amount of the loans granted at the three levels; in what municipalities in Villeneuve county were such loans made and what was the amount of each; on what criteria is acceptance or refusal of such loans determined, because this is a federal act.
Now, Mr. Speaker, as an answer I am told that by December 31, 1964, 11,215 loans had been extended throughout Canada. It is the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance who answered me. In the province of Quebec, 2,932 loans were granted, and the figures are not available for Villeneuve county. Why is the information not available? It is because no loan was granted and the parliamentary secretary is afraid to say so. 'The answer to question No. 2 is that the average loan was $9,013 for Canada, $10,598 for the province of Quebec, and figures are not available for Villeneuve county.
I see that the parliamentary secretary is now in his seat. He is aware that nothing was granted in Villeneuve county. That is why those figures are not available.
The answer to


it is not a question, but rather a question of privilege-: Inquiries of the Ministry is that the total amount of loans granted for Canada was $101,083,427, for Quebec it was $31,072,419, and the information is not available for Villeneuve county.
The answer to question No. 4 is that the information is not available for Villeneuve county.
But what is more disturbing, and this is the main reason for my question of privilege, is my question No. 5, I asked on what criteria is acceptance or refusal of such loans determined. To that question I put to the government, the answer I get from the ministry is that loans granted under the Small Businesses Loans Act are made by the chartered banks of Canada; not by the government or the administration; no, it is the chartered banks which decide if loans are to be granted to people who need them to maintain or build up their business.
Under the act a bank employee must examine-and that is the theory of the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance -the applications for loans guaranteed by the government with as much care as the bank requires from him in the conduct of its ordinary operations.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member for Villeneuve is seeking to debate a reply to a written question. I respectfully submit that on orders of the day it is not in order to carry on such a debate, and the hon. Member's remarks cannot be brought in order merely by asserting that the debate involves a question of privilege.


David Réal Caouette: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. After this
long explanation or critique of the answer it did seem to the Chair that the point of privilege would be that the answer was deliberately wrong, but that allegation has not been made. I must agree with the President of the Privy Council that just to continue on orders of the day a long explanation and discussion of the answer is not in order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by the President of the Privy Council, I want to say this. When we put a
May 10, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry question to any minister, and when we ask [Text] for any detail-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Réal Caouette: -we are asked to put our questions on the order paper. We do that, and when we get from a minister a written answer which is not at all satisfactory, which does not at all answer our question, Mr. Speaker, then how can we get justice, how can we get the truth and information in the house? This is what I am wondering about and I ask the President of the Privy Council to explain this situation.


George James McIlraith: On a second point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. Member has no right to ask you to interpret for him and advise him how he should conduct himself in the House of Commons. If he is not satisfied with the answer given to the written question, then he has means whereby he can seek a remedy but it is not by a debate on orders of the day. I would respectfully ask you, Mr. Speaker, to call orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like- [Text]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has listened attentively and certainly has enough information. The statement that does not please the hon. Member is "information not available". That statement may be quite correct, although it may not please the hon. Member. Therefore I see no question of privilege.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I maintain that the statement is correct and it is the reason why I demand from the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Finance a correct answer concerning the loans granted in Ville-neuve county.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


David Réal Caouette: He is able to do so.


On the order:
House again ir Committee of Supply.


Gordon Minto Churchill: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Government House Leader could inform us whether the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Ontario is acceptable to the House.


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, so far as the Government is concerned it is quite acceptable to the House. I would be very glad to have an order issued in accordance with the suggestion, that is an order that there be a limited time for stating grievances and that the items of supply then be called. The Government is prepared to proceed immediately with legislation as soon as such grievance period is ended.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, is not the way to find out what the House wishes to do with respect to a matter like this simply to proceed in the normal way, put the motion and find out whether there are Members who wish to speak to it? If there is any doubt about it, I can indicate that there are Members who wish to speak to the motion.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)


Michael Starr: Perhaps I could speak to this point of order-I think it was a point of order-and ask the House Leader, if that is the procedure to be followed perhaps hon. Members would be agreeable to disposing of this motion today so that we could go on with legislation tomorrow.


George James McIlraith: Certainly, in so far as the Government is concerned, the Government would be satisfied with such an arrangement and is prepared to put forward any order for the consideration of the House that would meet the wishes of the House. This is as far as I can go. I cannot speak for the whole House.


Mr. Martin (Timmins):: Have we not had
enough examples during the last two weeks of these new sweetheart agreements and collusion between the Liberals and Conservatives? May we not allow nature to take its course in this House?


Mr. Speaker:: I propose to put the motion.


George James McIlraith: that the House go into Committee of Supply.
May 10, 1965



LACK OF OPPORTUNITY TO DEBATE FOREIGN AFFAIRS

Mr.  W. B. Nesbill@Oxford: Mr. Speaker, there is a matter that I think will receive the attention of many Members of this House, and indeed the public at large in Canada, and that is the absence of a debate on the subject of foreign affairs. During the last few weeks, and indeed months, questions have been directed to the Government, to the Secretary of State for External Affairs particularly and on occasion to the Prime Minister, requesting that at least one day, and preferably two, be spent in debating foreign affairs. On every occasion that I can recall upon which these questions have been asked, the Government has given assurances that there would in fact be a debate on foreign affairs. The answer has always been "Soon", "Whenever appropriate", and the like. This situation has continued now for weeks.
A number of events have taken place in the world recently that have aroused the anxiety of the people of Canada, and the Government's replies to questions asked on orders of the day or at press conferences have not shed sufficient light upon Government policy in this regard. Indeed, the answers that have been given in this House and at press conferences on international affairs have been to say the least evasive, and certainly do not begin to give the public of Canada or the Members of this House a full picture of what is taking place internationally.
I should like to take this opportunity of requesting the Right Hon. Prime Minister to speak to his House Leader and the Members of the Government and try to set a day or preferably two full days, for discussion of foreign affairs. I am sorry to bring this matter before the House during the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who we all know is attending the spring meeting of NATO Ministers in Paris. Since this is the first opportunity we have had of raising this matter, I felt I should do so at this time.
Now, the questions in the field of foreign affairs that are causing great concern in this country are, of course, Viet Nam in particular and the general picture in Southeast Asia. In addition to that, in more recent days we have had a particularly explosive situation right on our own doorstep in the Caribbean, namely the state of affairs in the Dominican Republic. The general question of the relations between the Federal Government of
Lack of Debate on Foreign Affairs Canada and the Republic of France has been of public interest for some time, and a few days ago was again aggravated. I shall deal with this in some detail in a few moments.
Over and above all these other matters, Mr. Speaker, the thing that is concerning the people of Canada is the general picture of our relations with the Government of the United States, our closest neighbour and presumably our best friend-at least, most of us regard that country as such. In this regard, I say again that we have not had a debate on this subject. It is true we had the Throne Speech debate, during which this matter could have been raised. However, it has not been the custom in this House to raise such an important matter during the Throne Speech debate. I again request the Prime Minister to speak to the Members of his Government and try to arrange a two day debate on this subject just as soon as possible.
I think, among other reasons, the Government would be greatly assisted by an expression of views from all Members in this House in the various opposition parties. In this way the Government would hear what the public at large think of Government policies, or the lack of them in some cases, with regard to foreign affairs, and particularly those situations to which I have referred. I cannot help but feel that the Government not only would be helped by receiving advice from Members in the various parties, but also that the Government might be assisted in many cases by being backed up in its policies by the opposition groups. I feel this would be very helpful.
Somebody has suggested, perhaps facetiously-at least I trust facetiously-that the reason a debate on foreign affairs has been delayed has been that the Federal Government and the Government of Quebec have not reached some agreement as to which Government is going to conduct the foreign affairs of this country. Perhaps that is the real reason, I do not know. In any event, I again ask the Prime Minister to give consideration to this matter.
The first trouble spot I mentioned, and about which the public are greatly concerned, was Viet Nam. The Members of this House would like a full and considered statement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if he should be back within a few days, as to just what is happening in Viet Nam. We read many newspaper reports and we hear all
May 10, 1965

Lack of Debate on Foreign Affairs sorts of stories and rumours about the use of poison gas and other things. I believe the Members of this House are entitled to a complete explanation as to what is happening. After all, Canada is a Pacific power. What happens in the Pacific is of great importance to this country, not only now but more particularly in the future.
Other countries in the Commonwealth have given strong support to the United States in South Viet Nam. Australia has sent troops.
I understand New Zealand is considering doing the same thing. I am not suggesting, Mr. Speaker, that Canada should send troops under the circumstances which exist at the moment. I do not believe we should. However,
I believe we should make very clear, indeed clearer than we have done to date, that we do firmly support the United States in her endeavours in this field.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)
As I mentioned, Canada is a Pacific power.
I believe the present administration has, to some considerable degree, ignored Canada's position in the Pacific and her relationship to other countries in that area. It is time we had a Pacific policy-and I mean "Pacific" in terms of the Pacific Ocean. We are an important power in that area but we have never exerted our influence. Possibly we have never had an occasion to do so, but now, when there is an expansion of conflict in Southeast Asia not only in Viet Nam but elsewhere, I think we should exert greater influence in this area than we have done to date, and that we should back up the United States more firmly than we have done so far.
I know the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) has told us we do support United States policy in South Viet Nam. But unfortunately, because of a certain event in Philadelphia, press reports, and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, many Americans get the impression that Canada is less than enthusiastic in its support of the United States in this regard.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Nesbitt:: There are probably some Members of this House who do not support the United States policy in Viet Nam, and there are people in Canada who do not support it. But I think the majority of us do.


Mr. Prittie:: No.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The hon. Member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie) disputes that assertion. Well, he and other Members of his party are entitled to hold that view. But it is my opinion that the majority of the people in Canada do
[Mr. Nesbitt.!

support United States policy in Viet Nam and I think the Prime Minister should reiterate this support in a firm and unequivocal way. Those people in the United States who live close to the Canadian border and who have the benefit of listening to the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation cannot help drawing certain conclusions which I think are most unfortunate. They do not understand the niceties of the C.B.C. being a creation of Parliament and not of the Government. They think the C.B.C. is circulating Government views. We, of course, know differently. But when the C.B.C. repeatedly, day in and day out, gives nothing but one-sided views in its public affairs programs and the opinions of Mr. Minnifie and like-minded people in the United States, the listening audience is apt to reach a certain conclusion.
Australia and New Zealand have indicated in a positive way their support of the United States in this area and I think it is time the Government did something in this regard to make its position clear in respect of Viet Nam, dotting the i's and crossing the t's.
I know there are some in Canada who take the view that it would be much easier if the United States got out of South Viet Nam. They have no business there, anyway, they say. But I believe it has been pointed out on numerous occasions, indeed by the Prime Minister himself, that if this policy were followed the next victim would undoubtedly be Thailand, and then perhaps Malaysia, Burma, the Philippines and so on. The type of war being carried out in South Viet Nam is the old salami game. War by infiltration is just as effective as war by direct attack, and the new Communist way of waging war is by means of infiltration, subversion and the like. We had some evidence of it in this House only today. Surely we had an opportunity to learn from the events of 1939. I can remember very well as a student at that time how a large number of university students, professors, clergymen and politicians, said we really should not do anything to prevent Hitler from marching into the Rhineland. He had taken over Austria and the Sudetenland but he really wasn't so bad; he had built good highways in Germany and if we allowed him to make one more grab he would be satisfied.
That is the way many people were thinking in 1939. Yet documents subsequently open to us have shown that had we moved in the first place, had France moved in 1936 when Hitler went into the Rhineland, the second world war would never have taken place. We seem to have short memories. I can understand
May 10, 1965	COMMONS
that students born since the war would not recall the events of the late "thirties". But many of us still remember them and we know that we cannot appease dictators and countries which have a dynamic expansionist policy. And Red China certainly has that policy now. One does not have to look far back in history to find examples. Human nature does not change. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) used to be fond of using Boadicea as an example. I would refer hon. Members to Ethelred the Unready. When the Danish ships raided Britain he tried to buy them off with gold, or Danegeld. The Danes took both the gold and the country, too. If we try to buy off the Chinese who are pushing forward, looking to Southeast Asia, countries which were originally Chinese provinces, we know what to expect. The only way of stopping the advance is by doing exactly what the United States is doing at the present time.
Nobody wants a war but sometimes wars are not stopped by letting aggressors get away with slice after slice until the whole piece of salami has been consumed. Sometimes people have to be reminded of these things. For these reasons I hope the Prime Minister will reiterate in strong terms that Canada does in fact support the Government of the United States in its policy and position in South Viet Nam.
Turning to another part of Asia, to the quarrel between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, there was recently a press report to the effect that certain friendly countries- Britain was specifically mentioned-had been requested to mediate. A few days ago I asked whether Canada had been asked to help in mediating this dispute. I do not recall exactly what the Prime Minister said on that occasion, but the inference was that Canada was taking an interest behind the scenes. I think we should like to know whether Canada is playing an active part in trying to resolve this dispute between two of the most important members of the Commonwealth. To be fair, one cannot expect the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs to go into detail on such questions when they are raised on the Orders of the Day, but I believe the people of Canada are greatly interested in the Commonwealth and in this dispute between two of its members, and we should like to know whether the Government is playing an active part in efforts to reach a settlement, or whether it is merely doing what it seems necessary to do without being aggressive in its approach.
Then there is Indonesia and the activities of Dr. Sukarno. After constant prodding by
DEBATES	1105
Lack of Debate on Foreign Affairs Opposition Members of this House the Government has at last stopped shipments of wheat flour to Dr. Sukarno's army in Indonesia. The Government is not shipping the flour and the inference I gather from an answer given to me by the Secretary of State for External Affairs is that it will probably not ship such supplies in future. I am glad of that.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)
I turn next to United States policy in the Dominican Republic and the events on that island. What is Canada's position? Questions have been asked in this House of the Prime Minister as to what Canada's position is with respect to the Dominican Republic. I have here a quotation from the Globe and Mail of May 5, and as I understand it the Prime Minister indicated that he hopes the people of the Dominican Republic get a free choice in their form of Government. Well, Mr. Speaker, I do not think anybody would disagree with that view of the ultimate objective of the people of the Dominican Republic; but what I think we should know is just exactly what is Canada's position toward the intervention of the United States of America in the Dominican Republic. Do we approve it, or do we not? I think this is what the people of Canada would like to know. I believe this should be made clear.
There can be only three answers to this question. Do we back up the position of the United States in landing marines and other troops, sending warships to the Dominican Republic and occupying Santo Domingo, or large parts of it; or on the other hand, do we not approve of this? Or do we take a sort of neutral view and approve with some reservations, or disapprove with some reservations? The Members of this House would like to know just what our position is with respect to the United States intervention in the Dominican Republic.
Again I remind hon. Members of this House that if we have a salami policy being followed by Red China in Southeast Asia, we certainly have a so-called salami policy being followed by international Communist organizations in the Caribbean and potentially in South America as well. First it was Cuba; now we have a revolution in the Dominican Republic. As far as we can understand, the revolution was probably well justified and started off with the best of intent; but there is little doubt that the revolution has been taken over by the ever ready and ever willing Communist agents in the country, and undoubtedly what has been exported to the Dominican Republic
May 10, 1965

Lack of Debate on Foreign Affairs by Cuba, and certainly arms, have been coming to the revolutionaries.
It is all very well for people to sit around in armchairs and speculate about the benefits of selecting your own form of government, choosing a government by ballot, and all the rest of it that we take for granted in this country-perhaps a little bit too much so. But I think a great many of us make this mistake. Those who are ever willing to be armchair critics in these matters are accustomed to our form of democracy and we do not realize that our brand of democracy just does not work in other places, and cannot work. We have had ample evidence of that ever since World War II. I think the do-gooders of this country-and I mean genuine do-gooders-who would like to see our way of life spread throughout the world soon find out that it does not work in other countries where you have people with different backgrounds, and so on.
Then there is subversion, or war in its modern way, which comes by infiltration. When there is subversion in a country, it is no use sitting around and talking; you have to decide what you are going to do about it. This is the first thing the other people involved do-that is, the Communists. They have always followed the policy that a well organized minority could easily take over a highly disorganized majority, and they get in there and become entrenched.
It is my view, Mr. Speaker, that if the government of the United States had not moved in the Dominican crisis, we probably would have had another Cuban-type government there now. This would, of course, only encourage things in other places in the Caribbean and perhaps further to the south. There has been plenty of evidence presented in the press by reliable commentators to take up that position. I think that for this reason the Government should make clear whether it approves of the policies of the United States in the Dominican Republic, or whether it does not? We are entitled to know the answer.
The matter which I think is perhaps of the greatest concern to the people of Canada is the image of Canada in the United States at the present time. I can recall the elections of 1962 and 1963 when it was alleged by those who now occupy the seats to your right, Mr. Speaker, on the Government side of the House, that things were very bad between Canada and her neighbour when the Conservative Party formed the Government.


I do not agree, and never have agreed, with those allegations; but certainly those who made them at that time are hardly in a very comfortable position just now, because the image of Canada in the United States is anything but very good. I say, first, that there have been a number of small incidents that have built up this image during the term of office of this Government. First of all, of course, there were the economic policies of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon); but that is not an appropriate subject for this particular moment. They have been dealt with extensively in this House, however, and in the press. They did not really help matters, to start with. Then there has been a series of other events. As I have mentioned, there was that very unfortunate event that took place in Philadelphia concerning the Prime Minister's statement of views with regard to South Viet Nam. I would not say I would disagree with the views that the right hon. Prime Minister did set out at Temple University. I am inclined to agree that the idea may well have been a very good one, but it was an unfortunate place, perhaps, to have made the remarks. I would suggest that had the President of the United States made a speech at the University of Toronto concerning how Canada should solve the difficulties between Quebec and some other Governments in Canada, this would not have been taken very kindly here, either. I am sure the subject of South Viet Nam is just as sensitive in the United States as is bicul-turalism in Canada. While we might welcome the views of our very close friends and neighbours, we would not welcome them publicly, and particularly in our own back yard. I am sure the Prime Minister's motivations were the best in this case, but I think the choice of location for making them was certainly unfortunate. In any event, the American press seems to think so and, as I say, this has created a very bad impression.
Whether or not there have been quarrels between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Canada seems to me to be a matter of dispute. As I understand it, the Prime Minister says there was an argument between himself and the President of the United States, but when they parted company they did so as good friends and the argument had been settled. That may be so, and I am quite prepared to accept the Prime Minister's word in that regard, as I think all of us are. But the fact of the matter remains, that regardless of what took place at the
May 10, 1965	COMMONS
meeting of the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States, an impression has been created by the press and other public news media in the United States and in Canada that all is not well between the leaders of these two countries. The result has been a not too good view of Canada being taken in the United States. I am sure that all of us who have friends or relatives in the United States hear this.
Then, as I mentioned before, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, on the important question of Viet Nam, certainly gives the impression to anyone listening to it in the United States that by far the majority of Canadians disapprove of the policy of the United States Government. While some Canadians may well do that, I reiterate that the great majority of Canadians do not disapprove of the policies of the Government of the United States in this regard. But, as I say, those in the United States who listen to the C.B.C. and public affairs commentators could certainly gain no other impression.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
I should now like to refer back to the question of Dominican Republic. First of all, we should And out what is the position of the Government of Canada with respect to the partial occupation of the Dominican Republic by the United States. As I have mentioned, we should find out what is the Government's position with respect to the policies of the United States. Second, I would suggest to the Prime Minister that, while all of us realize the sensitivities of Latin America in this regard, perhaps we should endorse the policies to date of the United States, particularly with regard to a force from the Organization of American States taking over and replacing United States troops as soon as appropriate. After all, as the fate of South Viet Nam has some effect on the countries of Southeast Asia and their ultimate future, owing to specific policies of the United States, so is the case with the Dominican Republic. The Dominican Republic, however, is closer to home, really right on our own doorstep, and what happens there can have an immediate effect not only on the security of the United States but on our security as well. I say that because if anything should happen to the United States-we should make no mistake about this and should remind ourselves of it-how long would we last? I suggest not long, Mr. Speaker. We must remember we are playing with our own future, too. It is all very well to have highminded ideas, which 22620-72
DEBATES	H07
Lack of Debate on Foreign Affairs I am sure most of us would agree with if they were practicable and capable of being put into effect, but the fact of the matter is that the Communist agents in the Caribbean and Latin America who are launched from Cuba are no doubt quite ready to go into other countries. While we may argue or discuss this matter in the press, or in the House of Commons, or in Congress or somewhere else, these people have moved in and taken over. It is our own future that is being played with down there. We would not get this opportunity of talking about this question in a nice comfortable drawing room or in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker, if the Communists had taken over; we should remind ourselves of that.
The last item which requires some explanation is the question of our relations with the Republic of France. For some time a number of rather peculiar things seem to have been going on in our relations with that country. In this regard I mention, first of all, the alleged activities of some members of the embassy staff of the Republic of France in Ottawa when the question of Trans-Canada Air Lines, as it was then, purchasing certain types of aircraft was a matter of public discussion. This took place a year or so ago. As I recall it, Mr. Speaker, at the time there was some question whether Trans-Canada Air Lines, now known as Air Canada, of course, with its change of name, should purchase new intermediate range passenger jet aircraft from the United States, from the United Kingdom or from France, the aircraft in the latter case being the Caravelle. At the time there were quite a few allegations in the press and elsewhere that some officials, I understood rather senior officials, from the French embassy were, to say the least, attempting to influence students in Montreal to demonstrate on behalf of purchase of the Caravelle aircraft. That would seem rather odd behaviour for members of an embassy staff to engage in. France is a friendly country, and not only a friendly country but an ally; and certainly these allegations were not denied.
The second matter I wish to raise concerns a very strange event which took place in October 1964. I asked a question of the Prime Minister at the time, and he promised he would look into the matter. We have heard nothing further of it since, so I would remind the Prime Minister again at this time. It concerns a report in the Ottawa Citizen for October 5 last of an address by one Xavier Deniau, French deputy from Loiret, to a meeting
1108	COMMONS
Lack of Debate on Foreign Affairs of the St. Jean Baptiste Society in Trois Rivieres that week. In his address the gentleman stated that the Province of Quebec should separate from Canada, and he pointed out the advantages which might be served that Province by so doing. It seems that this particular member of the French National Assembly is Secretary of the French National Assembly's Committee on Foreign Affairs and is very clearly a spokesman for the Gov-enment of France. It is certainly the strangest kind of activity indeed for a member of the French National Assembly, holding a quasi executive position, being clearly a supporter of the present Government of France who comes to this country and makes such suggestions. I hope the Prime Minister has had an opportunity to investigate this matter and can tell us what exactly went on and whether any protest was made to the Government of France. It was said that this was done in an unofficial capacity; but I would suggest that in the case of a person holding a position like this in any country it cannot be interpreted by any reasonable person as being an unofficial act. We must accept that this person must at least have had the tacit approval of the government of the country from whence he came.
Another question which has been discussed repeatedly on orders of the day concerns the so-called treaty between the Province of Quebec and the Government of France, and the relationship of the federal Government thereto. This, of course, is a matter of dispute and we should have some clarification of the question. It is of great interest owing to certain recent events in the Province of Quebec which are causing widespread anxiety and concern all over Canada. The Republic of France is clearly involved in this question of treaty making. While I realize that on Orders of the Day the Prime Minister went into the matter in some detail, I do hope that he or the Secretary of State for External Affairs wifi give a clear step by step illustration of what actually took place so there can be no doubt about it and no misunderstanding.
The latest event concerns a matter which may be quite unrelated, though one cannot help but wonder whether it is unrelated in view of the difficulties, one might say, between the three governments of the Republic of France, the Government of Canada and the Government of the Province of Quebec. A very strange event occurred at the end of last week in connection with the arrival of the Secretary of State for External Affairs

DEBATES	May 10, 1965
in Paris. I realize that last Friday, when the Prime Minister was asked a question in this regard, he stated that he had been informed by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that all was well, that it was just a technical matter and everyone was happy. But that was not the view expressed by Mr. Charles King, who by no stretch of the imagination can be regarded as an opponent of the present Government. He had a lengthy article in the Ottawa Citizen last Friday afternoon describing the event. Apparently he was there, Mr. Speaker, and he describes the event as a clear snub. The Secretary of State for External Affairs had to ride along with the baggage across the airport. Those who have been to this airport know that it is a large airport, and I am sure the ride would not have been a comfortable one, let alone a very dignified one. Therefore one wonders exactly what is going on between the Government of France and the federal Government of Canada. Is there some trouble between the federal Government and the Government of France? If so, we should like to know about it. A number of these incidents which have occurred one after the other have been unusual occurrences. I am not attempting to make large mountains out of small molehills, but these occurrences, small as they may be, do seem to occur at regular intervals and are evidence which indicates that certainly the two Governments are perhaps not on the best of terms. I hope that the Prime Minister or the Secretary of State for External Affairs when he returns will give the House a complete and full explanation of this matter.
* (4:30 p.m.)
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I arrive at the matter of the Organization of American States, which is a particularly pertinent subject in view of events in the Caribbean at this time. I think that some hon. Members in all parties in the House have at one time or another expressed the view that Canada should join that organization. The former Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Green, was very interested in this question, and we have heard the present Secretary of State for External Affairs say that he thinks it would be a good idea if we joined. Fortunately, nothing has been done in this regard. Had something been done I think Canada's position under the present circumstances in relation to the Dominican Republic would have been a difficult one indeed. No matter what we might then do we would make
May 10, 1965

enemies. II we sided with the United States, as I think we should, we would unquestionably alienate a number of our Latin American friends. If our image is not very good in the United States at this time, it certainly would be far worse under these circumstances. I think it is advantageous that nothing has been done in this regard.
Canada should and can understand better our relationships with Latin American countries, but I do not think we should use the vehicle of the Organization of American States to do so. Perhaps we could increase our understanding in this way. Of course everything cannot be done at once, just as Rome was not built in a day; but perhaps we could increase our understanding and friendly relationships with Latin American countries by using-that is perhaps an unfortunate term-our association with that Latin American country with which most Canadians are familiar, and I refer to Mexico. Canada and Mexico have a great deal in common. Both countries border on the United States. Mexico is somewhat smaller in area than Canada, but has a larger population. Both countries enjoy unique relationships with the United States. We in this country have a very profitable, useful and helpful arrangement with the United States whereby we have an exchange of parliamentary visits once or twice each year. I understand that the United States has a similar exchange program with Mexico. Members of the United States Congress exchange visits with Members of the Mexican Chamber of Deputies.
Let me suggest to the Government that it might be a good idea for Members of the Canadian Parliamentary Association, and other Members of this House, to exchange visits with the elected representatives of the Mexican parliamentary body. Perhaps during these visits matters could be discussed in a very concrete way, improving relationships between our countries. I am sure this suggestion would be acceptable to Canada.
Mexico is becoming one of the most popular areas to the south of Canada for visits by tourists. One has only to consider the agreements made between the Canadian Pacific Air Lines and Aeronaves de Mexico to gain some understanding of the increasing travel between the two countries. Last year more than 20,000 Canadian tourists visited Mexico. I am sure this travel will increase. Mexico has a great number of products which could be purchased by Canada. This would in turn increase our balance of trade.
22620-72J
Lack of Debate on Foreign Affairs
I do not wish to expand on this idea at this time, but it is something that could be considered as a first step toward a better understanding of Latin American countries. Mexico is one of our very best customers so far as iron and steel products are concerned, including rails and locomotives. Canada is very well regarded in Mexico and I think an exchange of parliamentarians between Canada and Mexico would help us to understand the ways of Latin American people. I think it would also help us to increase our interests in Latin America, and would allow us to do so without the necessity of our becoming involved in that embarrassing organization known as the O.A.S.
I conclude what I have to say at this time, Mr. Speaker, by again asking the Prime Minister to discuss this matter with Members of his Cabinet, and with the House Leader in particular, so that at least one or perhaps two days could be set aside for a discussion of foreign affairs as soon as possible. I hope such a debate will not be delayed much longer.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order, please. Does the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam wish to discuss the grievance raised by the hon. Member for Oxford?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I was not aware that the hon. Member had raised a grievance. I thought he was asking that at some future date there be a debate on foreign affairs. As far as the Members of this group are concerned, we would welcome such a debate and might have precipitated such a debate during this supply motion except for the fact that we thought it would be better to wait until the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) returned to the House. I do not intend to follow the general tenor of the remarks of the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), but rather to deal with another matter.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, may I just say a word or two about the matter raised by the hon. Member for Oxford regarding a debate on external affairs, which he has advocated and which has been put to the House before as something we ought to do.
I appreciate the desirability of holding such a debate, as there are a good many matters taking place in the world today that should be debated. Let me say this afternoon, however, that the best way of doing this might be by setting up the External Affairs
1110	COMMONS
Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement Committee at once. We may find that as many Members would attend the hearings of the Committee on External Affairs during such a discussion there as would be in attendance during such a discussion in the committee of the Whole. I can assure the House that the Secretary of State for External Affairs would be in attendance at such hearings to answer questions and take part in the discussion. Indeed, if it were desirable and I was invited, I would be glad to attend and take part.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, perhaps the way I have suggested would be the best way to proceed, and I can give my assurance to my hon. friend and the House that we would be prepared to facilitate that kind of discussion at the earliest possible date.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Prime Minister.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order, please. I should like to read citation 234(2) of Beauchesne's fourth edition, as it appears at page 199.
It often happens, on the motion that the Speaker leave the Chair for Committee of Supply, that members air grievances without moving amendments. A member may speak on railway rates, another on naturalization, and so on. Five or six different matters may then be brought to the Government's attention. Once debate is concluded on one matter and another matter intervenes, members cannot again discuss the former.
Therefore, I would ask whether there are any other Members of the House who wish to speak on the matter referred to by the hon. Member for Oxford.



FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROTECTION UNDER CANADA-U.S. AUTOMOBILE AGREEMENT

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, let me just say one word about the matter the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has disposed of by his suggestion. I think there ought to be a debate at an early date on foreign affairs. I personally would prefer to have such a debate in the House, though there could be a full discussion at hearings of a committee of the House. Such a debate should be held in abeyance until the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) has returned from overseas, in view of the fact that during his visit I am sure he has obtained a good deal of information which he may or may not wish to pass on to Members of the House and to the country generally. It would be at least an interesting exercise in the process of extraction, to see
[Mr. Fearson.l
DEBATES	May 10, 1965
just how much hon. Members could find out from the Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding what is taking place in the world and Canadian foreign policy generally.


Lester Bowles Pearson: That would be a painless extraction.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It might be a painless extraction as far as the Secretary of State for External Affairs is concerned, but it might not be as painless for hon. Members who were attempting to obtain that information from him.
Such a debate could take place as a result of calling the estimates of the Department of External Affairs. However, I understand from what has been said this afternoon by the hon. Member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) that the Official Opposition is in favour of allowing this supply motion to go through without debate, and to get on with the business of the House. We as a party are as anxious as any that the business of this House be proceeded with, with the least possible delay. But there are two reasons why we feel that a debate should take place on this motion to go into Committee of Supply. The first is the statements which were made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) himself on Friday evening in Montreal in which the Prime Minister seemed to take the position that the Opposition groups were ducking any no confidence votes and that one of these days either the opposition would miscalculate or the Government would have to calculate in such a way as to bring about an election. I want to tell the Prime Minister that in so far at the Opposition is concerned he ought not to misunderstand the role of this party at least.
[DOT] (4:40 pjn.)
We have taken the position ever since the last election that we are prepared to cooperate with the Government in getting legislation passed just as expeditiously as possible, that we will not indulge in obstruction and that we are prepared to support any legislation the Government brings down which we can convince ourselves is in the public interest. But we will not back away, Mr. Speaker, from discharging our responsibilities as Members of the Opposition in criticizing Government legislation or in opposing those things with which we disagree, even though the Prime Minister chooses to wield the big stick.
I want to tell the Prime Minister that if he wants an election he does not need to
May 10, 1965

calculate. All he needs to do is dissolve the House, and he can do this any time he likes. It is his right to call an election. What I suspect is that he wants to have an election in which he can blame the Opposition for having defeated him.


An hon. Member:: How right you are.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I think the Prime Minister had better make up his mind. If he wants to get on with the business of the country, he will certainly get the support of this party in so far as proceeding with good legislation is concerned, but if the Prime Minister wants to interpret our co-operation as being a sign of either timidity or cowardice he is making a mistake because where we feel we must criticize and where we feel we must oppose we will do so irrespective of whether or not this involves an election.
The second reason for our projecting a debate on this motion to go into Committee of Supply is that we feel there is a matter, the discussion of which is long overdue. I am referring now to the Canada-United States automotive agreement. This agreement has been in effect since the 1st of January in so far as Canada is concerned. The United States Congress has not yet ratified it but it has been in effect for over four months in so far as Canada is concerned. Members of this House have had no opportunity to debate it. No Minister of the Crown has given to the House or to the country a full and definitive explanation of the policy emanating from the Canada-United States automotive agreement.
I think it is lamentable that an agreement of this importance, which in the United States has been submitted to Congress and is now before a Congressional Committee where it is being debated in detail, should have been passed in Canada by Order in Council and put into effect under the powers given to the Governor General in Council under customs and tariff legislation. Here is a matter of profound importance to the people of Canada. Here is something that will affect the Canadian treasury and will affect Canadian consumers, Canadian manufacturers and Canadian workers. Four months after it came into effect Parliament has not even had an opportunity to examine it, to question the Minister on it or to hear the Government's views or opinions. No, all this was done by Order in Council.
It is significant that in the United States their government signed the agreement but
Canada-U.S. Autoviobile Agreement they did not assume the dictatorial attitude of putting the agreement into effect by government order. Instead they drafted the Automotive Products Trade Act which not only incorporates the agreement but sets out specifically the protection which the American government is going to guarantee to its workers and industries affected by the agreement. We have made no such provision. Our Government, simply by Order in Council, put this far reaching agreement into effect and has left Parliament dangling for four months with no power to do other than ask the occasional question on the Orders of the Day. Therefore we concluded that on the first supply motion which gave us the opportunity to do so we should ask the Government to give the House and the country a full explanation and we should also avail ourselves of this opportunity of expressing our views regarding this agreement.
I want to make it clear, Mr. Speaker, that we are not against the rationalization of the automobile industry or, indeed, the rationalization of any industry if it can be shown that it is in the best interests of the Canadian people, the consumers, workers and indus-' trialists involved. Certainly the whole trend in the world today is toward a greater rationalization of industry, and much of the progress which has been made in the European Common Market has been due to the rationalization that has taken place, particularly in uranium, in the steel industry and in a number of ancillary industries. I have no doubt that as the years go by there will be advantages in a greater measure of rationalization of industry between Canada and the United States. But, Mr. Speaker, in this process of rationalization the Government has a responsibility to protect the interests of those who may be adversely affected. It also has the responsibility of protecting the interests of Canadian consumers.
What does this automotive agreement do? It relieves the three large car manufacturing companies, Ford, General Motors and Chrysler, from paying the usual duties on cars and automotive parts which they bring into this country. This will save these three companies something in the neighbourhood of $50 million a year. This is $50 million which the Canadian treasury will not receive. This is a gift which the people of Canada are making to the Big Three automobile companies.
I was interested in picking up one of the Toronto papers to see a speech which had been made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. May 10, 1965

Canada-XJ.S. Automobile Agreement Pickersgill) last Saturday in which he took issue with the new Democratic Party and said:
In order to defeat the Conservatives, it will be necessary to persuade those voting N.D.P. to vote Liberal. "I consider the N.D.P. to be a sort of mosquito which distracts voters."
It also distracts the Government from time to time. I know of no Government that has needed distraction more.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Don't you think we have had a fair amount?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The article continues:
"Any practising Liberal politician is concerned with satisfying the same progressive part of the population as that to which the N.D.P. caters."
The main characteristic of the N.D.P. was its desire to spend unlimited amounts of money without restraint.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
He goes on, and this is in quotes:
They act as though the money that the Government spends comes from heaven.
Well, Mr. Speaker, the concern of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) about the sums of money the Government spends comes poorly from a Government that can afford to make an annual gift of $50 million a year to the three large automobile manufacturing companies. Is it not amazing that the Government is so concerned about the New Democratic Party asking them to spend money when it comes to talking about medicare or old age pensions, but without even referring the matter to Parliament they can find $50 million a year, not for the Canadian public, but $50 million a year for the three large car manufacturing companies? I would think that the next time the Minister of Transport wants to come out and tell the public about us thinking money comes from heaven, he should first of all explain this gigantic giveaway under which this Government, without reference to Parliament, without reference to the elected Members of the House, is handing to these three companies a total of $50 million every year the agreement is in effect.
Now, Mr. Speaker, what we want to know is what is the public going to get for this $50 million a year? We are told that the companies will invest this money in expanding and retooling their plants in order to conform with the process of rationalization. There is no guarantee of that, but that is the hope. However, when they have invested this amount of money, which over a period of ten years will be $500 million, the new plants and the retooled plants will

belong to these companies, although they will have been built with money which belongs to the taxpayers of Canada. This is the first thing to remember. The Canadian people will have put up all the money for this plant expansion and retooling, but none of it will belong to the people who put up the money. It will all belong to Ford, General Motors and Chrysler. This is the give-away in which this Government has indulged.
I want the House to note, first of all, that there is nothing in this agreement that guarantees that any of the benefits of this agreement will be passed on to the Canadian consumer who buys a car. Canadians will continue to pay, and are continuing to pay, the same high prices for their cars that they paid before. Already, evidence is coming forth that the Ford Motor Company of Canada is shipping, on an experimental basis, 400 cars a month to the United States. These Canadian made cars will be sold in the United States for less than the same car is being sold in Canada. There is evidence that Chrysler Corporation hopes to ship 80,000 Valiants to be sold in the United States at a figure which will be considerably less than the same car will retail for here in Canada. I have a voucher here from the Ford Company shipping a Fairlane two door car shipped to Buffalo, indicating that the street price is $2,307.60. The same car sells in Canada for about $2,880. When you consider the difference between United States and Canadian currency, this car is selling in Canada for some $300 more than the car which was shipped to Buffalo.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, it is sheer nonsense for anyone to talk about this being a free trade agreement. This is not free trade. This does not allow me or you or any other Canadian consumer to go to the United States, buy a car and bring it into Canada. Of course we cannot, nor can we bring in any part for a car. The only people who can do this are the three automobile manufacturing companies whom I have named. This is a very special privilege. There is nothing in the agreement that I have been able to find which guarantees that prices to the Canadian consumer will eventually be reduced to the same figure as those Canadian made cars are being sold for in the United States.
I thought it was rather significant that when the Automotive Products Trade Act was before the Congressional Committee, there appeared before the Committee Mr. Leonard Woodcock, Vice-President of United Automobile Workers Union. It is interesting
May 10. 1965

to note that he was pleading with the Johnson administration to bring all the pressure it could on the Canadian Government to reduce the price of cars to the Canadian consumer. I quote from a newspaper article in this regard:
But the individual Canadian who comes across to Detroit, buys the same car and tries to take it back home to Canada, will still have to pay the tariff. Thus, there is no economic pressure on the companies to pass their tariff savings on to Canadian consumers.
The purpose oi the agreement is to provide the auto industry with a single market but there will be no such common market, he explained, until there is genuinely free trade for the individual consumer as well as for the manufacturer.
Later on in his remarks, referring again to the necessity for price cuts, he recommended also that the Committee obtain data on the profits made by Canadian subsidiaries.
I hope this is something with which the Minister will deal. We have not been able to get the profits made by the Canadian subsidiaries of Ford, Chrysler or General Motors. They are dealt with as private companies. We have no idea what profits they are making. I have heard astronomical figures, but I do not know whether or not they are true. We ought to know what their profits are, and to know to what extent they need $50 million a year from the Government or the Canadian people. We ought to know what their profits are, in order to ascertain whether or not they need to continue charging anywhere from $300 to $550 per car more in Canada than they charge in the United States for the same car. I quote again from the article referring to Mr. Woodcock:
Finally, he urged that the Johnson administration "make representations to the Canadian government pointing out that the maintenance of artificially high prices serves only to enrich a handful of U.S. corporations at the expense of Canadian consumers and Canadian and U.S. workers."
It has come to a pretty pass when the United Automobile Workers of America have to appear before a Congressional Committee to ask the Government of the United States to make representations to the Canadian Government to see that some of the benefits of this $50 million a year are passed on to Canadian consumers. Before this debate is finished, we want all the assurance the Minister can give us that the price of cars bought in Canada will be the same as for Canadian built cars sold in the United States. We want to know from the Minister why this is not being done now. We want to knew from him what assurances he has it will be

Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement done in the near future. We want to know when it will be done. We want to know what written assurance he has from the companies that it will ever be done. It is not enough to say that the laws of economics will ultimately take care of this. They will not take care of this as long as these three companies enjoy a privileged protectionist position. If the Government cannot guarantee that the Canadian consumer will be able to buy cars at the same price as consumers in the United States, then the Government must remove these tariffs not just in respect of these automobile manufacturing companies but in respect of all Canadians so that they can bring in cars from the United States and then, by competition, force the Canadian subsidiaries of these gigantic concerns to cut their prices to the Canadian consumer.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
In the second place there is nothing in this agreement which guarantees the things which the Minister has been telling us will come to pass. The Minister says this arrangement will create 60,000 more jobs and give us a bigger share of the market. But I would point out that this is not written into the agreement, and when the Secretary of Commerce of the United States, John T. Connor appeared before a Congressional committee regarding this automotive agreement he insisted that the agreement would not bring any significant change in Canada's annual $500 million deficit with the United States in auto trade. I am quoting from a report from Washington dated April 28 which appeared in the Montreal Star of that day. It goes on to say:
Mr. Connor was testifying in support of the pact before the House Ways and Means Committee.
To be perfectly fair, let me go on. Mr. Connor's testimony yesterday contradicts what had been said by other officials of the administration who said they foresaw no dramatic improvement in Canada's payments position as a result of the cut.
Canada, they say, may boost its share of the auto market by a mere 1.1 per cent, that is, from the 4 per cent we now enjoy to 5.1 per cent.
So here is the Secretary of Commerce saying there will be no improvement in Canada's position percentagewise as far as the total United States market is concerned, and here are some officials of the Johnson administration contradicting him and saying there will be a slight improvement, an improvement of 1.1 per cent. We ought to be told by the Government whether this dubious increase in the share of the North American market we
May 10, 1965

Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement expect to receive is worth $50 million a year. We want to know from the Minister the basis of his estimate of 60,000 new jobs. We want to know what assurance or guarantees he has from the automobile manufacturing companies in question that there will be an expansion of the automobile industry in Canada which will justify the Canadian taxpayer giving them a handout of $50 million a year. It is not enough for the Minister to tell us that he hopes the price to the consumer will go down to that of the United States cars, or that he hopes this arrangement will give us 60,000 more jobs, or that he hopes it will give us a greater share of the United States market as well as a share of the world market. All we know is what the agreement says, and there is nothing in the agreement which guarantees us these benefits.
I noticed in the Vancouver Sun on Wednesday, April 14, a particularly trenchant comment. An editorial entitled "Principles Betrayed Unless ..." says:
Among other things, Mr. Waiter Gordon's forthcoming budget will have to defend the Canadian-American free trade deal in automotive products.
It can be easily defended if it means that automobile prices will soon fall. If they don't, the deal is quite indefensible.
In that case it is not a free trade deal. It is merely a huge subsidy to a few Canadian automobile companies owned in the United States.
The Canadian Importers Association so construes it. Mr. Murray E. Corlett, the association's legal counsel, describes the deal as follows:
"It would appear as if the new plan more nearly represents a form of tariff protection for the benefit of a handful of Canadian auto manufacturers than a genuine free trade arrangement."
These manufacturers receive a state subsidy of $50 million a year through the removal of customs duties on their imports. The resulting loss of Government revenue must be made up by the Canadian taxpayers.
They had been led to expect more than full compensation by a large cut in car prices. The main object of the deal, and its true justification, was to equalize prices in Canada and the United States after a short period of readjustment.
The Pearson Government, however, has been notably ambiguous about prices. It says, quite rightly, that the Federal authority does not control them directly. They are under provincial jurisdiction. But it is nonsense to pretend that the Federal Government remains powerless.
That is a very telling criticism from a prominent Liberal newspaper in the City of Vancouver. People in all political parties are concerned about this. They are not opposed to rationalization but they want to make sure that the smart Yankee traders have not pulled the wool over the eyes of the Minister of Industry and the Cabinet. While it is perfectly clear we are giving the auto industry $50 million a year, it is hard to find out what we

are getting in return and we have a right to expect something definite from the Minister as to if and when the Canadian consumer will get a reduction in the price he has to pay for a Canadian made car.
a (5:10 p.m.)
The other criticism we have of this agreement is that it appears to make no provision at all for the employees in the automobile industry who will be displaced as a result of it. That there is bound to be dislocation, one must take for granted. The whole principle of rationalization is that instead of Canada making a large number of parts for cars sold on the Canadian market, our manufacturers will in future make a smaller number of parts for the entire North American continent and possibly for the world market. This is based on the theory that by having a longer run, by increasing the volume of production of any one part, the unit cost will be reduced, leading to great savings for the industry as a whole. We can, therefore, look forward to a good deal of dislocation, to some temporary unemployment and the retraining and replacement of men. I am told that the recent lay-offs in Windsor where it was announced that some 1,600 employees would not be needed is due to the fact that instead of making a large number of engines, the Ford Motor Company is now going to make one engine but with a much larger volume; consequently there is bound to be a period of readjustment and dislocation. But the difference between the approach of the Government in Canada and the Government in the United States, Mr. Speaker, is simply this. In the United States, when they presented their agreement to the Congress they enshrined it in an Act called the Automotive Products Trade Act, and in that Act they set out the responsibilities which the federal Government would assume for retraining workers, for maintaining them during their period of retraining, for placing workers who would have to be moved from one part of the industry to another. This in addition to the fact that there is already in the Trade Adjustment Act, which was passed under the Kennedy administration, a provision that where a rationalization of industry takes place workers will be retrained and will receive 65 per cent of their normal wages, or 65 per cent of the normal wage in the industry.
This is why the automobile workers, the U.A.W., in the United States have in their appearance before the Congressional Committee expressed their willingness to go along
May 10, 1965

with this agreement; because their Government has written into legislation guaranteed protection for the workers who may be adversely affected by this economic adjustment; they have said they will look after those who are temporarily unemployed and who must be retrained and placed in some other part of the automobile industry or in some other industry. But there is no such provision in this agreement which we are now discussing. I was interested in noting that Mr. Leonard Woodcock, Vice President of the U.A.W., when he appeared before the Congressional Committee had this to say:
He also decried the failure of the Canadian Government thus far to provide protection for Canadian workers and their families similar to that proposed in the U.S. and he scored auto manufacturers for failing to pass on to consumers in Canada the $50 million a year savings they are realizing as a result of the removal of the Canadian tariff.
Woodcock told the Committee the U.A.W. was able to support the Bill because of the machinery it sets up to provide adjustment assistance for American workers who may be injured through loss of employment as a consequence of the Act.
"In the absence of such provisions", he said, "we would have no alternative but to oppose it.
"The agreement has been entered into because our Government believed it would bring benefits to our country and to the people of our country but, in achieving those benefits for the people as a whole, adjustments will undoubtedly have to be made within the auto industry.
"Jobs will be lost, new jobs will have to be found and other adjustments will have to be made by auto workers in this country as side-effects of an action taken by our Government for the benefit of the country as a whole".
He went on to say:
"Then why should not the cost of these dislocations be considered simply as one of the costs of a national benefit, to be paid for by the nation? We believe", he said, "there would be every justification for adopting the principle that any worker adversely affected by the implementation of the automotive products agreement ought to be protected in full against any consequent financial loss".
I draw attention to this significant comment, Mr. Speaker, from an American trade union leader appearing before a United States Congressional Committee:
Commenting on the failure of the Canadian Government to provide protection for Canadian workers displaced by reason of the new agreement, Woodcock called on the Johnson administration to "make known to the Canadian Government the concern of the United States that adequate safeguards be provided for the Canadian workers affected by the agreement". Refusal of the Canadian Government to act "will certainly jeopardize the fulfilment of hopes that the principle of the automotive products agreement will be extended to other industries", Woodcock said.
"For, if the Canadian Government refuses to step up to its responsibilities toward those ad-22620-73
Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement versely affected by the agreement", he warned, "Canadian workers can be expected to oppose vigorously the negotiation of other similar agreements".
Mr. Speaker, that summarizes very clearly the position of American labour, that in their opinion adequate protection has been provided under the Automotive Products Trade Act, but they regret-as I am sure many of the Members in this House must regret- that no adequate provisions have been made in the Canadian automotive agreement with respect to Canadian workers.
So that I may keep within the rules, Mr. Speaker-I have a few more words to say -I should like to now move an amendment, seconded by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That all the words after the word "that" he deleted, and that the following words be substituted therefor:
"this House regrets that when the Government entered into the Canada-United States Automotive Agreement it failed to take any steps to safeguard the interests of the Canadian consumers, the automobile workers and the small parts manufacturers".
I was interested in noticing the other day, in a report in the Montreal Star dated April 28, some comments by the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury). The news report says:
The Minister added that the Government was now in the process of gathering information from all big three Canadian auto manufacturers-General Motors, Ford and Chrysler.-concerning the extent of the "manpower adjustments" that would be required in adjusting to the new free trade agreement.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that is an
amazing statement. Four months after the agreement is in effect as far as Canada is concerned, the Minister is now in the process of gathering information from the three automobile companies to see what men are going to be affected and what is going to be done about them. Mr. Speaker, can you conceive of a Government entering into an agreement that they knew was going to affect the jobs of thousands of automobile workers in this country, without some guarantee from the three companies, to whom they were handing $50 million a year, that those companies would participate with the Government and with the United Automobile Workers in setting up the necessary machinery to retrain the workers, replace them in jobs and keep them and their families adequately cared for during the retraining period?
One would have thought that either the Government itself would have set up the
May 10, 1965

Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement kind of machinery to take care of this dislocation in employment or it would have set up a tripartite council on which the Government, the automobile industry and the United Automobile Workers would be represented; and that these three bodies, prior to the agreement being signed would have set out clearly what the responsibilities of the automobile companies were, what things the Government was prepared to contribute, and what part the union would play in seeing that the men in the automobile industry who were either permanently or temporarily thrown out of employment were taken care of.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
Apparently it never occurred to the Government to set up any such council. Apparently it never occurred to the Government to bring in legislation to provide for this kind of protection for the auto workers. Apparently it never occurred to the Government to insist that the Big Three auto manufacturing companies, in return for getting a subsidy of $50 million a year, should be required to syphon part of it back into a retraining program.
It is not that the Government was not warned. Long before it signed the agreement the United Automobile Workers made representations to this effect. Many of us in this House repeatedly asked what provision was going to be made to take care of the men who would be adversely affected by this agreement. The Government has gone merrily on its way without making any provision, and now four months after the agreement came into effect the Minister is quoted in the press as saying that he is in the process of gathering information to see what can be done about this manpower adjustment. The Government have to do a great deal more than they have done to date, Mr. Speaker.
In the amendment which I have just moved reference is also made to the fact that there is nothing in the agreement to give any protection to the small parts manufacturers. All of this $50 million is, of course, going to the Big Three. But the Big Three farm out a lot of work to small manufacturing companies all over the Province of Ontario and to a few in other parts of Canada. Many of these small companies are going to lose contracts which they formerly had for the making of automotive parts. A few have already been notified that their services will no longer be required. These small manufacturing companies will either have to re-equip and re-
IMr. Douglas.]
tool their plants so that they can make one part in larger volume rather than make several parts, or they will have to retool their plants and move into some other form of manufacturing altogether.
I point out again, Mr. Speaker, that in the United States, both under the Trade Adjustment Act and under the Automotive Products Trade Act, power is given to the Government of the United States to give assistance to companies which are adversely affected by any economic dislocation resulting from the rationalization of industry. I hope that when the Minister speaks he will tell the House that the Canadian Government is going to do this for the small manufacturers. Many of them have built up a business over the years on the basis of making small parts which they ship to the Canadian subsidiaries of the Big Three-Ford, General Motors and Chrysler. Many of these companies will now have completely to reorient and reorganize their whole manufacturing operations. They will get none of the $50 million which the big companies are going to get to bring about rationalization. What assistance are these small manufacturers going to get? Are they simply to go out of business and throw their men out of work, or are they going to get some assistance through the Canada Development Corporation, or some other form of assistance? I think we have a right to know.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, I still believe that the Government should have brought this agreement before Parliament before it ever went into effect. The agreement should have been accompanied by legislation, legislation which would have assured the Canadian people that the consumers, the auto workers and the small parts manufacturers would be adequately compensated during this period of readjustment. After all, Mr. Speaker, even if the Government believes that this United States-Canada automotive agreement will have long-term benefits for the Canadian people, I still have to be convinced of this, although I am certainly willing to listen to all the Minister's arguments. However, if it is true that this agreement could have some benefit for the people of Canada as a whole, then I say that what brings national benefits calls for the assumption of national responsibility. If the Canadian people as a whole are going to benefit, and if the Big Three automobile companies are to benefit, then the Canadian people as a whole and the three automobile companies ought to contribute toward making sure that
May 10, 1965

a policy which is for the good of all Canadians is not paid for out of the suffering and the misfortune of the auto workers or the small parts manufacturers,
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, 1 trust that we shall have some statement from the Minister of Industry and from the Minister of Labour, and others, as to what they are going to do to protect the Canadian consumer, the Canadian worker and the small parts manufacturer who may be affected by the agreeement which the Government entered into without the consent of the Canadian Parliament.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that it would be relatively simple for the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) to get up in this Chamber and give the kind of explanation the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) has just requested. Because, Mr. Speaker, over the past few months, whenever the Minister has been questioned about the purpose of the automotive agreement with the United States, and so on, I think he has attempted to make it abundantly clear that there were four main purposes. Number one was to increase the automotive manufacturing establishment within Canada. The second purpose was to increase the jobs and job opportunities for Canadians generally, but particularly in the automotive field. The third was to try to do away partly with our chronic balance of payments position in general, and specifically in the area of purchasing automobile parts, which by the way, Mr. Speaker, is one of the largest items in the trading picture which causes our chronic imbalance. And the fourth purpose was ultimately to lower the price of automobiles to Canadian consumers.
It was indeed a shock, Mr. Speaker, to many Members of this House and I think to Canadians generally when we learned from the evidence given to a Congressional Committee of the United States that, according to the calculations of some of their experts, even after this agreement is fully in effect it is not going to change appreciably this imbalance of payments or trade between Canada and the United States as far as automotive and component parts are concerned. As the Minister has told us a number of times, we purchase several hundred million dollars worth of automotive and other component parts more than the United States purchases from us. The Minister has continually said both in the House and outside that he hopes this agreement would have the effect of bringing our 22620-'731

Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement payments position eventually into balance. We cannot disagree with that objective, but if it is not achieved, and if we do not in fact have an agreement with the United States which will have the effect of making a portion of the United States market available to Canadian manufacturers to the point where we do equalize this automotive parts trade between the two countries, then I suggest that none of the other three objectives can be reached.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)
If we do not have a relatively larger increase in the Canadian export of automotive parts to the United States, than in imports, we are not really going to do anything significant about increasing the automotive establishment in Canada. Nor are we going to provide an increase in opportunities for jobs in the automotive industry, and certainly we are not going to do anything about correcting this balance of payments which exists at this time.
On several occasions the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) has said that he hoped by 1968, when this agreement comes fully into effect, these objectives will be reached. He has also said on a number of occasions, although I do not have the quotations before me, that he hoped by 1968 the price of automobiles to the Canadian consumer would begin to decline. There cannot be any useful purpose in granting the Big Three a $50 million per year excuse from taxes, unless it is intended that the Big Three will use that $50 million to increase the automotive manufacturing establishment in Canada.
I believe it is fair to suggest that the Minister has tried to tell this House on several occasions that the $50 million per year will be used for that purpose. However, during the next two or three years, at least until 1968, it will be used to increase their automobile manufacturing establishment in Canada. So, while we have known for some time that it is not specifically spelled out in the agreement with the United States, nor is there evidence of any other formal written agreement with the automobile manufacturers that they are going to use at least that amount of money to expand automotive manufacturing in Canada, we certainly did take for granted that that was the case.
It seems to me there is some paradox here in that the Minister continues to tell the House and the Canadian people that all of these things are going to take place, while at the same time there is evidence before a Congressional Committee in the United States that
May 10, 1965

Canada-TJ.S. Automobile Agreement this agreement is not going to substantially change this imbalance of trade in respect of automotive parts between the two countries. If the Minister has additional information that he has not given the House, or is aware of additional firm commitments-we would hope in writing-from the Big Three, then it is about time he gave us this information so that we might know positively that we are not just handing a $50 million bonanza to the Big Three.
There ought to be other contingent agreements in respect of this over-all arrangement between the Big Three and other smaller automotive parts manufacturers in Canada. As the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) has pointed out, there certainly will have to be some adjustments in respect of the Canadian parts suppliers. I am sure the Minister will not deny that there will be some dislocation, along with the rationalization of the automotive parts manufacturing business. Surely there must have been some agreement of which the Minister is aware between the Big Three and their suppliers to the effect that the Big Three will not just simply accept the $50 million, letting the smaller suppliers fend for themselves and assume all the costs of changing their plants to meet the new requirements.
Of course we would also expect that there must have been some consideration or communication to the Minister regarding the workers in these plants. We have known for some time that transmission manufacturers, and other component parts manufacturers, are fearful that they will be completely put out of business so far as supplying these parts for Canadian automobiles in the future, because they will be coming from similar plants in the United States as a result of this loss of tariff protection.
I hope the Minister knows all the answers to these questions and is prepared to take the House into his confidence and tell us what the arrangements are. If there is no firm commitment with the Big Three, that they are going to look after this $50 million in a responsible way by using it for the good and well-being of the whole automobile manufacturing establishment in Canada, including the small suppliers, this seems to me to be an unjustifiable concession.
There is no real point in my going into a lot of detail or repeating much of what has been said by the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, because I hope the Minister has already assured himself that the Big Three

intends to make provision in respect of all those situations to which reference has been made. If there are no agreements or assurances which have been given to the Government by the Big Three, it seems to me that the Government has handled this in much the same way it has handled other arrangements. On many occasions the Government has followed the practice of shooting first and arguing afterwards. It has entered into an agreement first and then tried to work out the details after. The $50 million item and the dislocation of a great many Canadian manufacturers and workers is far too important a matter to be dealt with on that basis.
Perhaps this is another example of calculation or miscalculation, such as the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) referred to in Montreal last Saturday. Is the Government tempting the Opposition, hoping that it will calculate itself into a defeat, or something of that nature? We in this Party think the Prime Minister made a formal commitment when he undertook to head the Government of this country, back in 1963, on the basis that he intended to carry on as though he had a majority, and for the normal length of a Parliament, which is four years. We hope the Government, by its automotive policy, is not tempting the Opposition to bring the Government down.
I do not intend to continue at length because I think this subject has already been covered sufficiently, and that the Minister of Industry is well aware of the questions we should like answered. I hope he is prepared to give those answers now, so there will be no further misunderstanding about the arrangement, first of all between Canada and the United States Government, and second, between the Canadian Government and the Big Three, which will be receiving the $50 million annually.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: I shall be brief, Mr. Speaker. However, I should like to make a few remarks about the amendment just moved. But before criticizing the amendment, I must tell the house how surprised we were at this strange procedure. As a matter of fact, we are being asked to pass without debate the motion to go into supply. And what is even more amazing is that the ties uniting the two old-line parties are getting closer and closer.
This is further proof, after the evidence given to us in the last few days, when
May 10, 1965	COMMONS
attempts have been made to restrict the influence of minor parties in the house, that the two old-line parties are trying to unite their efforts so as to belittle or suppress the efficient work of minor parties in the house.
Mr. Speaker, like the spokesman of the New Democratic party I too want to warn that, if it is in order to frighten us-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must remind the hon. member that there is now an amendment before the house and that he must confine his remarks to the substance of that amendment.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am dealing with the amendment, but just as others were allowed to say a few words on the work-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must remind the hon. member that the remarks he is now referring to were made before the amendment was moved.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, reverting to the amendment, I shall deal with it directly-


An hon. Member:: We could well do without it.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement
Mr. Speaker, one would think that these men were actually paid by the large manufacturers. As a matter of fact, they are, because they owe their position to the funds supplied by the manufacturers. They work in their interest, but they do not dare say it to the people because, what they actually do, is only to throw a smokescreen in order to hide behind it. They use this smokescreen to try to prove or to say to the Canadian people: Well, we have done something for the consumer. But, as a matter of fact, they do absolutely nothing. They use the consumer as a springboard to attain their purpose, which is to protect capitalism which is crushing the people at the present time.
Mr. Speaker, those are the remarks I wanted to make because I could not gloss over the hypocritical ways always in evidence in this house.
Indeed, legislation is always introduced under a false light-


An hon. Member:: What a light.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: -people are always led to believe that tomorrow they will benefit from some legislation that will be of real assistance. But once a piece of legislation is passed, we find that it was only to make fun of the Canadian people who are merely used to gain some objectives.
As pointed out by one of my colleagues, their laws may be likened to whited sepulchres.
Mr. Speaker, I think this government has many pharisees and I believe the people are intelligent enough to understand, even if the government is brandishing the threat of a general election like a club over our heads.
Mr. Speaker, even if some political parties are playing politics and are here, so it seems, to force a general election, for our part we are here to administer public affairs, and that is exactly what we are going to do. If some parties are seeking a general election and are trying to scare us into accepting things we disagree with, they are very much mistaken, because such threats do not scare us for we have the people behind us.
We are upholding the people's case and as long as we are here, our duty will be to protect the interests of the consumer, the interests of the people, and to give them everything to which they are entitled without upsetting the balance between laws and rights.
On the other hand, manufacturers have some rights too, they are entitled to some

protection but not to the detriment of the consumer. Let them put their cards on the table, let them show their true faces and let them go to the people. Let them dare tell the people the truth and see what happens, Mr. Speaker.

[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: In
rising to speak on this amendment moved by the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), I should like to say at the outset that I am most surprised that he would move an amendment. He said he was not anxious to obstruct the proceedings of the House. We had given way in this instance in order to get on with Government business which is before the House. He stated that he did not wish to obstruct, and yet he proceeded to introduce and debate the amendment before us. I might say that we did not take advantage of this supply motion because we had been promised by the Government that we would be given time for a full debate on this subject. In the Speech from the Throne this is stated:
You will be asked to approve a resolution concerning the important agreement on the automobile industry recently concluded with the United States.
Well, we have been waiting for a chance to debate this very important issue, and felt that we would have ample opportunity fairly soon. However, on the motion for Interim Supply we did take the opportunity of bringing this very complex subject to the attention of the House. On March 31, as reported in Hansard on page 13004, I proceeded to bring to the Government's attention the fact that we, as elected Members of Parliament, had never been given an opportunity to debate this subject. The treaty was signed before even being referred to Parliament.
I realize that the executive of the Canadian Government was not doing anything illegal by signing this treaty before bringing it before Parliament. However, I should like to call to the attention of the Government the words of the late Mackenzie King, their former respected leader, who said on June 21, 1926 in this House that before Her Majesty's Canadian Ministers advised ratification of a treaty or convention affecting Canada or signify acceptance of any treaty, convention or agreement involving military or economic sanction, the approval of the Parliament of Canada should be secured. We were never given that opportunity. We will
May 10, 1965

have to wait until Congress passes this Act in the United States, and then I suppose we are going to be given an opportunity to debate it.
The New Democratic Party has seen fit to proceed with an amendment and take up the time of this House to debate this complex subject. It is a subject which will require a good deal of debate. The discussion we will have today will only scratch the surface, so I hope we will have a fuller opportunity later to debate the subject. From time to time we have asked questions about this treaty. We have received partial answers. We were supplied with copies of letters written to the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) by the automobile companies in Canada. We were supplied with them only after asking for them. They were not given to us by the Government of their own free will; we had to go through the formality of making a motion. Then I asked for the tabling of the correspondence between Canada and the United States on this very important subject. The Minister refused to produce this correspondence because he felt it would harm our diplomatic relationships with the United States. I feel he was hiding behind a smokescreen when he said that. He used diplomatic reasons for keeping this information from us.
I am sure he could have provided it because, while I have no proof, I feel that the information has been made available to the Members of Congress. I feel that we, as Canadian Members of Parliament, are just as much entitled to this information as they are.
I am surprised at this type of treaty being signed because it involves cross purpose legislation. We have the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) going out of his way to do all possible to prohibit United States interests from taking over Canadian enterprises. We have the Minister of Industry encouraging United States ownership of plants in Canada. This is only one example of cross purpose legislation by this Government. We have had the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays) introducing cross purposes regulations. The one provides money to grow tobacco, and the other one-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please; I have to interrupt the hon. Member, since it is six o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.

Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement AFTER RECESS



PRIVILEGE


Mr. G. C. Lachance (Lafontaine):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege regarding a certain document which was distributed to several members of the house, and particularly to the party leaders, and which is reported in an article written by Mr. Norman Simon and printed in the first page of this morning's issue of the Toronto Telegram.
In this article, which refers to the above-mentioned document, it is alleged that two other members of this house and myself have received electoral funds from Mr. Hal Banks, the former president of the Seafarers' International Union of Canada.
As far as I am concerned, after having checked with my electoral agent and with all those who could have had some financial responsibility in my organization during the general elections held in 1962 and 1963, I can say that this statement is untrue.
Allow me to add, Mr. Speaker, that the very fact that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) took part in conversations with former members of the international seafarers' union, conversations on which this statement is based is enough to make this statement seem questionable and unbelievable.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I wonder if it is not time for the House of Commons to take the necessary steps to summon some newspapermen, like Mr. Norman Simon, and have them explain why they publish gossip taken from unsigned documents without having the decency to check the facts with the people concerned.



The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mcllraith for Committee of Supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Douglas.



FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROTECTION UNDER CANADA-U.S. AUTOMOBILE AGREEMENT

Alfred Dryden Hales: Before the dinner recess I explained why the party to which I belong had decided not to put forward an amendment to this supply motion. I stated our party's posi-
May 10, 1965

Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement tion, making it clear that we wished to get on with the business of the House and are very much surprised that the New Democratic Party did not co-operate in this regard, particularly in view of the fact that we have been promised a full-scale debate on this question of the United States-Canada auto treaty.
I said I was surprised that the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) should have endorsed an agreement such as this. It is just another example of the cross purpose legislation we have seen presented in this House on earlier occasions. It is another example of the "come to me, go from me" philosophy of the Liberal Government. There have been many instances of this. We found the Minister of Agriculture paying out the taxpayers money to encourage the growing of tobacco while at the same time his colleague the Minister of National Health and Welfare spends hundreds of thousands of dollars in an endeavour to stop people smoking cigarettes. The Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen) endorsed an expensive advertising program, at a cost of $3 million to the taxpayers, designed to create employment opportunities for people aged 45 and over. I believe it led to the employment of only some 2,000 people over a five-months period, despite a concentrated effort on the Minister's part. Yet when the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) was asked whether he employed people aged 45 years and over in his department he said: "No, that is not our policy".
Now we come to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) and the Minister of Industry. Again we find they are at cross purposes. In the budget before last the Minister of Finance made it clear that Canadian taxpayers would not be given exemption from tax in the form of write-offs or depreciation in respect of cars costing $5,000 and over. Yet the Minister of Industry now opens the door wide. He says: Come on in boys; you can bring these $5,000 cars into Canada duty free. Did the Minister of Finance in his last budget remove this particular provision? No; he left it unchanged. I wish the Minister would ask one of his own supporters, the hon. Member for York North (Mr. Addison) what he thinks of the fact that it was not removed.
Again we find another contradiction. The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) is most anxious to increase the sale of our manufactured products abroad. We need exports. But what action does the Minister of Finance take? He places an 11 per cent sales tax on production machinery of any kind. It is one more example of Ministers working
[Mr. Hales.)
against each other. If the hon. gentleman does not believe this to be true, all he has to do is ask his colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) to show him some of the correspondence he has received from people in Windsor, where this 11 per cent sales tax is crippling the production of Canadian car parts. I will read one paragraph from a letter written by a Windsor firm. It says:
We told the negotiators for the agreement several months ago that it was not realistic to expect the majority of the Canadian parts suppliers to immediately compete with the U.S.A. high volume producers who have progressively built their equipment and tooling to the present high level over a period of many years.
Some of the Canadian automobile companies demanded U.S. prices, almost immediately when the agreement was signed-
It has not given our manufacturers a chance.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
I go on:
This 11 per cent tax on dies, jigs, fixtures, machinery and repairs is ridiculous and makes it pretty difficult to sell in the U.S.A., and rightfully so.
Every Member of this House has received letters similar to that complaining about the 11 per cent sales tax on production machinery. Here we have the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) asking the Canadian car parts manufacturer to compete with his competitor in the United States, and yet slapping on an 11 per cent duty before he even starts to produce the goods. You just cannot follow their line of reasoning, Mr. Speaker. We have this "come to me, go from me, where are we"; and one just cannot follow this line of thinking.
This U.S.-Canada car treaty agreement is a free trade agreement. I ask myself, and I am sure every other hon. Member asks himself: Is this the Liberal pattern of free trade between Canada and the U.S.? Is the next step going to be free trade in furniture? Is it going to be free trade in appliances? Where is this going to lead? I assure you, Mr. Speaker, and the Members of this House that the old, Conservative philosophy from the time of Sir John A. Macdonald and all down through the years is that we believe you cannot sell your economic birthright and retain your political birthright. However it would appear to me that the Liberal philosophy is just the opposite to this. They are going to sell our economic birthright, and in so doing we will lose our political domination in this country. I would like to quote what Robert
May 10, 1965	COMMONS
Campbell had to say in the Hamilton Spectator of May 8. I think it brings very forcibly to our minds the principle that is behind this U.S.-Canada auto treaty. Is this the ghost of Sir Wilfrid Laurier returning? Is this another case of reciprocity? I think this is where we are headed. This is the way Robert Campbell puts it:
Shades of Sir Robert Borden and Sir Wilfrid Laurier. Could it happen again?
Could the Canada-U.S. automotive tariff deal, if nurtured sufficiently in a political sense, lead to an election where the main issue would not be unlike that which led to the defeat of the Laurier government in 1911?
The Laurier Liberals favoured over-all reciprocity with the Americans.
Reciprocity was the cry, and it ruined the Liberals.
I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that if this treaty goes through and goes before the people of Canada, there will be another reciprocity election and the Liberals will meet their doom in just the same way they did in 1911. The Minister of Industry has stated that one of the reasons he went into this agreement was that it would help our balance of payments. Our imbalance of payments in the auto parts industry lies in the neighbourhood of $600 million to $700 million per year. What do the members of the Johnson administration have to say about this business of balance of payments? Will it help the Canadian balance of payments, or will it not? Secretary of Commerce John T. Connor had this to say, and I quote from the minutes of the Ways and Means Committee which held sessions last week, or ten days ago:
...I do not expect that our own exports to Canada will drop as a result. On the contrary,
I am satisfied that it is reasonable to project a continuing growth in the Canadian automotive market sufficient to absorb the projected increase in Canadian production without reducing our net favourable balance of trade with Canada.
I repeat the last part of that sentence:
-without reducing our net favourable balance of trade with Canada.
That is an American Senator speaking. What did our own Minister of Industry say. Referring to this Canada-U.S. treaty, he said:
The program will make an important contribution to the improvement of Canada's international payments position.
That is not the way the American Senators view this at all. I have one other quotation with regard to the imbalance of payments. This is what Robert L. McNeil, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Commerce for Trade Policy, told the Committee of Ways and Means:
DEBATES	1123
Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement
-Canada produced about 4 per cent of total North American auto output. As a result of the conditional free trade agreement, it was anticipated that Canada's share would increase to 5.1 per cent over the next three years.
Mark this, Mr. Speaker:
He estimated that the value of U.S. production would increase by $3 billion, while that in Canada would rise by only $500 million between now and 1968, a six-to-one advantage in favour of the United States.
Yet we are told and made to believe that this is going to be a great thing for Canada. Mr. Speaker, I think we will agree that down through the years when trade agreements have been made with our American friends, Canada has very seldom come out on the better side of the deal. How does the Minister expect to improve this imbalance of payments when he stacks up all these odds against the Canadian manufacturer? As I said before, we have this 11 per cent sales tax to begin with. Second the U.S. car parts manufacturers have the advantage in the cost of raw materials as well. I would like to just illustrate in a very simple way the problem that confronts the Canadian auto parts manufacturer. I have in my hand a small piece of wire which is made in Canada and in the United States. The price of the Canadian product is based on what it sells for in the United States, plus exchange, plus 22J per cent duty. So the American car parts manufacturer buys this wire at $3.80, puts a small gadget on the end of it, and it becomes a car part. Then our Canadian Government says, "O.K., bring it in duty free", and our Canadian car parts manufacturer, who has to compete with his American counterpart, has to pay more for the wire. He rightly says, "If I am expected to compete with my counterpart in the United States, I should at least be able to buy that wire duty free and should not have to pay 22J per cent duty on it". This goes all along the line. I do not think this Government realizes the complications they are getting into in this free trade car deal.
The same thing holds true with tubing material through which the gasoline flows or the brake fluid goes to the wheels. The American car parts manufacturer takes that material, bends and twists it to fit around the frame and the axles, so it becomes a car part and as such it comes into Canada duty free. The Canadian car part manufacturer has to pay 22J per cent duty to bring that tubing into Canada. The Minister asks him to compete with his American counterpart, and in the next breath tells the Members of this House that it is going to improve the
May 10, 1965


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. Member but I would bring to the attention of the House the fact that there are conversations going on in the Chamber which make it very difficult for the Chair to follow the speaker.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I hope that hon. Members across the floor of House who do not want to listen would take a very serious look at this question, particularly the Liberal members, because there is a lot at stake in this treaty, and we on this side do take it very seriously. As I was saying, the Minister will argue that an increase in production of one third or more is bound to create more jobs. I would respectfully remind him that this situation would have existed anyway. Over the years the car industry has gradually been increasing in output, but this is an increase which is a natural one and would have taken place had this treaty not been signed with the United States.
Now a few words about the removal of the tariff and the subsidy of $50 million. This money is taken out of the pockets of the Canadian taxpayers and given to the car manufacturers. It is almost the same as asking the Minister of Industry to ask every Canadian for $2.50 per head, or to ask him to knock on the door of every Canadian household of four and ask them too give him $10 to help defray this $50 million we are giving to the car manufacturers by removing the Canadian tariff. This money is given to
[Mr. Hales. 1
May 10, 1965

the Canadian car manufacturers with the thought in mind of reducing the price of cars in Canada. But have we seen any sign of lower prices in Canada Mr. Speaker? There has been not one indication of lower prices for cars in Canada.
I maintain that the price of cars in Canada will never decrease, but that the price of cars in the United States will increase until the two eventually reach the same level. That is what will likely happen. Nevertheless we have seen Canadian cars made at Ford's in Oakville shipped to Buffalo, and then sold on the Buffalo market to United States citizens at a price away below that which the Canadian taxpayer has to pay for the same car in Canada. In other words, this is free trade for the producer but not free trade for the consumer. If the Government takes $50 million away from the consumers it should give them a break and sell them their cars at the same price as the United States price. As I say, it is free trade for the producer but not for the consumer.
Now, Mr. Speaker, just imagine the Liberal Government entering into this treaty without making any provision for dislocation of small industries and businesses, or for those human souls occupied in these industries who are to be put out of work or transferred. There is no adjustment or assistance legislation to help these people. I might point out that this was one of the major provisions in the United States bill regarding this treaty, a copy of which I have before me. Their bill makes specific recommendations to take care of these people who will be transferred or laid off, providing adjustments of various kinds. But there is nothing in the proposed Canadian legislation to provide for a retraining program. There is nothing along that line. I think it is just another case of this Liberal Government going into a treaty without realizing the ramifications and complexity of it and its over-all long-term effects.
I conclude, Mr. Speaker, by saying that we as Conservatives believe that you cannot lose your economic independence without losing your political independence. This is one of the most important and fundamental differences between the Conservative philosophy and that of the Liberals. I regret that the Minister has not seen fit to give the opportunity to the House to have a free-wheeling debate before now on the subject. However, as I said before, I did take the opportunity on interim supply to discuss some phases of this very complex subject, and I do hope that

Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement the Minister will answer some of the questions about this treaty which we on this side have asked.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
From what we know from the limited information provided to Parliament, it would appear that Canada will receive the short end of the deal when this treaty is ratified.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, we are engaged in a discussion of what, in my view, is a very important topic. I should like to remind the House that on a number of occasions the Government has emphasized its view of the importance of this topic and the agreement, and has undertaken to make provision for a full-scale debate on a resolution to be introduced by the Government, seeking the approval of Parliament of this particular agreement. There has never been any intention on the part of the Government to sign, implement, ratify, or consummate a treaty without first seeking the approval of Parliament, accompanied by an appropriate debate and an opportunity for the expression of opinions.
It is unfortunate perhaps that in anticipation of such a debate there has been today some partial discussion of this topic. I do not think this is the appropriate occasion for such a discussion, as we are not discussing the resolution itself or formal approval of an agreement, in a full-scale debate. I will, however, endeavour to give a brief outline of this agreement and its implications, and to answer some of the misconceptions that have been expressed in the House this afternoon and evening.
There is, of course, a great deal of interest, as one naturally would expect, in the country in respect of the automotive agreement which was signed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) of Canada and President Johnson in Texas in January this year. I would remind hon. Members that the principal objective of this agreement, and there has perhaps been a tendency to overlook this principal objective, which has led to a number of conclusions being reached which are unfounded, is to expand substantially the manufacture in Canada of automobiles and automobile parts. We look to this agreement to produce a substantial expansion in the automobile manufacturing industry in this country, and I will indicate later in greater detail why it is expected that this expansion is expected to be considerable.
As a consequence of this agreement, I am convinced that such a substantial expansion
May 10, 1965

Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement will result. There will also be useful but, nevertheless, ancillary results, a number of which have already been mentioned. As part of this expansionary program there will be a distinct move toward the lowering of trade barriers between the two countries. This in itself is desirable, and I think all hon. Members will agree in this regard.
No one I think is seriously suggesting that this particular agreement is devoted to, or has been consummated for the sole purpose of removing barriers, but this is a useful consequence of the agreement-not the main objective or purpose of it. Similarly, there will be marked advantages to our balance of payments position. This again is not the main objective of the agreement, but is a useful consequence. There will be a marked rationalization and improvement in efficiency in the Canadian automotive manufacturing sector. This is not the main objective of the agreement, but a very useful consequence, indeed.
If one bears in mind the principal objective of the agreement, I think perhaps some of the misapprehension will tend to disappear. Basically the mutually beneficial agreement we have entered into with the United States provides for the removal of the tariffs and other impediments to trade between the two countries in the motor vehicle and original equipment parts. The agreement provides that the United States will seek Congressional authority during the current Congressional session to enter into a free trade agreement in respect of original equipment parts produced in Canada, and to make such free entry treatment retroactive to the signing of the agreement.
I am pleased to be able to report to the House that a bill to this effect, of which mention has been made, has been introduced in Congress with the full support of the administration. Furthermore, the first round of Congressional hearings leading to the passage of this bill has been completed, with leading representatives of the administration, the automotive industry and, indeed, trade unions of the United States, coming out in full support of the agreement.
The measures on the Canadian side were brought into operation by Order in Council in January of this year. The agreement itself will come into full operation on both sides of the border as soon as Congress has enacted duty free entry into the United States and the resolution presented to Parliament has been approved by the Canadian Parliament.
The measure was brought into force on January 18 of this year to enable the industry

in Canada to proceed without delay with the implementation of plans to increase production and employment. Because the industry was already well along with its plans of production scheduling for the model year 1966, any delay would have made it difficult to proceed with expansion plans in the forthcoming model year. As a consequence it was highly desirable that the industry be able to take the greatest possible advantage of the record expansion of the North American market for vehicle and original equipment parts. In order to achieve expansion and greater efficiency, as rapidly as possible, a new intergovernmental agreement was adopted, making it possible for Canada to launch a program which will obtain, in my view, enduring benefits for Canadians. Furthermore, it represents a joint approach by the two Governments which recognize the existence of the special situation confronting the industry.
I repeat, the basic objective of the plan is to provide a rapidly expanding market for Canadian motor vehicle and component producers. In this way production, trade, employment and efficiency will be increased to a substantial degree. In order to enable Canadian vehicle and parts producers to achieve these objectives, a number of improved objectives have been incorporated in the program. Not only are these to attain expansion in the industry and its work force, but they are also designed to enable producers to make the necessary adjustments within the framework of expanding output.
Mention has been made of the fact that in the agreement with the United States there was no provision for safeguards in spite of the interests of Canadian consumers, automobile workers and small parts manufacturers. I would agree that such safeguards, such protections, are not spelled out in the agreement executed between Canada and the United States. These safeguards, these provisions to protect the Canadian element, are contained in the assurances given by all the motor vehicle manufacturers, not merely the Big Three, and prototype assurances covering the Big Three were tabled in the House over a week ago.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
It will be seen from these assurances, these undertakings by the motor vehicle manufacturers and from the terms of the Order in Council defining, for the purpose of duty free entry, what is a Canadian motor vehicle manufacturer, that there is in fact the kind
May 10, 1965

of assistance required to parts manufacturers and others to get over the transitional period. We in this country can contemplate going through a transition based upon a very rapidly expanding market, whereas if one takes the trouble to examine the United States legislation he will see that it contemplates assistance being provided where the market for a particular item or component has shrunk. We do not contemplate that the market for Canadian produced components will shrink. We expect the market to expand and as a consequence the kind of general legislation provided for in the United States is not, I suggest, needed here.
Because the agreement and the ancillary documents do make it clear that there will be a substantial expansion of production in Canada, we would expect that the problems of transition would be exceptional rather than general, and I think all Members of the House will agree that the solution to exceptional problems as distinct from general problems is better found in precise, detailed solutions than in general solutions or general provisions such as are laid down in the United States Trade Assistance Act. While I think that perhaps in a situation of generalized difficulty the kind of legislation provided for in the United States is helpful, we do not contemplate this kind of situation and in order to provide specific, useful and appropriate solutions to problems we must wait until those problems arise.
A case in point perhaps has been the recent flurry that occurred over the anticipated layoff of some 1,500 workers at the Ford Motor Company of Canada. This was part of a plan for increasing substantially the production of the Ford Motor Company and called for a temporary lay-off. As the plan advanced, however, it became apparent to the Ford Motor Company that the lay-offs which had been originally contemplated in the early stages of the plan probably would not in fact be necessary, at least in the numbers originally contemplated. All Members will recall that of the some 250 contemplated to be laid off in May it now looks as if there will be only 49 or less laid off in that month. For this reason it is difficult to enact appropriate, specific legislation until the dimension and nature of the problems become a little more clearly defined.
If indeed up to the present we have been facing problems in the department, these have been based on apprehensions expressed by a number of people such as Canadian parts manufacturers and labour leaders.
Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement These, however, have been forebodings or apprehensions as to things that might possibly happen in the future. I am glad to say that to date we do not know of any specific instance in which real difficulties have occurred.
Ever since the genesis of this plan we have been in communication continuously with the Parts Manufacturers Association and with a great many individual parts manufacturers. Right from the outset they have expressed worry as to what might happen, and what some of them have said probably would happen. But to date none of these forebodings, none of these apprehensions, have come true, and until such time as we do discover concrete instances of real hardship it is difficult to generalize on solutions which may be helpful.
Mention was made of the fact that labour was going to be seriously affected and, indeed, by way of expression of a generalized apprehension the theory was advanced that because of the 11 per cent sales tax imposed by a much earlier budget the auto parts industry and the motor car manufacturing industry in Canada find themselves in a position where it is impossible for them to compete. I would draw the attention of the hon. Member to some figures I have been given which are perhaps revealing of the state of the motor car manufacturing industry in recent days. As of January 1, 1964, there were some 40,000 people employed by the motor car manufacturers. As of January 31, 1965, that number had risen to 44,900, an increase of some 4,900 over the year. In the case of the auto parts manufacturers, those firms which have been badly hurt both by the agreement and by the 11 per cent sales tax, I am told that at January 31, 1964 employment stood at 26,900 and by January 31, 1965, one year later, this figure had risen to some 30,100, an increase in employment of something in excess of 12 per cent during a period of severe damage.
I might also point out that taking the weeks covered by the period January 1 to April 17 and comparing 1964 with 1965, production of motor cars rose from 212,000 to 222,000 and the output of trucks rose from 37,000 to 42,000.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I do not wish to interrupt the Minister, but would he not agree that the increase would have been the same regardless of the United States-Canada auto agreement, because of the natural increase in sales in Canada?
May 10, 1965

Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am addressing these remarks particularly to the criticism of the sales tax and the suggestion that the 11 per cent sales tax was causing a decline and disaster in the automotive industry. The sales tax has been in effect in this period. Obviously the figures I have given as to employment at January 1, 1964 and January 1, 1965 are no real indication of what the new agreement is going to achieve because they relate to the period before the agreement. [DOT] (8:50 pm.)
The same thing is true of the period in respect of production of motor cars. Obviously, the production of motor cars has not yet been significantly affected by the signing of the agreement last January. It is much too early, because of the time lag that takes place in automobile production, to achieve results this rapidly. In fact, as a consequence of the signing of the agreement, plans are being formulated now by motor car manufacturers in concert with parts manufacturers with a view to the changeover, rationalization and expansion of their production. It is only when these plans become more precise, become more firm, that one will be able to say with any degree of certainty what kind of transitional measures, if any, may be needed.
I can say, further, that up to the present it has not been apparent that anyone has been seriously affected in an adverse way as a consequence of the signing of this agreement. It will be my hope that virtually no one will be adversely affected. One reason, of course, for this is the safeguards incorporated into the agreement. I think perhaps there is some misunderstanding about this. I should not say "incorporated into the agreement" but in the understanding with the companies. These safeguards are really four in number.
In the first place, the motor car manufacturers in Canada, and this not merely the big ones but all motor car manufacturers, are required to maintain their production in Canada, their continuing output and level of Canadian production, so that the level of Canadian value be not less in dollars than that achieved in the model year, 1964. This stands as a floor, to begin with. The motor car manufacturers further agree that, in respect of any increase in sales, not of manufacture but in respect of any increase in sales in the Canadian domestic market, that is in respect to any growth of the Canadian market, they will undertake to ensure that the added Canadian value above the base I

have mentioned will not be less than 60 per cent of the increase in the size of the Canadian market. Third, the motor car manufacturers undertake to assemble or manufacture in Canada motor cars in numbers in relation to their total sales in Canada not less than the ratio of manufacturing to total sales which obtained in the model year 1964.
Finally, and perhaps most important of all, the manufacturers individually assume and undertake to increase production in Canada by an annual rate of $260 million per year above the 1964 level. Now, all of this, the floor, plus the ratio requirement for manufacturing in Canada, the 60 per cent increase in the Canadian market, plus the $260 million annual rate, means that there will be by 1968 an increase in production in Canada of roughly 50 per cent over the 1964 level.
Now, I do not believe that many Members would suggest that the normal growth of the Canadian market is going to be at a rate approximating 50 per cent in a three year span. This is highly unlikely. What is being planned, the program here, is a substantial and very rapid increase in Canadian production. It is manifest to the motor car manufacturers, and I think it is coming to be understood by the parts manufacturers in Canada, that because of this very substantial increase in the market for Canadian produced cars and components, there will be a substantial demand to be filled if only they have the energy, the capacity and the ability to fill it.
It is, of course, the continuing task of the Department of Industry and its advisers to be helpful in providing advice, solutions and suggestions to the problems of transition from a limited production to the large scale production which this program does envisage. I should like to comment on some specific points that have been raised.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Minister a question before he continues? Can he tell the House something about the form in which these commitments have been made by the automobile industry? Do they take the form of an agreement with the automobile industry? Is it simply an exchange of letters with the Minister, and will those letters be tabled so that we will have full information as to the nature of the commitments made by the automobile industry?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The documents on which the program rests are, first, an Order in Council which defines what is a Canadian motor car manufacturer in order to qualify for duty free
May 10, 1965

entry. That Order in Council, the number of which I have not got here but it was tabled in the House in January, provides that a motor car manufacturer, for such free entry must maintain the floor production and must continue to manufacture in the stipulated ratio. The other documents evidencing the undertaking are letters addressed to the Minister of Industry by the motor car manufacturers, of which three prototypes are perhaps more significant because they are from the Big Three. They were tabled last week in the House and are available to all Members. It is these letters which contain the assurances by the motor car manufacturers that they will increase production in Canada of automotive products, in addition to the statutory items, by a fixed amount for each of the large producers, totalling in all $260 million. I hope this explains it.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Will the Minister permit me a question in relation to the tabling of documents? I am trying to find the reference. The Minister made some reference to documents which were tabled last week. Are there some other documents which have been tabled, other than the ones to which I find reference in Votes and Proceedings for April 26 when the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Nicholson), for the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury), laid before the House copies of letters dated in January and addressed to the Minister of Industry? Are those the documents to which the Minister is referring, or are there some additional documents which were tabled later than April 26?
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Those are the prototype, if I may use that term, letters of undertaking by manufacturers tabled by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I refer the hon. Member also to the agreement itself and the Order in Council, for the significance of the agreement which we tabled at the time of the signing of the agreement back in January. Perhaps I had better check on the exact date when these were tabled, because the House was not in session in January. I am advised that the agreement itself was tabled on Wednesday, February 24, 1965. At the same time was tabled the Order in Council the number of which I regret to say I do not have. But the agreement itself contains, in the annex, most of the elements in the Order in Council, and if one refers to the agreement most of the information will, I believe, be obtained.
As I was saying, these requirements for very substantially increased production in
Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement Canada constitute the most important safeguards not only for labour in Canada but for the parts manufacturers, looking forward as they do to increased component markets and substantially increased labour requirements.
I would draw the attention of hon. Members to some remarks made by the Ontario Minister of Labour recently indicating that as a consequence of these moves in the automotive industry there is now in that province a fairly acute shortage of labour in this particular industry. This is not the kind of evidence which suggests that grave difficulties are being experienced or that there is as a consequence of this agreement substantial unemployment in the automobile industry. These, then, are the principal safeguards both for labour and for the parts manufacturers.
As to the consumer, it is clear that before the cost to Canadian consumers can go down it will be necessary to reduce the cost of manufacture. To bring this about involves a change in the current techniques of manufacture. It calls for investment and for time. Very substantial investments are needed, and these are now being made. However, results cannot be achieved in one day. Under the system of price competition which we have in this country, a system which most people are fairly happy about, we are confident that the operation of this system, as the manufacturers are able to reduce their costs, will lead to reduction in price being passed on to the consumer. There is on occasion a demand on the Government to give assurances that there will be a decrease in the price of cars. I think the hon. Member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales) was more realistic when he said he anticipated that the likely results of this operation would be a continuing increase, a nominal increase, anyhow, in the price of cars in the United States, but with the ability to hold the price of cars in Canada level, with the result that in the course of time the differential in price between this country and the United States would disappear. I myself think it is more likely that we shall not have price increases than that we shall have significant price decreases, though I am hopeful we may have some modest price decrease. I should like to caution hon. Members, however, that a price change, whether in the form of there being no increase, or a decrease, cannot be expected to take place until there has been some significant alteration in the cost of production. Such a change involves a revision of our manufacturing techniques and this revision is now being carried out.
May 10, 1965
1130	COMMONS
Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement
A number of hon. Members have mentioned a $50 million gift by the Government to the Big Three. I would point out that under the present arrangements any motor vehicle manufacturer in Canada, not only the Big Three, may import finished cars and components duty free, and an assembler of components in Canada, a components parts manufacturer, may also import components duty free into Canada from the United States for further manufacture into components for incorporation into Canadian cars. This means that the right to duty free entry is not a present or bonus given entirely to the Big Three; some part of it is available to all manufacturers of motor cars or those manufacturing components on their behalf in Canada.
There has been some misconception about the $50 million. This sum happens to be the level of duty paid by all the motor car manufacturing industry on imports into Canada in 1964 of components and finished motor cars. The entire industry contributed to the payment of this duty. Therefore, relief from this duty is distributed among the industry in the proportion in which the duty was previously contributed, or in accordance with the proportion which would have been contributed. I do not think one should regard customs duties in this field generally as a source of revenue to the taxpayers of Canada or, rather, as being a means of raising revenue. I think that in accordance with the present general economic philosophy tariffs are not principally a means of raising revenue although revenue is, of course, derived from them. They are thought of, rather, as being chiefly a device for changing the patterns of trade and manufacture, and the purpose of removing the duty in respect of imports of motor vehicles and original equipment parts on entry to Canada was not to change the revenue situation or to change the financial position of the companies involved but to alter the patterns of manufacture and trade within Canada.
That was the purpose of the removal of the duty. In return for enjoying these advantages the motor car manufacturers have undertaken, as I pointed out earlier-and this is a substantial and significant undertaking-to increase production in Canada of automobiles and automobile parts by some 50 per cent above 1964 levels, with all the advantages which must of necessity flow from this.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
This undertaking to increase has been done in a way which, I suggest, does afford pro-


tection, not only to labour because of the obviously substantially increased demand for labour, but it will give a lift to the component manufacturers, the parts manufacturers, because of the requirements insisted upon visa-vis the manufacturers that they observe certain practices, namely the ratio of manufacture to total sales, and the percentage of Canadian added value, plus the substantial increment in Canadian production. This finally, will lead to a decrease in costs with regard to manufacture in Canada, will have the result of lowered costs, and as a consequence a narrowing of the differential in the retail price of cars in the United States and in Canada.
Perhaps in respect of price, Mr. Speaker, I might point out that we in Canada would not be too realistic in assuming that cars in this country, even though they were to cost exactly the same to manufacture, would be retailed for the same price as cars in the United States. The reason for this is that we have a very large sales and distribution apparatus in motor car dealers who are spread all the way across Canada. These people have to operate in a very much thinner, less dense market than their counterparts in the United States. Because they have basically the same overhead expenses as their American counterparts, with a very much lower volume with which to write it off, the unit costs of distribution and sales are likely, for a long while to come, to be higher than in the United States.


David Réal Caouette: Your time is up.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Merci, monsieur. As a consequence, in this country, and given the same level of manufacturing costs as in the United States, with regard to retail costs one would expect to see them continue at a slightly higher level than in the United States. But it has nothing to do with the efficiency of manufacture or the cost of manufacture; it is the high cost of sales and distribution.
The pattern, of course, of the motor car manufacturers is to distribute nationally the costs of distribution, which means that the man in Windsor who is buying a car is to some degree helping the purchaser in Vancouver defray the substantial, additional costs of getting the car from the factory to Vancouver, over the cost of getting it from the factory to the retail outlet in Windsor.
Mr. Speaker, I might also comment on the evidence given by Mr. Connor before the Congressional Committee. I also have here a
May 10, 1965	COMMONS
copy of the text, and would point out that Mr. Connor said:
The effect of these provisions will be to maintain and in fact increase the level of Canadian production.
I think we all agree with this, namely that the level of Canadian production is going to increase substantially, not only by the growth of the Canadian market but by a large, additional increment. Mr. Connor went on to say:
However, I do not expect that our own exports to Canada will drop as a result. On the contrary,
I am satisfied that it is reasonable to project a continuing growth in the Canadian automotive market sufficient to absorb the projected increase in Canadian production without reducing our net favourable balance of trade with Canada.
The figure mentioned, in the American way, as the net favourable balance of trade with Canada, is $500 million. It is unfortunate that over the past two years, there has been a tendency for the United States net favourable balance of trade in automotive products with Canada to increase by something like the rate of $100 million a year. This has meant that as the Canadian market for cars grew, the-from our point of view-unfavourable balance of trade grew correspondingly, to some degree even faster. It is our expectation that this program will arrest the continuing growth of the unfavourable balance of trade and ensure that is is maintained at about the present level; that is, in absolute dollars, something in the order of $500 million or $550 million.
Mr. Connor is saying that the present level will not be exceeded. Talking in United States terms, he says that the present level will not be reduced; but this comes to the same thing. From our point of view we are avoiding what would have been a substantial and intractable increase in the unfavourable balance. As I pointed out earlier, the main purpose of this program is not to deal with the balance of payments situation. The main objective of the program is to increase substantially the production of automobiles and automobile parts in Canada for the next three years, leading as a consequence to a number of favourable results; one being a substantial increase in the number of jobs, another a holding action in relation to the unfavourable balance of payments in this sector, another a reduction in the cost of the production of cars and the consequent price advantage to the consumers of Canada; and finally the ability, as a consequence, to produce cars to compete effectively in the external market.
DEBATES	1131
Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement
I would hope that when we do have a debate on this topic, Mr. Speaker, the House would not have any serious difficulty in approving the resolution.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may be permitted to ask the Minister of Industry a question. When he spoke of the $260 million increase above the 1964 level that the car manufacturers had agreed to undertake by 1968, was this included in the 50 per cent or 60 per cent increase in the anticipated Canadian market; or was this $260 million in addition to the Canadian manufacturers providing 60 per cent of the increase for the Canadian market?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, the growth in the Canadian market is a little difficult to forecast. Automobile production in 1964 was something in the order of $720 million. One would expect that to continue. On top of that is this figure of $260 million, and on top of that will be the growth, whatever it may be, in the Canadian market. Two hundred and sixty million dollars on top of $720 million is something in the order of 30 or 35 per cent. Five per cent per annum, which is a reasonable figure for growth in the Canadian market in sales, or purchases by Canadian consumers-this is, in the domestic market- would be 15 per cent in three years. The two added together, 35 per cent arising out of $260 million, plus 15 per cent-three times 5 per cent-come to 50 per cent, over the earlier level. So that the 50 per cent mentioned does include both the sure, or promised increment and, if you like, a forecast growth in the Canadian domestic market for sales of cars in the Canadian market at the rate of 5 per cent per year.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for this new information, but I asked the Minister a specific question. I asked whether the Canadian car manufacturers agreed to increase their production between now and 1968 at the rate of $260 million per year above last year's level, plus 60 per cent of the increase in the Canadian market.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I am sorry, I thought the hon. Member said 50 per cent. They have agreed to increase their production by 60 per cent of domestic sales, at a rate of $260 million per year.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: One more question, if I may. Is it reasonable then to assume that our balance of payments position respecting auto-
Canada-TJ.S. Automobile Agreement motive parts from the United States will be reduced by $260 million by 1968? Otherwise, where will this $260 million go?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, if our imports from the United States remain exactly at their present level and Canadian production goes up by $260 million per year, and all of that went out of the country, then obviously the balance of payments deficit would be reduced by $260 million. However, while we do expect our exports to increase substantially, there will also be at the same time an increase in imports.


Mr. Winkler:: I have a question for the Minister.


Colin Cameron: May I put a question to the Minister.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I understand the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler) is rising to ask a question of the Minister.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I have a rather general question. Earlier in his remarks the Minister made a general statement about the desirability of lowering tariffs. This may be so, but I would like the Minister to assure the House and the country that where consideration of reducing tariffs will adversely affect Canadian secondary industry, such will not take place.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that this Government or indeed any Government would like to take steps which would adversely affect secondary industry.


Colin Cameron: May I put a question to the Minister. Have any estimates been made as to the increase in employment in respect of this agreement? Is there any estimate of the number of those who will be employed?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Yes, Mr. Speaker, a great many estimates have been made. However, until such time as the manufacturing plans of both motor car manufacturers and component manufacturers are known, it is difficult to say with any precision what will be the number of additional jobs which will be created, substantial though it may be. I have refrained and will continue to refrain from making any guesses as to the number of additional jobs one could expect as a result of this program.


Colin Cameron: Have there been any estimates as to

May 10. 1965
the proportion of the $260 million which would be distributed in wages?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Edmund Asselin (Notre Dame de Grace):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. My question of privilege arises from an article by Mr. Norman Simon which appeared on the front page of the first edition of today's Toronto Telegram. The article makes reference to a transcript being circulated on Parliament Hill, which I have not yet seen, and alleges that I received campaign funds from Mr. Hal Banks, former S.I.U. president. This is false. Personally I did not. Furthermore, I have communicated with my official agent and with my chief organizer for both the 1962 and the 1963 federal election campaigns. They categorically deny having knowingly received any such contributions on my behalf.


Mr. Maclnnis:: That is good for a laugh.

The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mcllraith for Committee of Supply, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Douglas.



FAILURE TO PROVIDE PROTECTION UNDER CANADA-U.S. AUTOMOBILE AGREEMENT

Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of interest to the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) in his description of this agreement. I wholeheartedly agree with at least one point which he made, and that was the tremendous importance of this agreement by reason of the fact that it should be apparent to all of us that it is in the nature of a precedent. It is hoped that this sort of agreement will set a pattern which may affect all future trade developments on the North American continent, and it is for that reason of the utmost importance that there be no fumbling, no errors or mistakes made in connection therewith.
We in this party have made it very clear in discussing this matter that we are not opposed to the basic purposes of the agreement outlined by the Minister. He told the House that the objective of this agreement

May 10, 1385

was substantially to expand manufactures in Canada, and naturally we most heartily agree with that particular objective. He also mentioned what he called other useful, ancillary results. But the more valuable this type of agreement is, the more important it is that there be no incidental side effects of a damaging nature which will discourage the making of agreements of this sort in the future.
I listened very carefully to the Minister to see whether he could allay the difficulties, the worries and apprehensions which he says are shared by other people and which are the basis for the amendment which this party has moved in this debate. I did not find that those apprehensions were allayed at all. It seems to me that an agreement of this sort should certainly have as one of its major objectives the benefit of the consumer. I understood the Minister to say that really this was not in the contemplation of the Government when it entered into this particular agreement. The Minister did not anticipate that there would be any reduction in price; in fact, in the long term, as a result of increased efficiency, there might at least be some holding of the line. I understood the Minister to say that one could hardly expect a decrease in price unless there was a significant change in the cost of production. But, Mr. Speaker, even though the Minister pointed out that this reduction of duties by $50 million does not go entirely to the Big Three, and even though duties and tariffs are not imposed for revenue purposes, the fact of the matter is that it is abundantly clear that those who do import parts, such as the so-called Big Three, the major manufacturers in this field, will be able to save in the neighbourhood of $50 million a year in their cost of production. It seems to us, who perhaps do not move in the rarefied atmosphere in which the Minister of Industry moves, that a saving of $50 million is a very substantial change in the cost of production, and it is our conviction that at least half of that ought to have been handed on to the consumer by way of reduction in price.
How, Mr. Speaker, are you going to commend this sort of agreement to the people of Canada unless you make it clear that one of the benefits which may reasonably be anticipated from an agreement of this sort is some reduction in the high differential existing at the present time between the cost of an automobile in Canada and the cost of an automobile in the United States? So I say that the Minister in his reply has not made
Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement clear, to me at any rate, why among what he calls the substantial guarantees or safeguards secured from the manufacturers no effort was made to obtain from the manufacturers an agreement to pass on to the consumers some benefit from the reduced cost of production. This may be unrealistic, although it appears not to be unrealistic to the Vice President of the United Automobile Workers who, as my leader pointed out earlier today, complained to the United States Congress that none of the reduced price cost due to the reduction in tariff duties was being handed on to the Canadian consumer. He also pointed out that the multiplying effects of this reduction in cost, the probable increase in sales in Canada, and the increase in employment are factors in the situation that ought not to be disregarded. I hope that if this is to be the pattern for the future, there will be guarantees in the future regarding the reduction in cost being passed on to the consumer.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
The people of Canada are going to be very disappointed when they hear what the Minister has said today, to the effect that the most we can hope for is a long term gradual coming together of prices, with certainly no reduction in Canadian prices, even though a big chunk of the cost of production, namely these tariff duties which are incorporated into the cost of production, is being removed.
The other point about which I was looking for assurances, and I did not find them at all in what the Minister said, had to do with adjustments for dislocations. The Minister tended rather to pooh, pooh the matter and used the expression that they had not contemplated that the market would shrink.
Perhaps I am a little late now to ask the Minister this, in view of the fact that he has completed his speech, but no doubt other Members on the Government side will be speaking. He is anticipating rapidly expanding markets, which is an excellent thing, but are there to be any dislocations anticipated or contemplated? He did not say that the Government contemplated that type of situation, and was willing to anticipate it by legislation, but suggested that we wait until that happens. I do not think the time to legislate to provide for adjustments in respect of those who may be justly apprehensive of dislocation, is the time when the dislocations occur.
The Minister used what seemed to be a characteristically airy phrase when he said
1134	COMMONS
Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement there was a flurry about anticipated layoffs by Ford. That is all very well, but I think the Minister would regard this more seriously if there was an anticipated lay-off of 47 Members of the House of Commons. This is a serious situation for the people concerned. The anticipated flurry may involve 49 individuals today in May, in lieu of perhaps several hundred, but is it not true that the companies and unions concerned informed the Minister and his colleagues that it was anticipated that 1,500 people would be laid off by Ford during 1965? Certainly the initial number may be small, but the anticipated number is of importance.
I was rather amazed by the Minister when he said that he did not know exactly the extent of the dislocation, but that he was waiting until the flurry grew a little more extreme before presenting his plans for dealing with this situation. It was my hope that the Minister would come to this House and promise us, as I hope he will still do, that the Canadian Government intends to bring in legislation similar to that which exists in the United States, containing specific legislative provisions dealing with dislocation, providing for readjustment allowances for a number of weeks of unemployment, as well as relocation allowances.
It is true that adjustment legislation is largely permissive legislation and in the United States they anticipate a greater degree of lay-offs and greater dislocation than we do here. Surely we must anticipate the same thing here, and because it is smaller, while it might be easier to deal with, is no reason why we should not deal with it at all. All we have in this regard is a vague statement by the Minister that perhaps when we find out the extent of this dislocation the Government will then contemplate the legislation necessary to deal with it.
It is my submission, Mr. Speaker, that in this whole field of necessary tariff adjustment or changes of this sort in respect of international trade, a pattern should be adopted of a kind such as to ensure that the dislocations, be they large or small, be they extensive or narrow in scope, do not place a burden on the individual workers or industries concerned.
Again as the President, or Vice President of the Canadian Automobile Workers told the United States Congress Committee, they would not have approved of this legislation had it not been for the fact that these safeguards were incorporated in this United States legislation. The Minister may well talk about
[Mr. Brewin.l
DEBATES	May 10, 1965
flurries, but let me remind him that the United Automobile Workers represent thousands of workers of the automotive parts manufacturing industry, and they are the people directly concerned. They have felt these apprehensions, and it is of the utmost importance that these apprehensions be not put aside in any airy manner, but that they be dealt with by legislation of some form so that we in this House can look at it and determine its adequacy.
Mr. Speaker, I must say that the amendment we have introduced stands unchallenged by what the Minister has said. We still feel that this Government has not been adequate in bringing forward adjustment legislation, has not sought to protect the consumer, and has not, so far as we know, done anything except to use vague words to reassure the manufacturers of automobile parts. We commend the general purpose of this agreement and we hope the sanguine hopes of the Minister will be realized, but we say the better the agreement, the more important that it be not marred by these effects which we think will not prove beneficial to the future operation of this plan.
I hope even at this late date that the Minister and some of his colleagues will give us in more specific terms an assurance that, even though they are not going to change the terms in respect of the consumer, they will pay more attention to the perfectly reasonable requests put forward by the union representing the men concerned. Let us know whether there is to be any dislocation. We are aware that there will be some. Tell us about the machinery contemplated to deal with that dislocation. The automotive workers came up with six specific points, and presented them to this Government a good many weeks ago. They have sought a clearcut answer to the problems they face. We in this House are seeking a clearcut answer. That clearcut answer has not been forthcoming. Let us hope that before this debate has concluded we will have received such an answer.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to speak for more than a few minutes this evening, as I intend to reserve my remarks in respect of this agreement until such time as it is the subject of a full debate in the House. However, there are one or two small items which 1 should like to bring to the attention of the Minister. Perhaps if he does not answer my questions this evening, he will at least give them some consideration before a full-scale debate on
May 10, 1965

this measure is held, we hope at some time very soon.
I should first like to mention a well known principle which I hope the Minister will bear in mind. This principle has been followed in this country for many years. When any government, be it federal, provincial or municipal, does something which puts a private individual into a worse economic position than he was in theretofore, adequate compensation must be made. The most common example of this principle, of course, is in respect of Government expropriation of property for the public benefit, involving lands for highways, pipe lines and such things. People are forced to move from their businesses and homes and the principle is that they are to be placed in exactly the same financial position to the greatest extent possible as the result of the Government's action. You have exactly the same kind of principle here. As a former speaker pointed out, there are going to be dislocations not only with regard to labour but also with regard to certain types of small industry such as the Canadian auto parts manufacturers.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
I disagree considerably with the Minister in some respects with regard to the over-all effects of the agreement, but even assuming that the Minister is right-and I do not think he is-that the agreement will ultimately be beneficial for Canada, nevertheless there is no reason why those who have to suffer because of the Government's action should be made to pay the cost because of a possible ultimate benefit to Canada. Everybody should share equally. I have plenty of evidence that there will be dislocations and I will deal with that when the agreement is debated, but if indeed there are to be dislocations it is up to the Government to try to assist those manufacturers who have to retool and move into some other line of manufacturing.
The information I have had to date from several of these manufacturers who are going to be compelled to move into other lines of production leads me to say that they are not asking for a handout from the Government at all. What they are asking is that they be allowed to borrow money on a short to medium term range at relatively low rates of interest so they can retool their plants. At the present time borrowed capital is relatively expensive and the mark-up in this kind of secondary manufacturing is not very high. I merely throw out this suggestion to the Minister and I hope he will consider it. If

Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement the Government is looking for plans so as to be able to help manufacturers who are dislocated, I point out that they are interested in being able to borrow money at low interest rates so they can get some return on their investment when they are retooling for some other line of manufacturing. That is one point.
I was also somewhat concerned at a statement made by the Minister in opening his remarks. It seemed to bear out a statement made by another gentleman to whom I will refer in a moment. I believe I am quoting the Minister correctly when I say that he said that everybody in the House will agree that free trade is a good thing. I do not know whether the Minister intended to say that, but that is what I understood him to say, and I am quite sure that is not the case.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: If I may correct the hon. Member, I said that a reduction in the barriers to trade is a good thing.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: 
Mr. Gray:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Yes.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Would he provide the House with the names of the companies to whom he is referring?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Yes, one of the companies to which I was referring is the Ingersoll Machine Company, one of the largest Canadian manufacturers of automotive parts. They make gears for the Chrysler Corporation. I do not wish to go into the details, but I made reference to the fact that their contract has been extended for another year. After that, they have to move into something else. At the moment, they are trying to find new fields into which they can move. They realize that they will no longer have this type of work. Perhaps that answers the hon. Member's question.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Can the hon. Member clarify the point he is making? Are they not being allowed to submit tenders or are they not sub-
May 10, 1965	COMMONS
mitting tenders which Chrysler considers competitive with other parts manufacturers?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: To the best of my understanding and knowledge, they are not being asked for tenders. They were told tenders were not wanted from them. I cannot put it any plainer than that. When the full debate on this agreement takes place, I shall be glad to provide the Minister and the Member who just asked the question with all this information, including written letters and statements.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I, too, should like to participate briefly in the debate on this important question. Like the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) I am also taking the position of reserving more extended remarks for the time when the agreement is brought before the House for formal consideration. However, because of the importance of this question to the area I have the honour to represent, I think I will avail myself of this opportunity to make some comments, with particular regard for some of the statements made by opposition speakers.
I was interested to note that the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) asked a question as to whether the major auto manufacturers are really going to be using any part of the so-called $50 million which they will not be remitting to the Government in tariffs for the purpose of retooling. I should like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that the Ford Motor Company announced just the other day in Windsor it will be spending $50 million this year and next year to retool its engine plant and foundry. This is the purpose of the lay-offs to which reference has already been made in this House. I hope the lay-offs will be as brief as possible.
It has been suggested also, Mr. Speaker, that since these tariff amounts will not be going to the public treasury the people of Canada will, in effect, be paying for this retooling.
I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is this really very much different from the depreciation allowances and tax incentives that are in effect now, designed to stimulate new investment and manufacturing in Canada? This is the type of measure which has already done so much for the City of Windsor which, together with my colleague the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), I have the honour to represent in this House. Is the Leader of the N.D.P suggesting that there is something wrong with this type of incentive measure which has done so much to bring jobs and
DEBATES	1137
Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement new factories to Windsor? Is he suggesting it should not have been undertaken? If that is the case, it is a good thing it has been disclosed in this Parliament so that the people of my area will know where he stands on this particular point.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wonder if the hon. Member would permit a question? Has he heard of a provincial legislator in Ontario by the name of Newman-Bernard Newman-and has he followed the points that gentleman has raised in the Ontario Assembly expressing his worry and concern? I believe he represents Wind-sor-Walkerville, does he not?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes, and he represents it very well. He delivered several sound thrashings to the N.D.P. candidates in that area.


Douglas Mason Fisher: What has that got to do with what you were just saying? He has been worried, too.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It has this to do with it. He is exhibiting the same type of concern with respect to the well-being of the people he represents as I have expressed to the Ministers concerned with this matter, and as I am expressing in this House. I hope that they will benefit, and not bear any type of burden in this transition to a greater extent than any other people in this country. I think he is carrying out his duty in raising this type of question in his own sphere of legislation, as I am in mine. I hope that the type of discussion we are having here will help reassure him with respect to these matters which have concerned him.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the hon. Member a question? Does he think there is no difference between write-offs for money already invested and giving a company $50 million in the hope it will invest this in plant expansion?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I would say, Mr. Speaker, that there is a very strong analogy. In order to carry out the commitments entered into in writing to this Government, they are going to have to carry out extensive new investments. I think it would be very surprising if these funds were not used, in whole or in large part, for this particular purpose. I think the point I have made in drawing the attention of the House to the similarity between the depreciation allowance and tax incentive write-offs, and this type of measure, is quite a valid statement.
I should like to suggest also that the Leader of the N.D.P. seems to exhibit a great
May 10, 1965

Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement deal of concern over the fact that this tariff amount comes from the public. I would suggest to this House that any amount that is obtained by any manufacturer of goods, or anybody who provides services, in effect comes from the public. I wonder, in making this suggestion, is the Leader of the N.D.P. trying to indicate to this House that because all the funds for goods and services provided by companies in this country come from the public that they all should, in some way, be nationalized? Since he has just come back from a meeting of the socialist international

I can understand why he is making this type of suggestion in the House right now.


Mr. Peters:: You are making a fool of yourself.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: No matter what I do in this House, I will never be able to make a fool of myself to the extent the hon. Member of the N.D.P. who has just spoken already has. May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?
At ten o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, May 11, 1965