1965-05-11

SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in response to a number of questions asked in the House yesterday concerning the expulsion of two members of the Soviet Embassy staff, I indicated that I would provide all the information that could appropriately be made public. 1 am glad to be able to do that today.
The information on which action was taken in this matter came to the security authorities not only from one of the Canadians approached, but also from other sources which I am sure the House will understand must be protected if our counter-espionage efforts are to continue to be successful, as they were in this instance. On security grounds it is not, therefore, in the public interest to give all the detailed information requested in the House yesterday. This is all the more true in this case since, while the security threat in this instance has been removed, the investigation is continuing. Nevertheless I shall, within the limits set by security considerations, give some additional information to that included in the press release issued on Saturday morning, May 8, which by its terms gave more information than is normally given in respect of matters of this kind.
Let me first explain, Mr. Speaker, the objectives of the Government's decision to expel the Soviet officials and to inform the Canadian public of that action. The objectives were three: one, to bring to an end the activity of certain members of the Soviet Embassy, the intent of which was clearly prejudicial to Canadian interest; two, to make clear to the Soviet Government that actions of this sort by members of their so-called diplomatic staff would not be tolerated; and three, to impress upon Canadians the need for constant vigilance when faced with approaches by Soviet officials. This was a very important objective, indeed, that we had in mind.
These objectives have been met. Canadian interests have not been damaged.
In regard to the two individual cases mentioned in the press release, one Canadian mentioned co-operated conscientiously from the beginning with our security authorities. Far from being motivated by "illicit gain and greed", this conscientious and patriotic Canadian reported to our security authorities the very first approach made to him; and this information is not usually made public. He thereafter worked under the direction of our security authorities in his further dealings with the Soviet official. This action is certainly to be praised, not censured, for it provided our security authorities with invaluable information about Soviet methods of intelligence operations in Canada and the targets against which they directed their intelligence efforts. Certainly there can be no question of prosecution for wrongdoing in this case; quite the contrary.
In the other case mentioned in the communique the circumstances unfortunately were different. The person involved in this case is a civil servant in a very junior position in a non-sensitive department. His place of work is not in Ottawa. The person is at present on sick leave and is in fact gravely ill. The assistance which he gave the Soviet authorities was not related to his work as a civil servant-and he was a junior civil servant. Our security authorities knew of his activities, but for good security reasons did not confront him with them until last week, when the man in question began to give the police some useful information.
Once the decision was made to take action against the foreign officials and to make that action public, consideration was initiated to determine whether charges should be laid in this case. Until that determination is made it is not possible to give further information on this aspect of that case.
Let me emphasize that in both cases our security authorities received assistance, as the press release indicated, from a number of other conscientious and patriotic Canadians.
Questions were asked about the amounts and disposition of the money involved. The money, Mr. Speaker, was paid out to the two Canadians mentioned in the release in rela-

May 11, 1965
Acts of Espionage
tively small amounts but over a considerable period of time. These sums of money were apparently intended to enable the persons concerned to cover the costs of acquiring the information sought by the Soviet Embassy officials. Thus, in the case of the Canadian who co-operated with the police from the beginning, the money he received from time to time was largely spent, with the knowledge of the police, on travel, accommodation, automobile maintenance and related expenditures associated with the tasks assigned to him, and an accounting was made to the police of these expenditures. In the case of the other Canadian the evidence points to a similar use of the sums received, and it is hoped that as the investigation of his case continues more exact information will become available as to amounts involved and the disposition of such sums as well as other information.
There was some implication in what was said in the House yesterday that the issuance of a press release by the Department of External Affairs on this case was unusual. Certainly the amount of information given in this release was unusual and is not customary, as I have said. It is true that a press release of any kind is not always issued. In some cases, indeed, no information of any kind is given.
In 1959 an attache of the Soviet Embassy procured information from a Canadian citizen which led to his recall. No action was taken and no publicity was given to the case. In October, 1960 a secretary of the Czechoslovakian Embassy was declared persona non grata after being found to have been in contact with a Canadian citizen for intelligence purposes. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police at that time recommended publicity as a deterrent measure. The Government directed that no publicity should be given. In December, 1961 an attache at the Soviet Embassy attempted to obtain classified information from a Canadian Government official over a period of 18 months. His recall was demanded and a press release was authorized in this case.
It will be clear then that procedure in these matters, both in regard to action taken and publicity given, varies with the circumstances, and I believe that in security matters this must be the case.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs dealt with this matter in general terms in answer to a question of June 13, 1963 in his tabled reply which appears at page 1333 of Hansard for June 19, 1963. He dealt with those cases which had been made public but indicated that there had been other cases to
which no publicity had been given. His reply went on:
In these matters it is not always in the public interest to provide information, and I am conscious that my predecessor faced these same difficulties when he decided on April 28, 1961, in response to a similar question-
-in the House of Commons-
-to decline to provide details about such cases.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that I have gone as far as I can to give the House all of the information it is in the public interest to reveal at this stage. I believe, Mr. Speaker, I have gone into somewhat more detail than has been the case in similar incidents over the past 10 or 15 years. I feel, however, the importance of this case and the deterrent value of the information in question justifies this action.


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: The Prime Minister has pointed out the difficulties in connection with the security operations of the Mounted Police or associated bodies, and with that I agree. He referred to the press release which, to say the least, was not very happily worded in view of the statement he has now made. In reference to the first civil servant to whom he alluded, the press release reads as follows:
In one Instance, a Canadian civil servant was paid thousands of dollars to gather information and documentation in Canada, the purpose of which was to assist in the establishment of espionage activities in Canada and other countries, and to perform economic intelligence tasks, including the provision of detailed information-
Now, the Prime Minister says this person reported the first approach that was made to him. There is one question that necessarily arises at this point. Did he receive any of these thousands of dollars before he communicated for the first time with the police? This is of particular importance in judging his general attitude toward the action in which he participated.
In so far as the other person is concerned, the press release reads-I presume this is the man who is ill at the moment-
In another instance, a naturalized Canadian citizen was paid thousands of dollars to provide technical information in the electronics field related to the defence industry and to compromise other Canadians, including female employees of the government, with the object of securing their assistance in obtaining access to classified information. He was given specialized photographic training to assist him in these tasks.
Now, Sir, what appears in the press announcement reveals most clearly and definitely, and was so interpreted, that the U.S.S.R.

May 11. 1965

was engaged in a widespread plot against our country and had the assistance of one or more Canadians in connection therewith. One recalls, as the Prime Minister has, occasions in the past. Certainly one recalls what took place in April, 1964, when action was taken. At that time the Chief Justice of Canada, Hon. Robert Taschereau, who was one of the Commissioners in 1945-46, stated that it is like a chain; you break only a link at a time and the others remain intact. He said that espionage with the Russians is like a disease; you stamp out the infection in one place and it breaks out in another.
I realize, having occupied the position of Prime Minister, the difficulties in connection with giving information. However, this press release contained information that is of a shocking nature in so far as that individual is concerned who gave information and assisted the law officers. It is of great importance to know, did he receive a payment? How much was that first payment? Was it a large amount or a small amount? How long after he got that payment did he first bring to the attention of the authorities the fact that he had been approached and had received that money?
The interpretation that has been given to the revelations made in the press release has generally been that apparently there has been unearthed a rather widespread espionage conspiracy on the part of the U.S.S.R., using Canadians or endeavouring to use them to participate in this nefarious course. Under all the circumstances, if the Prime Minister would give an answer to that one question it would help.
Necessarily, as responsible Members of Parliament we do not want to do anything that will prejudice to the slightest degree the investigation that is being made. However, in view of the widespread nature of these activities, I feel that the Government should have an investigation by a royal commission, to look into this whole question and ascertain the degree to which espionage is going on within our country. Such a royal commission would not necessarily have to meet in the open. Composed of judges, it could take secret evidence which otherwise ought not to be revealed.
We have available those who have been trained in the actual school of judicial experience. We have the Chief Justice of Canada, Hon. Robert Taschereau, who was one of the Commissioners, and on the Supreme Court of Canada there are as well two of
22620-74J
Acts of Espionage
the senior puisne judges, Mr. Justice Cartwright and Mr. Justice Fauteux, who would certainly be of tremendous help in getting to the bottom of the activities of the U.S.S.R. within our country.
The rather limited statement made by the Prime Minister, and understandably so, does not add very much to the press release, for it gives no indication of the extent to which the No. 1 Canadian civil servant was paid thousands of dollars, and whether he had been paid moneys over a period of time before he made his first revelations to the Department or to the police officials.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquiilam):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House will welcome the statement made by the Prime Minister, because there has been a good deal of concern in the light of the statement which appeared in the press yesterday and the release which was given out by the Government. I am sure all Members will be glad that any attempt at espionage in this country has been nipped in the bud, and that the Soviet Embassy has had it made clear to them that the Government will not tolerate any such activities in this country.
I know the Prime Minister is in a somewhat delicate position in mentioning names and in dealing with matters which involve counter-intelligence in Canada, but I would like to be clear about one or two things.
I take it that the two persons named were, first, a civil servant who is now gravely ill and who, I gather, if I got the right impression from the Prime Minister's statement, was only confronted last week; who apparently did not co-operate with the R.C.M.P., and who therefore stands guilty of having acted as an agent for the government of another country, and guilty of accepting thousands of dollars to carry on activities on behalf of that country. I think we can dismiss that until such time as the Government decides whether it is going to lay charges and we know what action the Government is going to take.
I would like, however, to get some clarification regarding the second person, who I assume is not a civil servant but who is described in the Government release as "a naturalized Canadian citizen" and who was paid thousands of dollars to provide technical information. There are two points on which I would like some elucidation. The first is as to whether this man co-operated with the R.C.M.P. to the extent of going to them the very moment he was approached, or whether

May 11, 1965
Acts of Espionage
it was only after he was under some suspicion and was likely to get caught that he turned state's evidence. If it is the former, and he co-operated with them from the beginning, then I want to know what he did with the thousands of dollars he was paid over a period of time.


An hon. Member:: It was for travelling expenses.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: If it was all for travelling expenses, then I am perfectly satisfied. But I go on with the release, Mr. Speaker, which says that he was also paid "to compromise other Canadians, including female employees of the Government, with the object of securing their assistance in obtaining access to classified information". Then in the press story it is said:
An informed Government source said it is reasonable to assume that seduction was one method used to compromise the female employees.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is indicated, Mr. Speaker, that the expense account might be an interesting document to peruse.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But in all seriousness, it would surely not be a pretty picture if the R.C.M.P. were using as an agent a man who was seeking to compromise female employees of the Canadian Government. That is something I hope the Prime Minister will look into.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Only a theologian would suggest that.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There are two other points on which I hope we get some clarification, Mr. Speaker. One is the extent to which the Minister of Justice and the Prime Minister were kept fully informed of this case from the beginning-the Minister of Justice to whom the R.C.M.P. is responsible, and the Prime Minister as the head of the Government. I should like clarification on whether they have known about this case from the beginning or whether it only came to their attention lately. It seems to me that on matters as important as this, if the R.C.M.P. knew that a naturalized Canadian citizen had been approached to gather information for the Government of another country and had agreed to act as an undercover agent for the R.C.M.P., that information should have been transmitted immediately to the Minis-

ter of Justice, and by him to the Prime Minister. I think we ought to know to what extent both these Ministers were kept fully informed regarding the arrangements which the R.C.M.P. were making, and to what extent those arrangements were proper and befitting the Government and the administration of justice in this country.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I think the most interesting aspect of this case that is before us at the present time, apart from the fact that two members of the diplomatic staff of the U.S.S.R. in Canada have been engaged in espionage activities, is the very poor handling of this matter, first of all by the Department of External Affairs and second by the Prime Minister himself. On his own admission, Mr. Speaker, the information that was given out in the original release from the Department of External Affairs gave much reason for question as far as the public was concerned regarding just what had been going on. Certainly the answers relating to this subject that were given yesterday during the question period were not very wisely phrased, either, because the information certainly left a good deal of question in regard to just what was happening, and also as a result the lengthy statement the Prime Minister has given us today. It is apparent that he was not informed about this case prior to its being announced; otherwise this information would not have been bungled as it was in releasing it to the public.
It seems to me strange that the right hon. Prime Minister has emphasized today that the second person who did not report this originally to our own security people was a junior civil servant. Do senior and junior civil servants have more and less responsibility to the Government and to the nation? Does a civil servant, whether he be senior or junior, have less responsibility than an ordinary citizen? Certainly I do not think the fact that he is a junior civil servant has anything to do with the case at all.
Another thing that is significant in the information given us today is the mention by the Prime Minister that this information which was given to the espionage agents of the U.S.S.R. was information not related to his Department. What is the difference whether information being relayed related to his Department or not, if it had something to do with the security of this country? The information that has been given here today does not satisfy the mind of the public, and certainly does not satisfy my mind, as to
May 11, 1965

what is behind all this. It just creates more questions.
I believe the Government has more responsibility than this, and certainly it applies directly now, not only to the Department of External Affairs but to the Minister of Justice as well, to see that we do receive accurate information that gives an answer to the question that is obviously in the mind of every Canadian today; that is, just where is espionage leading us in this country? The Prime Minister in his statement today said that one of the important objectives for giving out this important information, was to warn Canadians about the dangers of giving information to those who might be seeking it for such reasons as were these particular espionage agents. Would he not think that it would be a much better policy to release to the Canadian public information regarding espionage and subversive activities, rather than just letting it come out in this particular manner?
Yesterday I questioned the right hon. Prime Minister about this, as I have questioned the Minister of Justice on two different occasions in recent weeks, and the right hon. Prime Minister suggested that this could be taken care of in the External Affairs Committee. I do not accept that at all. It seems to me, in view of the fact that in recent months we have had agents active in this country who have been trained in one case in Algeria and in the other in Cuba, and who have been engaged in subversive activities this is just as important to the security of our country as foreign agents trying to gain secrets that certainly contravene the security of the nation. I believe the Government owes it to the Canadian people to either issue a White Paper relating to security in this country, or else to instruct the Minister of Justice or the R.C.M. Police that periodically information will be given out, in order that Canadian citizens can understand just how necessary and how important it is that the security of our nation be guarded, not just by those who have the responsibility to the nation for security but by every Canadian citizen.
I would urge, Mr. Speaker, that the Government consider, not setting up a Royal Commission, because this is not going to answer the question at the present time, but issuing a White Paper relating to espionage and subversive activities in the nation, or else instructing those agencies responsible for security to give out periodic information, in
DEBATES	1143
Northwest Territories Advisory Commission order that we can be informed in so far as it is essential that the public know what is going on, so as to avoid this kind of situation which both the Department of External Affairs and the Prime Minister have stumbled into with regard to this particular matter.


Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, we fully support the action taken by the government to expel, as ordered last week, those Russian communist spies. We believe that no official, in any embassy, should abuse Canadian hospitality. As a matter of fact we are showing enough courtesy in Canada to be respected ourselves and no foreign country should send spies over here to bribe our federal officials.
On the other hand, this proves beyond any doubt that there are within the Canadian civil service communists who are traitors to their country, and I think the Prime Minister and the government should give us the names of such federal employees as was done in the case of those involved in corruption and bribes as, for instance, in the case of Messrs. Denis, Dupuis, Rouleau, etc., whose names have been made public across Canada, creating the impression that such people could only be found in the province of Quebec. But now we find in the dens of co-operative federalism, if I may use the expression, spies kept informed by Canadians whose salaries are paid out of taxes levied against the Canadian people.
The Prime Minister and the government took the right action when they expelled those two Russian spies from Canada.
I think the R.C.M.P. should, in the future, keep a sharper eye on what is going on not only in one department but in the whole civil service. I know that the R.C.M.P. is doing a tremendous and intelligent job in this regard and that it finally discovers those who deserve to be called before the bar of public opinion, as was done today.



NORTHERN AFFAIRS


Hon. Arihur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I have an announcement of some importance concerning the Northwest Territories. Developments in the past 20 years in the Northwest Territories have focused attention on
May 11, 1SL65
1144	COMMONS
Northwest Territories Advisory Commission the forms of territorial government. The growing need to bring the government into closer touch with the area and its people is consistent with development of our Federal system over more than 100 years. There is an increasing awareness in Canada of the potential and importance of the Northwest Territories. The search for oil and metals is assuming extraordinary proportions. The development of the Territorial Government should proceed in an orderly, logical way, recognizing that increasing control over its own affairs carries with it greater financial, administrative and political responsibilities.
Since 1920 the Northwest Territories has been governed by a Commissioner and Council, with Ottawa as the seat of the Government, the Council presently consisting of four elected and five appointed members. Early in 1962 the Council passed a resolution recommending the establishment of a resident government which would require a division into two territories. The Government of the day accepted the principle implied in this resolution, and the present Government brought forward proposals based on that principle.
No conclusive action was taken, and early in 1964 the present Council asked the Federal Government not to proceed further with these proposals until it had an opportunity to study their implications. Subsequently, at its November 1964 session the Council requested the establishment of a Commission to look into and report on political and other aspects of northern development, and also requested that the territorial franchise be extended to all residents of the Northwest Territories. At this stage, there is general agreement that further constitutional development for the Northwest Territories is needed.
We believe there is need for an impartial and objective fact finding group of persons to consider the questions relating to the immediate and longer term political development of the Northwest Territories. In particular the residents should be given an opportunity to make their views known.
It has therefore been decided to appoint an Advisory Commission on the development of Government in the Northwest Territories. The terms of reference of the Commission will enable it to review government in the Northwest Territories and to recommend to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources the form of government that seems most appropriate consistent with political, economic and social development. Within this general framework the Commission will be


expected to give specific attention to the following matters:
(a)	the views of residents of the Northwest Territories and other Canadians regarding the foregoing;
(b)	the nature of the Federal Government's responsibility for the Territories;
(c)	consideration of the political development of the Territories contingent on the size, nature and distribution of population and its ability to pay a significant share of the costs involved having regard to the present and prospective level of social and economic development;
(d)	the present forms of government of the Northwest Territories as defined by the Northwest Territories Act and the Northern Affairs and National Resources Act;
(e)	the subject matter of the previous proposals affecting the constitutional structure of the Territories; and
(f)	other recommendations the Commission considers desirable.
Dean A. W. R. Carrothers, B.A., LL.B., LL.M., Professor and Dean of Law at the University of Western Ontario, has accepted the invitation to act as Chairman of the Advisory Commission. Dean Carrothers at 42 years of age is one of the most eminent young members of his profession in Canada. Mr. John H. Parker has also agreed to serve as a member of the Commission. Mr. Parker is the able and highly respected Mayor of Yellowknife. He has lived in that city for a number of years and is thoroughly aware of the problems facing the northern areas today. I expect to be in a position to announce the name of the third member of the Commission very shortly. We are hoping that Mr. Jean Gourd of Amos, Quebec will agree to serve. These men can be expected to approach the assignment with professional competence and energy but without preconceived, rigid opinions or views.
The Advisory Commission will be asked to make its report and recommendations to the Minister before the spring of 1966. To assist the Advisory Commission in launching its studies, the Government intends to issue within the next two months a reference paper outlining in detail the social and economic conditions, the political structure and the resources of the Northwest Territories. The paper will not, of course, deal with future government policy, but we hope will serve a useful purpose for the Commission and indeed all Canadians interested in the north.
The Government will also bring before the House as promised in the Speech from the
May 11, 1985

Throne certain amendments to the Northwest Territories Act. These will not involve major changes in legislation, nor will they prejudge or interfere with the work of the Advisory Commission. Measures designed to facilitate the establishment of a territorial public service in the Northwest Territories will be proposed, as will provisions to extend the franchise to all residents of the Northwest Territories. This we feel is obviously essential at this time to ensure a full voice for territorial residents in their government.
We will propose that the stipends for Council members of both Territories be raised to more closely reflect the scale of indemnities paid to members of other legislatures in the country and the special conditions which the members face in the service of the people of the north.
In the development of these plans, the Government is very conscious of the importance of the northern areas to the entire country. The purpose is to ensure maximum opportunity for the people of the north and the full development of the physical resources. The report of the Advisory Commission will, we hope, form a basis for the framing of a continuing development program for the Northwest Territories.


Mr. Gene Rheaume (Northwest Territories):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome, as will the people of the north, this announcement of the Government's plan to continue with a vital program of northern development which was launched some seven years ago. The most important part of the Minister's statement in these days of civil rights struggles is that all the residents of the Northwest Territories are to be given the right to vote in territorial elections, a goal that has been my stated objective since entering this Chamber two years ago and a project that I know has been close to the Minister, as it was to the Ministers of Northern Affairs before him.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is well for the House to recall at this point that it is only since 1962 that there has been a Member of Parliament for the entire Northwest Territories, and that it is only since 1962 that all Canadians have had the right to vote in Federal elections. Members of this Parliament should also recall that it was through the vehicle of the Nielsen bill, sponsored by the hon. Member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen)-a man who daily impresses us with his many facets and interests-and with the full support of the then Prime Minister that this legislation granting the vote was passed.
DEBATES	1145
Northwest Territories Advisory Commission
The right to vote in local elections is a completely necessary and logical step toward equality of rights and responsibilities of those northerners, who will now for the first time be heard in the Councils of the Northwest Territories on those things that most closely touch their lives.
The step announced today is both the result and the vindication of the concepts of the previous administration which were rooted in the belief in our northern people and the belief in the northern destiny of this country.
The appointment of the Advisory Commission is noteworthy for other reasons. It is in keeping with the recommendations of the Council of the Northwest Territories, and will have on it a resident of the Northwest Territories in the person of His Worship Mayor John Parker of Yellowknife, a man who has spent years in the north and who has a special knowledge of the mining industry. This is an industry which will surely provide the economic base for this part of Canada. The Commission will also, if it follows its terms of reference, consult with northerners wherever they may be found. In this regard I would emphasize the necessity for the Commission to meet with the Indian and Eskimo people who bring 5,000 years of northern experience to the problems of the area.
The terms of reference of the Commission I believe are sufficiently broad to include consideration of the possibility of representation in the Senate for the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. Until such time as these two areas of northern Canada are represented in the other place, the north country will not be fully represented in Parliament. I hope the terms of reference are broad enough to include a consideration of the role of the territorial Governments at Federal-Provincial Conferences. In the Commission's examination of the Northern Affairs and National Resources Act, it will conceivably and hopefully touch upon the problems in respect of the administration of the Quebec Eskimo people.
There are two other features that I believe are worthy of note. The provision for setting up a territorial public service makes sense. We must have in this country locally oriented administrations with a backlog of northern experience. The proposal to increase the stipends of the Councillors of the Northwest Territories is also well taken. The Northwest Territories consists of approximately 1,353,000 square miles of this country and, if I understood the Minister's statement correctly, about seven elected Councillors will be required to travel this area.
1146	COMMONS
Northwest Territories Advisory Commission
In summary, the announcement today is a major milestone in the inexorable march of the people of the north toward self government. All Canadians can take pleasure and rejoice in this announcement, but none more so than those of us who, by choice, want to make our contribution to the national life as residents of Canada's far north.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, not having had the advantage, as obviously the hon. Member for the Northwest Territories did, of an advance copy of the Minister's statement, it will not be possible for me to go into such great detail in commenting upon it. I should say that I am sure it seems strange to many people in Canada today to realize that there are still Canadian citizens being denied the full opportunity of exercising their franchise. The sooner we can wipe out that stigma of refusing people the right to vote, the better off we will all be.
For years the operation of the Northwest Territories as well as the Yukon has been controlled here in Ottawa. This, of course, has neither allowed for the correct or proper development of northern areas, nor for a true appreciation of the people in these territories and the north country, and the function of Government. It has not allowed these people to obtain complete political and economic freedom. If the Commission can assist in bringing about an attainment of political rights and freedoms, as well as economic rights, for the people of the north, it will have accomplished a great deal.
I know Professor Carrothers and have known him for some time. I know he believes in these freedoms and rights, and I think his choice as Chairman is excellent. He will bring to that Commission a brilliant mind and a tremendous ability to grasp the complexities of almost any situation. It is of paramount importance in respect of any Commission such as this to realize that it must take more than just time and more than just trouble, but that it must bend over backward in attempting to assess the full desires of the people themselves. In no way should there be any attempt to avoid giving attention to the opinions of the people who live in the north because, after all, it is their rights and problems with which we are dealing.
Very often in past years royal commissions, commissions of inquiry, committees of inquiry and the like have delved into aspects of life in Canada. The effectiveness of those commissions, and the fact that many Governments

DEBATES	May 11. 1965
in the past in dealing with other commissions have not seen fit to bring many of their recommendations into effect, does not lead me to expect too hopefully that there will be speed and dispatch on the part of the Government in dealing with the situation in the north. All we can do is hope that this will be one Commission of a different character than all the others in that it will act with speed; that it will consult with the people affected, and that the Government will not drag its feet in bringing into full force the rights and freedoms of the people in the north.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, we in this Party were not given the benefit of any advance notice of this announcement which has been made today. Nevertheless we welcome the announcement that has been made by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources, particularly because of that part of the terms of reference to the Commission which relates to human rights, and the right of people in the north to exercise their franchise and make their wishes known, as do people in other parts of Canada.
The expansion which should be taking place in the north-well over one third of the total area of Canada-is something that has demanded attention for a number of years, and for this reason we welcome the announcement made by the Minister today to the effect that there is to be another concerted effort to work out programs and policies which will bring to fruition the tremendous potential development of these natural resources in the north. We hope this Commission will operate somewhat differently than certain other inquiries have operated in the past, and that there will be something more than lip service given to the desirability of granting these people the right of determination and the right to develop the natural resources in that area.
In addition to all the other things this Advisory Commission will be looking into, I hope it will not overlook the very valid suggestion that some of this territory ought to be added to existing provinces. A number of suggestions have been made, I understand with the approval of some of the people in the north, to the effect that the boundaries of several of the provinces could be extended to include some of this territory. I also believe, Mr. Speaker, that this Advisory Commission should have included in its terms some refer-
May 11, 1965

ence to the task of examining the Yukon as well as the Northwest Territories.
Generally, Mr. Speaker, we welcome the announcement that has been made today and we wish the commission success. As I said once before, I hope there will be some action and not merely lip service as we have so often seen in the past.



SUBVERSIVE ACTIVITIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, with further reference to the matter dealt with by the Prime Minister I should like to get clarification on one point. Was there co-operation given to the police by both these civil servants? Did they assist the police in the most effective way possible after they were spoken to by the police officers?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, only one of the two men I mentioned in my statement is a civil servant. In his case co-operation was not given until he was confronted by the police last week with the fact that they knew of his activities, and had known of his activities over many months. All I can say is that in the interests of security it was considered desirable for them to follow those activities without his knowledge, and my hon. friend will know what I mean by that. In the case of the other man mentioned in the communique, he went to the police immediately when he was approached for the first time, and worked with them from that time.


John George Diefenbaker: In the case of this number one man, the one who co-operated, did the police go to him or did he go to the police? Second, what did the Prime Minister mean yesterday when he said, as found at the bottom of page 1,088 of Hansard:
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.
That I understand.
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.
Whom did the Prime Minister mean by "the others"? He says that one co-operated. Were there some others who co-operated as well?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In my statement I mentioned the fact that a number of Canadians worked with the police in this security investigation. As to the two men mentioned in the communique, one cooperated from the very beginning and the other did not until he was approached. I realize that the language I used, without having the opportunity to know about the question in advance, lends itself to misinterpretation and misunderstanding. As the right hon. gentleman pointed out, it might have been taken to mean that the two mentioned in the communique co-operated from the beginning. I regret that looseness of language, but perhaps it is understandable in the circumstances. In any event the co-operation in the second case did not begin until the beginning of last week.


John George Diefenbaker: One other question. Would the Prime Minister say when this matter was first brought to his attention?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am in some difficulty in mentioning dates and circumstances in a security matter of this kind, but the matter was brought to my attention when our security people felt the time had come to expose it.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister say who will have the final authority to determine whether proceedings are to be taken against the so-called other Canadian; whether it will be the R.C.M.P., the Minister of Justice or one of his officials, or the Government as a whole?


Lester Bowles Pearson: In this situation it will be the responsibility of the Government on the advice of the Minister of Justice.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May I ask the Prime Minister to clarify the point he has just made. Today he has mentioned two persons, one of whom was a civil servant and the other a naturalized Canadian. With reference to his statement of yesterday, and particularly the words "so far as the others are concerned", I take it now that there were more than two persons, since there were more than two persons who co-operated with the R.C.M.P. and one person who did not cooperate with the R.C.M.P. Am I correct?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There were two persons who were involved in this matter in the sense that they were in touch with security agents of the Soviet Embassy and operating with them,
1148	COMMONS
Inquiries of the Ministry and I have given the circumstances of that operation on the part of those two. There were a number of other people who were assisting but who were not acting, either with the knowledge of the Canadian security authorities or without their knowledge, with the foreign security agents at all but were assisting in other ways.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Were the "others" to whom the Prime Minister referred who co-operated with the police civil servants? Were they employed by the Government of Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not in a position to answer that question. I do not want to hold anything back that I can appropriately give to the House, but I should like to make inquiries as to the nature of the operations of the others in detail before I would feel it was my duty to give such information to the House. Perhaps in this kind of situation it might even be desirable as this investigation goes on to have some confidential discussions with the leaders of the parties.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a further supplementary question. With reference to the civil servant who did not cooperate with the R.C.M.P. and who was confronted with this matter only last week, may I ask first of all if any steps have been taken to remove him from his position with the Government and, second, who will make the determination whether prosecution will follow?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I answered the latter part of the question by saying that the Government would do so on the advice of the Minister of Justice. So far as the first part of the question is concerned, the civil servant in question, I emphasize again, was not in a job or in a department where he himself had access to any security information. He is now on sick leave, and he is very ill indeed.
Mr. R. Gordon L. Fair weather (Royal): Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, and I want it understood in the best sense of the words I use. What was the point in the Prime Minister's statement in classifying one person as a naturalized Canadian? Does this language not lend itself to a form of innuendo with regard to other naturalized Canadians? Why not just say "a citizen"?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there was
certainly no intention of that kind. As I understand it, the reason that language was used-

DEBATES	May 11. 1965
and indeed it is related to the purpose of the communique itself-was to give publicity to the fact that naturalized Canadians who have perhaps been Canadians for only a few years and who have come from European countries, in some cases from countries behind the Iron Curtain and who have relatives behind the Iron Curtain now, are particularly vulnerable to this kind of pressure.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister if he is now in a position to answer the question I asked yesterday with regard to what industrial fields this espionage was particularly directed at, and especially what phases of the gas and oil industry seemed to be of interest in view of the fact that the original statement said that a pipe line was one of the matters about which information was being secured.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot add anything to the details of the communique in this regard, but I can say again what I said in my statement, that notwithstanding the length of time these operations continued no information of any security value was transmitted.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Bow River):: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, and I ask this question because there still seems to be some confusion. Were there more than two or only two Canadian civil servants connected with these negotiations with foreign agents? The Prime Minister spoke of one who co-operated and one who did not. Were there only two?


Lester Bowles Pearson: There was only one.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Brelon South):: In explaining the activities of the people referred to, the Prime Minister referred to the fact that they assisted. Why then was it necessary, in the last line of his statement on page 1088 of Hansard, to state:
-no action is at this time being taken against them.
Are we to assume from that statement that action will be undertaken at a later date?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, not in respect of any single person, with the possible exception of the man I have mentioned.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mine is a related question and normally should be asked of the Minister of Industry. However, in view of continuing reports of subversive activities, and particularly of the two spies
May 11. 1965

from the U.S.S.R., I should like to direct the question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister explain how, out of 268 barrels of refined cobalt stockpiled at a Federal warehouse at Deloro since 1959, 245 have been emptied of their cobalt contents and filled with sand? It is interesting to note that the total amount of cobalt involved is in excess of 150 tons. Each of the barrels contained some 1,200 pounds of cobalt with a minimum value of $650,000, and the theft was first noticed when some Federal workers noticed the barrels produced a hollow, drumlike sound when banged. They were opened and found to be empty.
The second question is, when was this amount of strategic material lost? Does the Prime Minister not regard this as still further evidence not only of espionage but of subversive activities being much more widespread than the public or even the Government itself is yet aware?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to discuss this matter with the Minister of Industry and perhaps a statement can be made tomorrow or the next day. I should like to look into the matter in the terms in which the question has been put.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: I had
a question along the same lines and on the same subject, Mr. Speaker. While the Prime Minister is preparing an answer to that question, could he determine when the last check or last stocktaking was made by Government officials?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That would certainly be an important part of the examination.


Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: My question is not a very serious one, Mr. Speaker. Yesterday the Prime Minister said he was prepared to table or have made an appendix to Hansard the press release concerning subversive activities. No action appears to have been taken as yet. I now ask that that press release be made an appendix to today's Hansard and I ask you, sir, to ascertain the will of the House in that connection.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be glad to do that if it is the desire of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House give consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of press release referred to, see appendix.]
22620-75 J
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister answered several questions that were asked with regard to the espionage ring, if one can use that expression. However, I asked the Prime Minister whether the civil servant who ultimately co-operated or who cooperated had received any payment from the Russian agents before reporting to the Canadian security squad or those charged with responsibility. What was the amount of that first payment he received; because there is a reference to thousands of dollars. What was the amount of that payment? How long did he retain that before his conscience caused him to go to the police officers and reveal these facts? This is a very important thing in determining this man's position.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not in a position, Mr. Speaker, to tell my hon. friend the date on which he began to receive funds from the Soviet authorities. It is clear that when he was confronted by the police at the beginning of last week he had been receiving such funds. I am not in a position to give more of the details regarding the amount and the time over which these funds were being received. I will look into it.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: May I
ask a supplementary question. I should like to ask the Prime Minister in reference to the civil servant whom he has described as gravely ill and who co-operated with the Russians, was this grave illness a natural illness or was it self imposed in any way?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is a natural illness which would not require to be mentioned in a statement of this kind except that it has a bearing on the investigation which the police are conducting with him and their ability to press him as hard as they might otherwise wish to do in regard to certain information. It is a natural illness.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice concerning also the subversive activities going on in Canada. I have actually asked this question many times already and the Minister was to give me an answer.
May 11. 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry
Is his department considering the advisability of inquiring into the legality of the operations of companies using rain-making machines in the areas of Saguenay, Lake St. John and Abitibi?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I will be able to give an answer to this question tomorrow as I have already started gathering the necessary information. [Text]



REPORT OF LAW SOCIETY RESPECTING ONTARIO SUPREME COURT JUDGE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice which I asked him some time ago. Has he yet received and been unable to examine a communication from the Law Society of Upper Canada concerning the position of Mr. Justice Landreville? What is the nature of the communication and what, if anything, does he propose to do about this matter, which appears to cast a shadow on the administration of justice?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a question for the order paper.



STEPS TO DEAL WITH FRAUDULENT BANKRUPTCIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Can the Minister tell us if he intends to introduce in this house some measures to curb the ever increasing number of fraudulent bankruptcies which have attained an unprecedented figure since 1933? And when he replies I hope he will announce that the government will take other steps than what he told me when I asked him a similar question last year, namely, that the government was taking the matter under consideration.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the hon. member should ask this question without unilateral limit.
I must say that the complete revision of the Bankruptcy Act will not be completed for several months yet.
A new superintendent of bankruptcies has just been appointed, and his views will have to be sought on several aspects of all related matters. I can say that for the time being I am thinking of recommending to the government a measure which might, even though
(Mr. Gregoire.]

temporarily, correct some of the most urgent aspects of the problems.
That is all the information I can provide for the moment.


Eric Alfred Winkler: A supplementary question. Can the Minister say what happened to the previous Superintendent of Bankruptcy, and what position he is in at the present time?


Guy Favreau: I feel this matter is not one of great interest to the house, but I must say that the previous superintendent of bankruptcies has now been promoted to the office of investigation and research on combines.


Eric Alfred Winkler: A further supplementary question. May I ask the Minister whether he was promoted by strict rotation, or was there a competition for an open position?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Surely there is not that sense of urgency that we need take up the time of the House at this moment.



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT-SUGGESTED RETENTION FOR TREASON

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Alkenbrack (Prince Edward-Len-nox):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. As a result of his report today of some of the facts and circumstances relating to the alleged treasonable acts of a certain Canadian citizen in serving the interests of a foreign power, will the Prime Minister from now on support the retention of capital punishment as the penalty for this and all other capital crimes against Canadian sovereignty and society?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not quite know how to subdivide the question into its various parts, but I think we had better leave it there.


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: There is only one section to the question, Mr. Speaker.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe East):: I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Finance. In view of the serious shortage of doctors as evidenced by the Hall Commission
May 11, 1965



report, and the fact that funds were sufficient for only 60 per cent of research projects at the University of Toronto, will the Minister of Finance urgently consider doubling the per capita grant so that researchers will be kept in Canada and our medical schools built up?


Hon. Waller L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: The hon. Member was kind enough to send me notice of this question. It seems to be inviting the Government to make a statement on a very important matter of policy which I can assure him is receiving close attention. I think it would be inappropriate for me to comment upon it on orders of the day.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairwealher@Royal: May
I ask a supplementary question. I wonder if the Minister could tell the House whether he expects to make an early announcement authorizing an increase in the per capita university grant from $2 to $3?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: It would seem to me that comes under the same general heading.


Mr. Fairwealher:: May I therefore prick the conscience of the Government on this matter at ten o'clock?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if this question is not in order, then it would not seem to me appropriate to discuss it at ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Minister said that in his opinion it was a matter of policy. I shall look into it and restudy the question when I get the blues.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS REPORTED STATEMENTS BY PREMIERS OF SASKATCHEWAN AND BRITISH COLUMBIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melfori-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. In a statement attributed to the Premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Thatcher, as well as to the Premier of British Columbia, it was indicated that they could not get along with the Federal Government and that they might sever the Federal relationship. As a resident of Saskatchewan I am disturbed about the situation. Will the Prime Minister inform me of the difficulties he has encountered?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, perhaps my hon. friend will
Inquiries of the Ministry give me some diplomatic advice in that regard. I expect to be in Regina next Monday and I hope to have an opportunity for an exchange of views with the gentleman in question.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker,
I	wonder could I direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask whether he would have anything to relate to the House about the collision between the U.S. ship Cedarville and the Norwegian ship Topoals-fjiord which occurred just a few days ago, and the deaths which resulted therefrom?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I had not thought of communicating anything to the House about this, but if there were anything the hon. gentleman was particularly interested in I would be glad to make inquiries.


Frank Howard: Periodically over the last few days I have asked the Minister questions about safety precautions and safety factors relating to collisions between ships along the Seaway and on the Great Lakes, and this is one of those matters. When the Minister said he did not feel it worth while to bring this to the attention of the House, it is a sad reflection on his own interest in safety on ships travelling on the Seaway.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I did not say it was not worth while. I said I had not thought of communicating anything to the House about this matter. The Department takes these matters very seriously and investigates them on the spot, where some good might be done.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Would the Minister consider exempting irrigation districts from the
II	per cent sales tax on materials used in the constructon or refurbishing of such irrigation districts, based on the fact that these districts are to all intents and purposes cooperatives formed by farmers for the production of agricultural produce?

May 11. 1365
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Surely this is a question for the order paper.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the reported suggestion by the Secretary of State for External Affairs that the NATO countries form a nonaggression pact with the Warsaw Pact countries, which suggestion was reportedly turned down by the Secretary General of NATO, could the Prime Minister tell us whether this suggestion is government policy?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend from New Westminster had given me notice of his intention to ask a similar question. As I understand it, the Secretary of State for External Affairs did not make the proposal to the NATO Council or even to the NATO Secretary General-the proposal for a non-aggression pact between the Warsaw Pact countries and the NATO Pact countries-but he threw out the idea of the desirability and the possibility of such a pact.
This is a matter in which we, and I am sure all hon. Members, have been interested for a good many years. It is a matter of timing and practicability, and I gather there are members of NATO-and they seem to include the Secretary General-who think this is not perhaps the best moment to proceed with that idea.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question and to apologize for not sending him notice, but I came down to the Chamber in a great hurry. In view of the recent rapid developments in the Dominican Republic-and no doubt the Government has information from its own and other sources -has the Prime Minister anything to report to the House as to the position of the Canadian Government with respect to these developments?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is much I can usefully report on the situation. Hon. Members will know that the Organization of
[Mr. Pugh.)
American States have taken action in regard to it. They have a committee in the Dominican Republic, and I am sure we were all very relieved that the Organization itself has intervened in this matter and that the peace keeping machinery is going to be broadened to become international O.A.S. machinery rather than that attached to any particular country. I think this is a very desirable development indeed.
The information we get shows that the two groups that consider themselves to be the government of the Dominican Republic are facing each other in hostility, and a little more than hostility at times. We have been approached by one of these groups headed, I believe, by General Caamano, for recognition. We do not consider that he has established a claim to recognition, and I think that is all I can say at the moment.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As a supplementary question may I ask the Prime Minister whether he has received any information from the government of the United States to substantiate the claim that the forces of Colonel Caamano, which are seeking to re-establish the elected government of the Dominican Republic, are indeed communist controlled and communist dominated?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, I had no definitive information that they are communist controlled or dominated. Certainly they have communists in their-what shall I say-controlling group, but with respect to the extent of the control by communists I am not able to give any definitive evidence.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago the Prime Minister said he had received no evidence. If the Prime Minister has received evidence since he made his statement on Thursday last, could he tell us what that evidence is?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have received evidence that there are indeed communists in the directing group who are controlling that particular-I was going to call it a government-that particular group seeking governmental recognition. I am not in a position to assess whether or not this infiltration of these communists constitutes control of this group.


Mr. R. W. Priitie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Did
the Prime Minister base his information upon Canadian sources in the country, or is this from the U.S. State Department?
May 11. 1965	COMMONS


Lester Bowles Pearson: Both, Mr. Speaker. We are getting information from our representative on the spot.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether he has had time to talk to the Minister of Trade and Commerce about the report that came out of Washington last Thursday morning about a continental resources policy not being able to be continued with, or started, because of lack of personnel?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, in Washington when I was having some discussions with Secretary of the Interior, Mr. Udall, the subject arose of the joint studies that we have been considering in the joint cabinet committee. We have been proceeding with a number of urgent joint studies in the fields in which our two governments are interested. I did think, however, that I should say to the Secretary that I thought it would not be the best use of the limited resources available if we were to undertake too grandiose a study, and that we should concentrate on matters of immediate interest.



SOCIAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, on May 5 I directed a question to the Minister of Labour asking him whether it was true that Ontario teachers have not applied for social insurance numbers because the Ontario Teachers' Federation has decided that they should not. I also directed his attention to the fact that there was a case now before the courts, the Crown v. Daniel E. Woodward, the publisher of Canada Month, for refusing to compel his employees to take out insurance numbers.
On May 6 the hon. Member for Quebec-Montmorency, in the Minister's absence, restated this question, and again on May 7, at which time the Minister said he did not know of any other action which the Crown was taking against an employer for refusing to force his employees to take out new numbers.
DEBATES	1153
Inquiries of the Ministry
I would now re-ask the original question again. Is it true that teachers in Ontario are not applying for their social insurance numbers because they have been advised not to do so by the Ontario Teachers' Federation?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I think I have already answered these points in the absence of the hon. gentleman, when replying to the hon. Member for Quebec-Montmorency, but I will say that we have no official notification that the Ontario Teachers' Federation has requested its members not to apply for social insurance numbers. In the registration which was undertaken previously there was no legal obligation on the part of the teachers to secure numbers because they were not part of the insurable population, but the fact is that members of the Ontario Teachers' Federation did register voluntarily.


Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. My question is supplementary to the one previously posed concerning the Ontario teachers who have decided not to apply for social insurance numbers, or for social insurance registration. As I understood the Minister, he said these people were not obligated to make application for these numbers because they did not come within the ambit of the Unemployment Insurance Act. If I am correct, I wonder whether the Minister could go a little further and say what will be the situation upon implementation of the Canada Pension Plan?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As I recollect it, Mr. Speaker, teachers are part of the pensionable population and will accordingly be obligated to secure a number for that purpose.



HATE LITERATURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Postmaster General, and in doing so I am certain I speak on behalf of all hon. Members in welcoming him back and hoping his health has improved satisfactorily.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Harold Edward Winch: Yesterday I asked the acting, and the acting, acting, acting Postmaster General a question relative to the distribution from Vancouver, B.C. and Gooderham,
May 11, 1965

Inquiries of the Ministry Ontario, post offices of hate literature, and in particular anti-Jewish pamphlets and literature. The Prime Minister was kind enough finally to state that the matter would be investigated. However, Sir, in the past 24 hours Members of the House of Commons have received through the mail, from the same address in Vancouver, hate literature more vicious, more damning, more anti-Canadian than even that which I was able to produce for the Postmaster General yesterday afternoon.
In view of the fact that this abuse is now being extended to Members of the House of Commons, who are receiving most vicious hate literature attacking the Jewish people, I would ask whether we can have a reply from the Postmaster General, who I know has already been looking into it this morning, and whether this abuse of mailing privileges will be stopped. I would ask the Postmaster General whether there is any way in which the Government can bring to a halt this un-Canadian, unjust activity. And, sir, as a third question I would ask is there any way in which the Government can find out who are the big financial backers of this hate literature which is now becoming far too prevalent in Canada?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to thank the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) who, on behalf of members of the house, has welcomed me back after the few days of rest I had to take for reasons of health.
I should also like to thank the hon. member for having brought to the attention of the house, of the acting Postmaster General, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Nicholson), and of my parliamentary secretary (Mr. Caron) this particular case of hate literature which occurred during the past few days, the sources of which were already known to the department but in which the matter had not yet been obtained.
I think that all members of the house will be happy to learn that, like my predecessor, I am very much concerned about the use which is being made of the Canadian mails by various foreign or Canadian groups for the distribution of this hate literature.
I was very happy to see that Mr. Justice Wells had confirmed a decision made by my colleague, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, while he was postmaster general, because the decision of Judge Wells will

be of a great help to us in the elimination and prohibition of this hate literature which is distributed in the country.
Therefore I thank the hon. member for calling my attention to this matter and I would ask all members of the House of Commons that each time they receive, through their voters or directly, indications that groups in this country or abroad are using the mails to distribute this hate literature, to give me their co-operation.
In the specific case mentioned by the hon. member for Vancouver East, I must say that this very morning I had a meeting with the officials of my department and that at this time we are investigating, while receiving the support of the Department of Justice. I can assure the hon. member that as soon as I have all the necessary information and the investigation is completed, I will not hesitate, as the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration did, to take the necessary steps to put an end to that extremely condemnable activity.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question,
Mr. Speaker. I understood the Minister to say that he had known of the distribution of this literature before from this address, but that he had not been able to obtain the kind of literature which could be considered as being of this type. I would therefore like to ask a supplementary question. Does not the Postmaster General think action should be taken when Members of the House of Commons get this type of literature about one of the most respected men in Canada-I repeat, one of the most respected men in Canada- and I refer to Rabbi Feinberg of Toronto, which says:
The Red Rabbi.
The startling story of Abraham Feinberg, arch anti-Christian, master pro-Communist and leading "ban the bomber".
The Red Rabbi is a sensational new booklet by David Stanley, unmasking Canada's number one fellow traveller and Jewish racist.
Devastating revelations. Red subversion uncovered. Damning facts exposed. The whole ugly truth.
If that is not sufficient evidence, plus the newspaper which says that some of the greatest men in the world are conspiring for the establishment of Red dictatorship, just how much more is required before action can be taken by the Postmaster General?


Mr. Valade:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker-
May 11, 1965


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do believe that the point has been very well made.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering whether a thought might be given to removing that description of Rabbi Fein-berg from Hansard. Otherwise the present and all future generations will have this description of the Rabbi that is so far removed from the facts. I do not like to see a libel like that perpetuated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed that the particular reference read by the hon. Member be deleted from Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Harold Edward Winch: Oh, Sir, I must rise on this. Good heavens; this is a man for whom I have the finest, most wonderful respect. My point is that this description I read has been distributed through the mails. On the point I raised yesterday, this is being said, through the mails, about this most honourable man; and, Sir, surely the implication whether-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister said he would take this matter into immediate consideration. It is, as a matter of fact, under intense investigation, and I am sure he will take every step possible to stop it.


Georges-J. Valade: A sup-mentary question to the Postmaster General, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I would have a supplementary question to ask the Postmaster General. I should like to know if, before taking a definite stand on hate literature he could not give a legal definition the government could use to take steps in this regard, prior to reaching a final decision. The reason I am asking the minister this question is to prevent another type of literature from coming under that definition, such as the pamphlets put out by the Minister of Justice against the leader of the Conservative party.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Under our Standing Orders, to ask for a legal opinion from the Minister is out of order.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Fisheries. I have had a little difficulty in catching your eye, and the Minister has since departed from the chamber. However, because of the urgency of the subject matter may I direct my question to some Member of the Government. In view of the fact that a large field of drift ice is located off the coast of Cape Breton, would the Minister give consideration of delaying the opening of the lobster season in district 6B from May 15 to May 24? I regret I have not had an opportunity to give the Minister notice, but this question is prompted by a telegram I have received from the fishermen of the Cape Breton Co-operative Fisheries; and I might mention, Mr. Speaker, that I have also received a telegram, since coming into the House, from the Victoria Co-operative Fisheries Ltd.


Hon. J. Watson MacNaughlon (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to bring this question to the attention of the Minister. I know that he is very active in the consideration of these matters.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reg Canielon (Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance which has to do with the question of potash mines. I have asked him some questions in the past on this matter. Since the Premier of Saskatchewan says that he "is dismayed at the actions of Finance Minister Walter Gordon in not allowing tax concessions to solution mines", and he goes on to label this as "rank discrimination", my question is, is the Government now prepared tc revise the tax regulations to allow tax concessions for this type of mining?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I am sure I am not expected to comment upon the alleged comments of somebody else. With regard to this particular matter, I would think an appropriate opportunity to raise it would be when the debate on the budget resolutions or income tax bill is resumed.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg Norlh Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for

May 11, 1965
Inquiries of the Ministry the Minister of Labour. When I asked the Minister yesterday about the possibility of the Fair Wages and Hours of Labour Act being amended by July 1 so that federal employees covered by it would have the same conditions other employees have under the Canada Labour Code, he told me he was shy about giving me a deadline and that he did not intend to let me beguile him. I wonder whether the Minister is aware of the fact that on February 26, when I asked him whether these people would be covered by July 1-those who are federal employees-in the same way as those who come under the Canada Labour Code, his reply was "That is the intention." Will the Minister confirm that intention now?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Well, Mr. Speaker, it was stated at the time the Canada Labour Code was debated that it was the intention of the Government to apply the same principle to its own employees, and that is still the intention.


Stanley Howard Knowles: But will this be done by July 1?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the intention, Mr. Speaker.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport. Last Wednesday, in the minister's absence, I put the following question to his parliamentary secretary: Why was the St. Hubert airport in Quebec, offered for sale?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had with me at the moment certain information about that matter, but I find I have not got it with me today. Therefore I will try to answer the question tomorrow.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Southam (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Minister of Labour. On Friday last the hon. Member for Melville (Mr. Ormis-ton) inquired from the Minister whether the

hearings concerning the C.N.R. run-through problems were concluded, and when we may expect the report from Judge Freedman. The Minister indicated that he would take the question as notice and give the House an answer this week. Is he now prepared to give the House that answer?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the dates are May 7 in the first instance, and June 30 in the second.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a very brief question to the Prime Minister, although perhaps it might also be directed to the Minister of Transport, who I understand was present on the occasion in question. My question concerns a very intriguing report in yesterday's press indicating that Premier Ho Chi Minh of North Viet Nam, Premier Chou En-lai of China, Premier Castro of Cuba and Premier Kosygin of the Soviet Union were formally invited to take part in the convention of the Young Liberal Party which took place in Toronto last week end. In view of the fact that they did not turn up at that meeting, I am wondering whether the Government is now considering issuing formal invitations to those gentlemen to visit Canada.



QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE RESPECTING CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS BY HAL BANKS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister which concerns the three points of privilege stated yesterday by Members of this House on the Government side, namely the hon. Member for St. Lawrence-St. George (Mr. Turner), the hon. Member for Notre Dame de Grace (Mr. Asselin) and the hon. Member for Lafontaine (Mr. Lachance). In view of the questions of privilege which were raised, which will very seriously endanger the reputation of the House and the Party in power, I am wondering whether the Prime Minister will consider referring the whole matter to a special investigating committee, as was done with the N.D.P. accusations of electoral fraud, and whether he would not consider taking this step so as to justify his own Members and clear this House from any bad reflections this matter could have.
May 11, 1965


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it was not a matter, as I understood it, which concerned the party in power. The matter concerned certain Members of this House, raising questions of privilege. This refers to information supplied to Members by certain other persons, and I do not think it is a matter of concern for the Government at all.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)

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. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was commenting upon the implications to the Government, to the Canadian people and to the auto industry of the fact that under this new agreement the same amounts of duty will not be collected on imports of vehicles and parts. I should like to suggest to this House that the increased revenue to the Government which will likely come from increased production in Canada as a result of this agreement will more than make up for the duty that it would have collected on imports, had this agreement not come into effect.
I should further like to point out to this House that in order to import duty free, a manufacturer must manufacture finished cars in Canada in the same ratio to sales in Canada as he did in the base year, and must maintain a certain Canadian content, or Canadian added value. And of course there is the increase in Canadian production to which Canadian manufacturers have committed themselves in writing, in those letters which have been tabled in this House. It is my understanding that, to the extent a manufacturer does not meet these requirements, he will be called upon to pay duty on his imports, so there is not a simple ability involved here on the part of a manufacturer to import cars and parts without paying duty.
Opposition Members have questioned the benefit of this agreement to the Canadian consumer. Certainly the price of cars to Canadians is an important factor and I think that this agreement will be the cause of bringing the price of cars to Canadians very close, if not exactly to the level of the price of cars in the United States, within a period of time which I hope will be as short as possible.
Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement
One must remember that lower prices will have meaning only if Canadian consumers have the money in their pockets to pay them. The Canadian consumer is also the Canadian worker, the Canadian businessman and the Canadian producer of goods and services. Opposition critics in discussing this agreement, referring as they do only to the aspect of duty free imports and of non-collection of tariff amounts, wear unfortunately narrow sets of blinkers. They overlook the benefit to the Canadian consumer of some $38 million or more in increased production in Canada by 1968, and they overlook what this will mean in terms of additional jobs for Canadians. This will also mean more money for Canadians to spend. These are the major and primary aims of the agreement.
It is my understanding of the work force in Canada that at least one worker in every seven is employed in some activity linked with the auto industry, so we must not only consider the 80,000 people employed by the automobile manufacturers and the automobile parts manufacturers. For example, we must think as well of those employed in the paint, rubber, chemical, steel, aluminum and forest products industries. I suggest there is not a single part of this country not touched in some way by the automobile industry. We must strive for lower prices, but we must do so in a way which gives Canadian secondary industry not only a chance to survive, but also to adjust and expand while meeting changing trade conditions. This is the approach which I suggest has been followed by this agreement.
Some opposition Members I gather have felt that as soon as the agreement was signed there should have been an immediate decrease in car prices to Canadians to the United States level, but they forget that duty is only one factor in the higher price structure of Canadian vehicles. There is also involved the higher cost of production in Canada at this time, due to our smaller production lines, and so on. These methods of production in Canada and the costs resulting from them can certainly not be expected to change overnight, or even within a few months. Therefore the only way to have brought about an immediate decrease at the moment of signing the agreement, of Canadian car prices to U.S. levels, without any change in Canadian production methods, was simply to remove all the duties and permit manufacturers to bring in all the cars they want from the United States.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could I ask the hon. Member a question?
May 11, 1965

Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I will be prepared to answer questions after I have completed my remarks.
This removal of duties by itself would mean nothing more than the destruction of the Canadian automobile industry, and the destruction of more than 80,000 jobs. The agreement has been designed in a way intended not only to prevent this very bad result, but also to expand Canadian production and to increase the number of jobs in Canada, since under this agreement there can only be duty free imports by manufacturers of cars and original automotive parts, and then only if they meet the production requirements in Canada as laid down by the Government.
I suggest that a harmful effect in the immediate short run, to employment and production in Canada similar to that which would come about at the moment of the removal of all duties by itself, would have come about if individuals were permitted to import cars and parts to Canada, at the very moment that the agreement was signed, in the same way as had been permitted manufacturers of original vehicles and parts, particularly if this was permitted before the industry in Canada was first given a reasonable period of time to readjust and retool. Those who suggest that people should be able to go to the United States right now and buy cars duty free before the industry has had an opportunity to readjust and retool, are again calling for the immediate destruction of Canadian jobs and the Canadian industry.
There have been complaints by the Opposition about the agreement between our country and the United States, because it does not contain provisions to deal with possible dislocations in Canada.


Mr. Orlikow:: Not possible-present.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I suggest that the agreement itself contains nothing about this in so far as the United States is concerned either, and I would suggest to my hon. friend that he should read it. There is a reference to helping workers and firms in the United States in the Act now before the United States Congress calling for the implementation of the agreement, but this Act does nothing more than bring into effect with reference to this agreement the United States Trade Expansion Act of 1962. It does provide also for the President to make further proposals for adjustment assistance within a certain period of time after the Act is made law, but these proposals are not in any way spelled out.

Mr. Speaker, if you look at the Trade Expansion Act of 1962 you will see that in respect of assisting workers to adjust to changes arising out of that Act, it provides for payments of amounts equal to 65 per cent of the worker's weekly wages, less unemployment insurance. I should like to point out to this House that this is not particularly different from provisions now available to a very large number of workers in the Canadian automobile industry, under existing supplemental unemployment benefits, which make it possible for them to receive supplemental unemployment benefits, in amounts including unemployment insurance, equal to some 60 to 70 per cent of take-home pay. I am not suggesting that this is the entire answer to any problem of dislocation which may arise. I think our Government, where necessary and needed, should be prepared to take other steps. I am merely pointing out that what we are doing at this moment is not totally different from what is being done in the United States regarding dislocations, contrary to what some Opposition speeches up to this point have suggested.
It has been asked by Opposition Members whether or not this agreement has as yet brought any benefit to Canada. I should like to inform this House that since this agreement was announced Chrysler of Canada at Windsor has announced an additional shift which will provide some 1,000 additional jobs.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


David Orlikow: Tell us about Ford.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: This, Mr. Speaker, is a very important addition to employment in Windsor along with the expansion and creation of new plants such as the new General Motors trim plant which will employ in excess of 1,750 people, a plant that came into being after this Government established its designated area program and after this Government established the first tariff remission plan which this agreement replaces. The first tariff remission plan was based on the same concept of not collecting tariffs on imports of cars and parts from the United States, provided there is increased production in Canada.
I should like to bring to the attention of the House another very important example of the benefits that have already come to this country from this agreement even though it has been in effect in Canada for only a short period of time. This example is important in view of certain comments that were made by the hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). I refer to an article in the
May 11. 1965

London Free Press of Wednesday, April 21. This report indicates that a $2 million plant, expected to employ eventually more than 700 persons, will be built in Ingersoll. The Vice President and General Manager of the plant has said, and I quote from the article:
...the auto pact between Canada and the United States was a "definite factor" in the firm's decision to construct another plant in southwestern Ontario. "The agreement most definitely is an asset to automotive parts manufacturers in Canada," he said.
I quote further from the article:
Civic officials, at a press conference at the Ingersoll Inn where the announcement was made, acclaimed it as the "greatest boost to the town in ages".
This has happened, Mr. Speaker, since the agreement was announced. I wonder why the hon. Member for Oxford did not trouble to bring this important piece of news to the attention of the House?
It should also be recalled, Mr. Speaker, that this agreement is coming into effect in a period when the Canadian economy and the number of jobs in that economy are expanding at a record rate, and this in large measure due to the policies of this Government. This expanding economy will certainly help to ease any problems of readjustment that may arise.
I must say I was somewhat surprised that the leader of the New Democratic Party would speak in such an approving manner with regard to the action of a United States U.A.W. official in asking the United States government to tell the Canadian government what it should do about adjustment of prices in the car industry in Canada. While I am sure this official's aims and intentions were certainly of the best, I did not think, in view of some of the other comments of the leader of the N.D.P., that I would see the day in this House when he would approve of an attempt to have the government of the United States tell Canadians how to handle their affairs.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Somebody needs to tell this Government. They have no backbone.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In approving this move the leader of the N.D.P. is not expressing himself in a manner which pays proper credit to the fine efforts made by Canadian U.A.W. officials. There have been strong and vigorous representations made by George Burt, the Canadian director of the U.A.W., and also by local union presidents such as Hank

Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement Renaud, Alex Simkovitch, Charles Brooks and Reg Rudling to the government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: What response did they get?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: They have been listened to with a great deal of attention. Last night the hon. Member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher) referred to remarks made by the provincial Member for Windsor-Walkerville in the Ontario Legislature with regard to what the Member felt might be the result of this agreement, and I think other Opposition Members in the Legislature may have made similar comments. I suggest that as more details of how the agreement is working and will work become available, most of those who have expressed concern and criticism, whether in the Ontario Legislature, in this House or elsewhere will, I am confident, modify their views in the light of their further study of the agreement, and what will actually happen under it, and they will come to share the view of those on this side of the House that it represents aims beneficial to all Canadians.
Contrary to what has been suggested by some Opposition spokesmen, I am sure that the Government was and is conscious of its responsibilities to the auto workers and parts manufacturers in Canada. As I have indicated, before the agreement was signed the Government received representations and held discussions with representatives both of the auto workers and the independent parts manufacturers, and with the signing of the agreement steps were taken for the setting up of machinery for consultation on the effects of the agreement-


David Orlikow: What steps?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -between the Government, labour and management. The Government held a meeting with the heads of the three major automobile companies to discuss the form of this machinery, and as a result of this meeting direct liaison by the national employment service with each company regarding possible labour adjustment was created.
With the announcement of the proposed Ford lay-off a special meeting was held by the Government with the President of the Ford Motor Company. Then a meeting was held involving the Government, the union and senior management representatives of Ford for the exchange of information on this announcement, and a special team went to work to try to be prepared to ease any adjustment problems that might arise in our city of Windsor as a result of this lay-off.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that there is an obligation to help smaller firms and to help work-
May 11, 1965

Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement ers to adjust, where necessary, to changes brought about by this agreement. In my view this concept is expressed very well by an editorial which appeared in the Windsor Star of Monday, April 26, from which I quote briefly:
The Government, which negotiated and signed the auto agreement, has a responsibility to all workers in the industry. Even if the long term effects are beneficial, the responsibility to workers temporarily hurt by the plan is strong. The Government should take every step to make the transition as easy for the workers as possible...
There is also, in this case, a heavy responsibility on the company. It is laying off employees because it wants to be able to take full advantage of the larger markets provided by the auto plan. It must give every consideration to the employees whose services have helped it to prosper in the past and who will be needed in the more prosperous future...
It is a general responsibility to make sure that those affected along the way are made the beneficiaries, not the victims, of progress.
In our system needed legislation can be introduced into Parliament and proceeded with more swiftly than in the United States Congress, with its different system. I am confident that the Government will be prepared to take such further steps as may be required to assist in adjustment so that auto workers in particular will be able to benefit from this agreement to the same extent as their fellow citizens. But, Mr. Speaker, let us not lose sight of the major objectives of this agreement, the major objectives of expanding employment and production in Canada very substantially over the next few years. This agreement will lead to lower manufacturing costs in Canada which will benefit Canadian consumers. It will lead to increased production in Canada which will create additional opportunities for manufacturing in Canada as well as increased job opportunities for Canadian workers. I therefore urge the defeat of the amendment now before the House.


Mr. Fisher:: Very well read.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. Member said he would answer a question. I want to ask a question about one thing I noted while he was reading his speech. He said that the short runs in Canada made the price of cars much higher in this country. I want to ask him how he accounts for the fact that Canadian made cars are now being sold in the United States for much less than they are being sold in Canada.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, first I should like to point out to the hon. Member and the House that in delivering my speech I referred

to my notes to no greater extent than does the hon. Member himself, and particularly the eminent author from Port Arthur. It is my understanding that the sale to the United States to which the hon. Member referred is merely an experiment or trial involving a relatively small number of vehicles, in order to see what problems may arise in selling completely Canadian manufactured vehicles in the United States. Basically, from the point of view of expanding production and employment in Canada I think it is a good thing that the Ford Motor Company has adopted this trial procedure to see how this can be done. I think it is something that a company the size of Ford can do, inasmuch as it is only a trial involving some 400 cars a month over a period of only a few months.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Does the hon. Member think that 80,000 Valiants by Chrysler is also an experimental run?
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I hope it won't be an experimental run because it will lead to increased jobs for the people of Windsor. The leader of the N.D.P. does not like this, which again expresses what he really thinks of the people who live and work in Windsor at the present time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Do not display your stupidity.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: So far as I am aware, the price at which these cars are to be sold, if this is to be carried out, has not been announced. I think we ought to suspend judgment on that aspect until we find out about that.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I should like to ask the hon. Member a question. He mentioned a figure of $280 million, and I think this is over a four year period. I understand also that over a four year period the tariff lapsing will be in effect. It is estimated to cover a figure of $50 million for the first year, so projecting it would be even more than this. As a consequence of a total tariff gain of somewhere over $200 million in the same period, we get $280 million, as a sort of guarantee of increased production. Can the hon. Member suggest any other industry anywhere that has ever been given an opportunity under such favourable terms?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In the first place, I think it is over a period of three years, not four. I do not believe there is much value in talking about the so-called loss of duties involving a greater degree of production, which was not in existence at the time the duties were
May 11, 1965

being collected. Now, I think that any tax reductions, any tariff reductions, involves making available to the people or firms from whom those taxes or tariffs were once collected, the amount that the government would otherwise have had. It has happened every time we have reduced taxes and tariffs. It is my understanding of this agreement, and the reasons behind it, that the auto industry, because of its connection with the United States and the pattern of ownership, and because of the impact it has on so many other sectors of the economy, is a key industry to work on to attain the needed objective spelled out by the Economic Council, of creating a million and a half jobs in Canada by 1970. I think the hon. Member will approve of this objective which this Government is following very effectively.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I wonder if I could ask the hon. Member another question? He specified that there will be price competition as the situation develops between manufacturers. Is there some kind of guarantee that the price will come down?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I certainly think that the agreement gives us an opportunity for such competition, and it will give the manufacturers an opportunity to show to this House and to the country that they believe in the principles of free enterprise, and the benefits in this regard which it is said to bring to the people of this country.


Mr. McCulcheon:: May I ask the hon. Member a question relative to the price of automobiles to the eventual consumer? He rationalized very well the reason that there would be no reduction in price to the consumer, and using the same yardstick in relation to the price of cars, how can he justify the auto manufacturers insisting their suppliers in this country supply them at United States rates? Do not the same rules apply to the suppliers as apply to, shall we say, the Big Three?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I was referring to an immediate price reduction. I am confident that this agreement will provide opportunities for prices in Canada and the United States coming closer together after the Canadian industry has had an opportunity to readjust and retool. We cannot expect the price of vehicles manufactured in whole or in part in Canada to come down if the components, whether manufactured by the parent companies or by independent suppliers, do not themselves come down in price. You have to start somewhere by asking that the prices

Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement start coming down to the United States level. If my hon. friend really wanted the price to come down, then he would approve of this step.


David Orlikow: The
speech by the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) yesterday was the speech that one could expect from a Member who represents the kind of constituency he does. The City of Westmount probably has the highest per capita income of any constituency in Canada. If the Minister talked in general terms about the fact that total employment would increase sharply as a result of this agreement, and that to attain this goal we would have to take the risk of temporary unemployment one cannot be too surprised. I doubt if he has ever met an unemployed person, let alone having one as a friend.
However, one would expect the hon. Member for Essex West (Mr. Gray), who represents a labour constituency and whose constituents know very well what employment can do in terms of living standards of the family, would be concerned.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I have expressed my concern.


David Orlikow: The hon. Member expressed his concern, Mr. Speaker; he had high praise for the statement of the position of the Canadian leader of the United Automobile Workers. Then, the hon. Member ignored every single suggestion which was made to the Government, every single proposal which has been made by Mr. Burt. He talked about the fact the Government had met with officers of the auto workers. Does he not know that months ago the auto workers proposed to the Government that a tripartite meeting be held regularly to work out the details of the transitional period. Does the hon. Member know that the Government has not followed that suggestion? Does the hon. Member not know the Government has not followed that suggestion because the automobile industry does not want this tripartite agreement? I ask, whom does the hon. Member for Essex West represent, the workers in his constituency or the companies who own the workers and the industry?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Look at the voting results.


David Orlikow: I hope the electors will ask that question.
The hon. Member keeps talking about reductions in price. I wonder if he has read the speech the Minister delivered yesterday? What did the Minister say? I refer the hon.
May 11. 1965

Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement Member and the public, because the public has been asking about this, to what the Minister said. If the hon. Member can read, and I sometimes doubt that, he will find this on page 1129 of Hansard, and I quote the Minister:
I myself think it is more likely that we shall not have price increases than that we shall have significant price decreases-
In other words, what is the Minister saying? In the years to come as United States car prices go up we in Canada will be lucky because our increases will not go up at the same rate. At some point in the future, three years, five years or ten years from now, when United States car prices come up to the level of car prices in Canada, we will have equality. There will be no price decreases, but we will have equality. When the hon. Member talks about decreases, therefore, he is just talking nonsense.
I want to put on the record the fact that it is not only the Members of the N.D.P. and other opposition parties who are concerned about price decreases. Yesterday the Leader of the N.D.P. quoted an editorial which appeared in the Vancouver Sun on April 14, in which it is stated:
Among other things, Mr. Walter 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.
Now, Mr. Speaker, the Winnipeg Free Press, which is just as partisan a supporter of the Liberal Party as the Vancouver Sun, had an editorial on April 17 from which I should like to quote a couple of sentences:
A much larger question now faces the Canadian Government as a result of the free-trade deal. It is whether this ostensibly constructive agreement will do any good for the Canadian consumer or whether it will benefit only a few rich automobile manufacturers.
I will interject at this moment to say that the Minister of Industry answered that question. This agreement is not going to benefit Canadian consumers; it is going to benefit the very rich automobile manufacturers about whom the Winnipeg Free Press talks. [DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
Later they say that unquestionably this will turn out to be true if automobile prices are not reduced in Canada to the level that exists in the United States. That was the main purpose of the whole exercise. If it is not achieved, then the Canadian Government will merely subsidize the Canadian manufacturer by $50 million a year, the amount of

revenue lost in lieu of tariffs on U.S. cars and parts. This is what a Liberal newspaper says.
Whom are we subsidizing, Mr. Speaker? A U.S. Senate subcommittee recently held hearings on the concentration of industry, and a very eminent economist in the U.S., Dr. Gardner Means, presented testimony about the 100 largest corporations in the U.S.A. I want to point out whom we are subsidizing when we give the U.S. automobile manufacturers $50 million which previously we were collecting in tariffs.
In 1962 General Motors had total assets of $10billion; Ford Company had total assets of almost $5J billion, and Chrysler Corporation had total assets of $1-| billion. This is the kind of corporation which the Government of Canada feels it is necessary to subsidize.
The question of company costs and profits has been raised. It is very difficult to get any information, but under the regulations of the American Security and Exchange Commission, companies have to file statements.
Chrysler Corporation filed a statement with the Security and Exchange Commission which showed that in the year 1963 Chrysler of Canada made a profit of $17.7 million-and I commend this to the Minister of Industry for study by him-which was a rate of 36.5 per cent on the net worth of the company in Canada, which was $48.5 million in 1963.
In 1964 Chrysler of Canada made a net profit of $20.9 million, which was a rate of return of 31.5 per cent on a net worth of $66.2 million. American Motors, a much smaller company, according to the figures it submitted to the Exchange Commission made a net profit in 1963 of $3.3 million, representing a return of 58.5 per cent in that year. In 1964 it made a profit of $3.6 million, representing a return of 40.5 per cent.
The Leader of the New Democratic Party has very aptly said that this Government is following the biblical injunction, that "to him that hath shall be given," and the Minister of Industry is just the Minister who can implement that kind of policy, a policy which helps the wealthy at the expense of the ordinary citizens, the consumer of car products in Canada.


Mr. Moreau:: Would the hon. Member permit a question?


David Orlikow: Certainly.
May 11, 1965


Maurice John Moreau: Would the hon. Member agree that the high rate of return on the Canadian operation is a direct result of the subsidy which exists in the form of import duties?


David Orlikow: If the hon. Member is asking me do I think the high rate of return is due to the fact that the Canadian subsidiaries of the companies I have mentioned can hide behind the tariff, I am inclined to agree with him. But he should not ask me that question. He should ask the Minister of Industry. He should ask the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), who can deal with that very easily by reducing the tariff if the companies reduce their prices.


Maurice John Moreau: As a supplementary question, if the hon. Member agrees that the tariff is a form of subsidy, how can he-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Is the hon. Member rising to ask a supplementary question?


Maurice John Moreau: Yes-how can he then argue that the removal of the import duties is a subsidy for the companies?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is not removed for everybody; it is only for the companies. It is a handout for the companies.


David Orlikow: My contention is that while this agreement protects the companies, which need no protection, against any difficulties they may have, it does not protect the workers at all.
Without quoting exactly, and just giving the gist of what he said, yesterday the Minister said these were only fears we were expressing. Today I was told that at the meeting which the auto workers had with the Government, at which were present the Minister of Industry the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) who is, of course, the hon. Member for Windsor, by some strange coincidence representatives of the Ford Company were there and indicated there would not be less than between 1,500 to 1,600 workers laid off as a result of the changes which it would be necessary to make in order to take advantage of this agreement. I am further told that in the presence of the Minister a Ford representative assured the workers that no worker would be laid off for longer than 32 weeks.
This may not seem very serious for people like the Minister and I who, so long as we are here, get our pay cheques every month; but I am sure the hon. Member for Essex West
Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement (Mr. Gray) could tell the Minister, if he does not already know it, that it is a very serious matter to a worker to be laid off for 32 weeks, and this is precisely what we are concerned about at this stage.
I notice the hon. Member for York-Scar-borough (Mr. Moreau) seems to have left his seat. I was told this morning that at the Ford plant in Oakville, only four employees out of 97 are to remain in one office department, that 93 were offered the choice of moving to Detroit or Windsor at the end of this month, or being laid off, that 40 have availed themselves of this choice, which is a pretty serious step, and that the balance will have their employment terminated.
This is the kind of thing about which we on this side of the House and the representatives of the auto workers are concerned, the auto workers about whom the hon. Member for Essex West spoke so approvingly, but so conveniently did not advance one of the ideas which they had proposed to the Government It is something to which the Minister has not replied, and the Minister of Labour, who has such a great opinion of the working people, has been conspicuous by his silence in this debate. We have learned to expect sweet words and no action from him.
Yesterday the Leader of the N.D.P. approvingly quoted a suggestion made by Mr. Woodcock, Vice President of the United Automobile Workers Union. We are not ashamed of quoting Americans if they have good ideas, and we are prepared to listen to them. I now wish to quote from a statement made by the President of the United Automobile Workers Union, Mr. Walter Reuther, on January 16 last.


Maurice John Moreau: You are talking in circles.


David Orlikow: Of course everybody who disagrees with the Government is talking in circles, whether they be hon. Members in opposition or representatives of labour unions.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It is better than some who do not talk at all.


David Orlikow: I want to quote what Mr. Reuther said on January 16:
We in the U.A.W. are pleased that an agreement has been worked out by the U.S. and Canadian Governments to provide for a common market in automobiles and parts.
We have long favoured trade liberalization and expansion and we have advocated for many years the creation of such a common market.
We are confident that a rational division of labour ir. the production of autos and parts as between the United States and Canada will prove
11S4	COMMONS
Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement
to be in the best interests of the economies, the consumers and the workers of both countries.
The efficiencies resulting from such a division of labour will reduce production costs-particularly in Canada where low volume has prevented full and effective use of mass production techniques. The industry is morally obligated to pass those costs savings on to consumers in lower prices and thus expand sales and production. Lower prices would mean increased employment in both countries for auto workers as well as workers in other industries which supply materials, parts and components used in auto factories...
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
"In order to achieve the more rational division of labour made possible by the agreement, there will inevitably be some readjustment of production within and between both countries. This could result in hardship and dislocations for some groups of auto workers and their families unless effective steps are taken to tide them over the transition period.
"We call upon both governments to assure that adequate protection will be provided for those who would otherwise be adversely affected by the agreement. It would be wholly improper for the auto corporations and car consumers to enjoy the benefits of the agreement while auto workers and their families bear the burden and sacrifices resulting from it.
I wish the hon. Member for Essex West and the Minister of Industry had made the kind of statement which an American citizen, Mr. Walter Reuther, made. Mr. Reuther called in that statement for a reduction in-


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. Member allow me to ask him a question?


David Orlikow: Certainly.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Did he not hear me, in the course of my remarks, making just that kind of statement myself and quoting approvingly from a Windsor Star editorial giving the same view?


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, of course I heard the hon. Member say it; but the hon. Member, as is the case with so many Liberals, is adept at saying all things on all sides of the question. The hon. Member says he approves of Mr. Reuther's suggestion that car prices be reduced. The hon. Member spoke after the Minister had already said he does not expect car prices to be reduced. The hon. Member approves of Mr. Reuther's statement that steps be taken under the agreement to make sure that if dislocation takes place, workers will not suffer. The auto workers in Canada and we in this House have given facts and figures to demonstrate that workers are suffering. Fifteen hundred Ford workers are going to be laid off. Is that not suffering?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. Member another question?

DEBATES	May 11, 1965


David Orlikow: Certainly.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: How can workers who have not yet been laid off be suffering at the present moment, even though we may have to take further steps if they are laid off?


David Orlikow: Of course they are not suffering at this present moment; but Ford has announced that in the next couple of months they will be laid off. What we are asking for and what the auto workers have asked for- and I am going to put this on the record, if I have enough time and the hon. Member does not keep interrupting-is that the Government of Canada give the same consideration and the same thought to the workers in the automobile industry, before the difficulties take place, as they gave to the automobile companies. Before this agreement was worked out they made sure, in co-operation with the automobile companies, that all difficulties would be overcome, because otherwise the automobile companies would not have agreed to go into this plan.
All we are asking, and all that Mr. Burt and his executive officers are asking-and I do not know why a Member from Winnipeg has to put on the record for a Member from Essex West what the automobile workers in Windsor, Oakville and Toronto want, because he should know even better than I do-is that consideration be given now, before the layoffs take place. What the hon. Member for Essex West is saying, as the Minister of Industry said, is, "We will worry about it after the lay-offs take place"-and I say that is too late.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, I said nothing of the kind.


David Orlikow: I would be quite willing to have the executive officers and the members of the auto workers unions who are affected read Hansard of yesterday and today, and let them judge what the hon. Member for Essex West said from the implications of what he said.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: What is your solution?


David Orlikow: I am coming to my solution. I have no solution-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


David Orlikow: I have no solution-


Maurice John Moreau: Now the truth is out.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I wish the trained seals would keep quiet for just a minute. Nobody stops the Member for York-
May 11. 1965	COMMONS
Scarborough (Mr. Moreau) from speaking on the number of times he rises.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Nothing but his ignorance.


David Orlikow: Yes; and if a person is ignorant, it is better to keep quiet and then people cannot be sure you are ignorant. The hon. Member asks what is my solution. I do not have to give the solution that I have thought of, because the auto workers of Canada have made representations to the Minister of Labour, the Minister of Industry and to the Secretary of State for External Affairs on a number of occasions, and I want to put on the record what they have proposed. I have before me some of these documents and I should like to read what Mr. Burt says, because I think what he says is very important to the people of Canada and to the auto workers of this country. He says in his report to the Canadian U.A.W. council in March:
Up to this point, to our knowledge, neither the Department of Industry which developed this "free trade" program, nor the Department of Labour which is responsible for the manpower and employment aspects of the program, have made any study whatever of the impact of this program on Canadian workers' jobs and incomes. It is therefore absolutely essential that we are in position to inform Mr. Drury and Mr. MacEachen of what is taking place under this program as soon as that information becomes available so that we can demand that action be taken, and if it is not, then those that speak for us in the House of Commons in Ottawa can demand to know of the Government why the necessary action has not been taken.
They have indicated what they want. He says further, and here I read from a memorandum-and I hope the hon. Member for Essex West does not go away, because perhaps his communication with the auto workers he represents is not too good-from the Canadian United Auto Workers Council to Hon. Allan J. MacEachen, Minister of Labour. If the hon. Member for York-Scarborough wants to know what I am proposing, here are a number of proposals made by the auto workers, which have been ignored completely by the Minister of Industry and the Minister of Labour. I will read them exactly as they were made in the memorandum to the Minister of Labour:
1.	Preferential Hiring: to ensure that workers who lose their jobs as a result of the program will be given every possible assistance to remain in the industry and not lose seniority, pension, vacation and other credits, as well as the level of wages they had achieved in the industry.
2.	An earnings-related adjustment benefit payable during the period of transfer from one job to another or during the period of re-training.
DEBATES	1165
Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement
3.	Transfer Allowance:	covering the cost of
transportation of the displaced worker and his family as well as his furnishings to a new location after he is re-employed, or to a training centre away from home.
4.	Age Discrimination: Federal government action to end hiring practices in the industry so that older workers who may be displaced will not be refused employment with auto producers whose work force is expanding as a result of the free trade program.
5.	Advance Notice: Federal government initiative to obtain management co-operation in having advance notice of major changes in the levels of employment in the auto and auto parts industry, in order to minimize the effects of dislocation.
6.	Supplementary Pension Benefits payable to older displaced workers who wish to retire at their own option rather than remain in the industry if they regard themselves as unable to take advantage of re-training.
There is a very concrete and specific set of proposals. Have any of them been implemented by the Government? Have they even been considered? When Ford announced their coming lay-off of 1,500 to 1,600 workers, the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who many of us think must be at least king of Windsor, did not even know about it; he did not know a thing about it, and he was very put out and called for the companies to come in for meetings. This is precisely what we are talking about; this is precisely what the auto workers have been talking about since this plan was first mooted. Yet the Member for Essex West has the gall to come here and say to the House today, and to his electors, "You don't have to worry. Everything is being looked after". As far as the workers are concerned, I suggest that very little is being looked after.
The auto workers did not get very far with the Government. They suggested a tripartite council which would meet regularly. The Deputy Minister of Labour, Mr. Haythome, who I think sat in for the Minister of Labour at that meeting, greeted this proposal with a great deal of enthusiasm. Nothing has come of it because, of course, what can the Government do if the auto companies, which are a law unto themselves, simply do not want to co-operate. So no tripartite arrangements have been made.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)
The auto workers, despairing action by the Government of Canada, wrote letters to the companies, and I should now like to quote from a letter which Mr. Burt, the Canadian director of the auto workers, wrote to Karl E. Scott, head of Ford Motor Company, dated March 26. He said, in part:
At this date I believe that it has become imperative that the senior management of your company
May 11, 1965

Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement
undertake to inform your employees and our members of the employment changes which are forthcoming under the automotive trade agreement. I cannot believe that you are unaware of the growing apprehension now being expressed at all levels of the work force over anticipated reductions of staffs, transfers and complete elimination of departments and product lines. While almost none of these changes have been officially announced this appears to be all that is left to be done to put the changes into effect.
Further on in his letter Mr. Burt suggests to the head of the Ford Motor Company a number of specific proposals, and I quote again from his letter:
(i)	the date of the expected increase or decrease in the work force of any department or division;
(ii)	the number of employees to be hired, laid off, transferred, or permanently separated;
(iii)	the estimated duration of the altered level of the work force;
(iv)	the reason for the manpower adjustments;
(v)	any measures acceptable to both the company and the union to facilitate the re-employment of displaced employees of your company or other companies adversely affected by the trade agreement.
These are all matters that the auto workers union would like to know about before the Ford Motor Company make these kinds of decisions. But not a single one of these things has been done by the Ford Motor Company or by any of the other motor companies. Yet the hon. Member for Essex West has the colossal insolence to try to tell the House that there is nothing to worry about, that everything will work out, that the workers are not going to be affected adversely, and so on. I would suggest to the hon. Member and to the Minister of Industry that they pay attention to somebody else besides the automobile companies, which stand to make even more tremendous profits in the years to come than they have in the past.
I think I have documented very well, Mr. Speaker, the difficulties which are already arising, and which will arise in the next few years, for the auto workers as a result of this agreement. I believe, and the union believes, that the Government, which was very careful to work out arrangements in the agreement under which the auto companies would not suffer in the least, ought to give the same consideration to the automobile workers employed in the major automobile companies and in the parts companies. Nobody in this House and no representative of the union has said, to my knowledge, that he expects that every single job in every single company in every single city or town of Canada will remain as it was. Of course there will be changes, and of course there will be disloca-

tions. But what we do have a right to expect is that these changes will be as minimal as possible, so that the workers involved will not have to carry the entire burden that it seems to us they will be expected to carry, and which it seems the Government expects them to carry.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that the statement of the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) last night not only did not reassure us about this question but it gave us a great deal of concern. Because looking at the statement of the Minister last night, which I have already quoted, the Canadian consumers, the Canadian trade unions, and Canadian newspapers -and when I talk about Canadian newspapers I do not have to reiterate at any great length that to a large extent they are supporters and defenders of the present Government- have all commented on the fact that this auto parts agreement should mean in the very near future, if not immediately, price reductions to the Canadian consumers.
When the agreement was first announced there were statements from informed sources to the effect that the consumers and other people expecting immediate price reductions were not being very realistic, that it would take two, three or four years for these price reductions to come forward. After all, they said, we had to give the companies a chance to build up their productive facilities, to get the long runs which they have not had, and which could mean a reduction in the cost of producing automobiles, and therefore a reduction in the price for the consumer. Yet last night the Minister virtually said to this House and to the people of this country that we really cannot expect any reductions in the price of cars, that we will have to continue to pay the high price we have always paid, but that perhaps if we are lucky in years to come United States prices will go up and ours will even off.
It is a sad comfort for the Canadian people, Mr. Speaker, to hear the Canadian Government tell them that the wealthiest industry in Canada, an industry making a profit margin equivalent to 30 per cent or more of its net worth per annum, a situation which very few manufacturers in this country outside of the automobile manufacturers can ever expect to achieve even once, let alone from year to year, is going to continue to make these profits, increase its productivity and turn out more cars, yet there will be no gain to the Canadian consumers. It seems to me that what the Canadian people are getting from this agreement are all the bad features, with high
May 11, 1965	COMMONS
profits going to the companies and little benefits to the consumers; with immediate disadvantage to the workers in the industry, who will have to suffer unemployment and who will have, owing to the inaction of the Government and the fact that the Government did not consider in advance the possible dangers of this agreement to the automobile workers in Canada, to bear the brunt of this reorganization with consequent heavy unemployment for periods of weeks or months. All in all, for the time being at least, there are very few benefits for the people of Canada from this agreement.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a very few observations in connection with this matter and try to explain the position I am going to take when the vote comes. In the first place, coming from the part of the country I live in, which is not only the West but the Northwest, and having the philosophical attitude toward trade that I do, I do not like the original measure either-this United States-Canada automotive agreement, falsely called a free trade agreement. If ever there was a misnomer, Mr. Speaker, this is it, because I can see no measure of free trade in this agreement at all. In fact, the people who properly use the words "free trade" would have a good action for libel, I should think, against the Government in attaching the words "free trade" to this particular agreement.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
In my view it is simply protectionism, and protectionism of the worst kind. Usually in industries which have a measure of protection we find that as a result of customs tariffs imposed, whether intended or not, there is secured for the treasury of the country a certain amount of revenue, which is then passed around among the taxpayers, including consumers of the commodities being produced, who are to a very small extent at least getting some dividend from this arrangement. But even this advantage is lost to the potential car owners of this country, because this money will definitely not be available for them. So I say, per se, I do not like the agreement or any part of it. Even when you walk around, get it standing up, pinch it, and examine it, no matter what else it may be, it is still a protectionist agreement. Therefore, this being the case, I do think the onus falls upon the Government and those who propose an arrangement of this kind to indicate to Parliament and to the country that
DEBATES	1167
Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement there are facets of this agreement which are good. I do not think this can be done in the way that has been attempted so far-by means of statements made from time to time, by press releases, or even by means of a statement such as that made in the House by the Minister last night.
The only way this can be done, Mr. Speaker, is by doing precisely what is being done in the United States, and that is by presenting a bill to the House and by having the bill go to a committee for examination, not in the way we can examine it here in the House, but in a competent and adequate way, having the very competent officials of the department present, and receiving representations from those who have or hope to have some vested interest in this agreement, including the consumer generally in Canada.
That is the way it is being done in the United States, Mr. Speaker. This may take a little longer, but I think we would then have a true picture before us. I believe the individuals who would be on such a committee, before which this matter would go, would have knowledge of the subject in order that they could deal with this matter. I am sure that following such an examination we in this House would be in a better position to come to a decision.
I must say, per se, I do not like the agreement and am opposed to it. It may well be that there are aspects about it which, with adequate protection such as has been suggested in part by this resolution, if introduced, might change my mind.
Some mention has been made of the United States Trade Expansion Act. I have here a pamphlet issued by the Canadian Trade Committee of 1963, which is directed particularly toward an assessment of what is called "Adjustment Assistance Under The U.S. Trade Expansion Act". The sort of action which we could and should take is referred to at page 8 of this pamphlet. It states:
Thus the Statement of Purpose of H.R. 9900 reads, in part:
It is the purpose of this Act, by lowering trade barriers through trade agreements to stimulate the economic growth of the United States, maintain and enlarge foreign markets for the products of the United States industry and agriculture, and make available to the people of the United States a greater variety of goods at lower prices-
It is Bill 9900 from which the Trade Expansion Act was ultimately constructed.
If the Government can establish to my satisfaction that this measure will ultimately
May 11, 1965

Canada-XJ.S. Automotive Agreement become that kind of a program then I am prepared to give my approval.
Before I leave this pamphlet, for the benefit of those Members who are interested in this aspect of the adjustment assistance provisions, I should like to quote one or two interesting and fruitful statements which appear on page 3, in reference to the basis upon which assistance is provided in the United States under this Act.
Following a finding of an actual or threatened "serious injury" the government may offer firms or workers seeking remedy several categories of assistance. A relevant serious injury is found if "as a result in major part of concessions granted under trade agreements, an article like or directly competitive with an article produced by the firm is being imported into the United States in such increased quantities as to cause, or threaten to cause-(difficulties such as) idling of productive facilities, inability to operate at a level of reasonable profit, and unemployment or underemployment".
In addition to that, there is another reason why I am opposed to this measure in the form in which it comes to us. It was proposed through an Order in Council P.C./1965-99 to bring this agreement into effect pending the approval of the agreement by the United States Congress. I assumed from what was said in the Speech from the Throne that at some later date a resolution would be brought to Parliament for approval here. I take great exception to this means of procedure.
I have read the Customs Tariff and Customs Act, and it may well be that the barest bones of legality exist for proceeding in this way. I have checked the various sections of the Customs Tariff Act and it may be that the Government can justify the passage of an Order in Council such as the one to which I have referred, under some of the sections of these two Acts; but I do not think it was ever intended that a measure of this kind should be brought into effect in this way. Surely among the few things at the moment that have been left to this House to deal with are the granting of supply to Her Majesty and the process of raising funds by ways and means. We now find that by Order in Council the Government has seen fit to change the incidence of ways and means by removing some $50 million which had been heretofore a part of the national revenue of this Government. Somehow and in some way from the taxpayers this $50 million will have to be found and recovered. I do not think this is the type of action which Governments, under a parliamentary democratic system, should be able to take. It is true that the Government


has said that it intends to bring this measure before this House in the form of a resolution for its approval, but when will that take place-three months, four months, six months or a year from now? In the meantime, over a period of perhaps a year or 18 months, we will be in the position that the Government has changed the balance of ways and means. I have the feeling that this is definitely not in accordance with the practice under which parliamentary systems should operate.
Mr. Speaker, the method followed by the Government has the effect of by-passing and downgrading the House of Commons and Parliament. I feel that the Government should have proceeded by means of legislation passing through the usual steps, including the presentation of a resolution and a bill, with the submission of the bill to a committee. Surely time was not a factor in this regard. Had that procedure been followed we would then have been afforded the opportunity of examination, as well as representation by those who are interested in this program, and what is proposed. For this reason I find myself unable at this time to give any measure of support to the program or to the agreement.
While I cannot go along entirely with the amendment proposed by the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), because of the phrasing of it, to the effect that the House regrets that when the Government entered into this agreement it failed to take any steps to safeguard the interests of the Canadian consumer, I think for several reasons I must give my support. Much of what I have said earlier would indicate that if it should have been impossible for the Government to materially alter the Customs Tariff in this manner by Order in Council, it would be even more impossible for it to have proceeded by an Order in Council to safeguard the interests of consumers, workers and small parts manufacturers. This could only be done, of course, by an Act of Parliament.
The amendment itself does indicate disagreement with the procedure followed, or adopted by the Government. I think it has been said by one or two of the speakers of the N.D.P. that they approve of the agreement by itself. I do not agree with them; but the amendment does permit me to give support, as the only vehicle I can find at this time to indicate that I totally and heartily disagree with the agreement itself.
May 11, 1S65	COMMONS
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the amendment asks the House to express regret that the Government has failed to take any steps to guarantee the interests of the Canadian consumers, the automobile workers and the small parts manufacturers in entering into the Canada-United States automotive agreement. If it had been the purpose of the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) to secure the greatest possible support for his amendment he likely would have resorted to less egregiously false and extravagant language in framing the amendment, because it is extravagant and false to suggest the Government has failed to take any steps to safeguard the interests of the Canadian consumers, the automobile workers and the small parts manufacturers.
The text of the speech of the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam was much more moderate but the House, of course, is not voting on the text of his speech. It is voting on the amendment and the amendment is not intended, of course, to draw the widest possible support because it is framed in language intended to drive away support rather than gather it.
I must say that there is an Alice in Wonderland quality to this debate and especially to the comments made by the former prairies premier who regards steps in the direction of free trade such as tariff cutting with suspicion and distrust. Do we detect a change of emphasis in the traditional policy of his party, a shifting away from its support for freer trade?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Not for three companies but for the country as a whole.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There is an Alice in Wonderland quality when the hon. Member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), presumably another prairie free trader-


Gerald William Baldwin: Northern.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -suggests that a $50 million annual cut in tariffs is protectionism.


David Orlikow: Who is getting the money?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I find that everything I have learned about economics and everything I have been taught about the policies that have been espoused by the New Democratic Party and by representatives from the Prairies has sort of merged into the unreality that has become this debate.
Here we have a proposal put forward by the Government of Canada and supported
DEBATES	1169
Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement in principle by the United Automobile Workers-


David Orlikow: When?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and by the New Democratic Party, a proposal with real and substantial benefits for this country which has become the subject matter of a motion of non-confidence, a seventh desperate effort to defeat the Government, this arising from a proposal with which everybody agrees in principle, in an amendment couched in terms that are intended to drive away support rather than gather support.
The Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) and the hon. Member for Essex West (Mr. Gray) have pointed out the benefits to Canada and the objective of this agreement. The Minister of Industry has stated that the objective of the agreement is a substantial expansion of production involving an increase in production of $260 million annually above the 1964 level and leading by 1968 to an increase in automobile production of 50 per cent over the 1964 level, an expansion involving increased employment, expanding employment and involving in the opinion of automobile producers and, indeed, the Ontario Minister of Labour, prospective labour shortages in specific categories. This program of expanding production, expanding employment and bringing benefits to the general Canadian economy to consumers and workers is now the subject matter of a motion of nonconfidence.
I deny emphatically, of course, the charges made by the Official Opposition and the New Democratic Party that the Government has been indifferent to the interests of the automobile workers and that it has remained inactive in the face of impending dislocation.


David Orlikow: I wonder whether the Minister would permit a question. Would the Minister tell the House what has happened to the request of the automobile workers made months ago, that in order to avoid difficulties and dislocations tripartite meetings on a permanent basis be held?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my purpose in taking part in the debate was generally to reply to that question and to reply to some of the criticisms that have been voiced on the other side of the House.


Gerald William Baldwin: Bolster up a weak case.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The leader of the New
Democratic Party and the hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) have asked
May 11. 1965

Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement us why we have not set up a form of tripartite consultation to solve the problems of dislocation. Before dealing with that question I want to make this point. Whatever dislocations and temporary lay-offs take place, they will take place in an atmosphere and context of expanding employment and expanding production, and it will be much easier to cope effectively with these important dislocation problems in the atmosphere of growth and development which is being made possible through this arrangement.
Last March the head of the United Automobile Workers led a delegation of his members to Ottawa, at which time he met with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin), the Minister of Industry and myself as Minister of Labour. We did have a general discussion as to the future of the industry and especially as to the prospects of having a tripartite method of dealing with this problem. Subsequent to that meeting I addressed a letter to the presidents of the automobile companies inviting them to a meeting, and in this letter I expressed the general attitude of the Government with respect to the changes that were taking place. If I may I should like to put on the record a number of paragraphs of this letter which was addressed, in this case, to the President of General Motors of Canada Limited, Mr. Walker. The letter reads as follows:
The expansion of production in the automobile industry which is the objective of the automotive plan will undoubtedly create substantial new requirements for manpower. At the same time, it may result in the need for the reallocation of workers, and the development of new skills for those presently employed. In some activities, there may also be displacements of manpower.
[DOT] (5:40 p.m.)
The initial impact of these changes on the work force is likely, I understand, to be felt among technical, clerical and administrative employees in the automobile manufacturing industry and by production employees among the parts manufacturers. The effect of the program on the workers is a matter of keen concern to the Government, as I am sure it is to you, particularly if the plans should result in avoidable hardship among employees in the industry.
For this reason, the Minister of Industry, Honourable C. M. Drury and I, would appreciate having an opportunity to discuss with you the nature of
the manpower adjustments which may be required, and what steps that can be taken to assist1 in meeting in a practical way the manpower adjustments that develop.
We would like to talk with you about steps which can be taken to identify in advance any potential manpower difficulties and displacements so that effective steps can be taken to develop programs to deal with them.

This is the end of the part of the letter which I should like to read.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask the Minister if he will table the letter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, I would be glad to do that, with the consent of the House.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could the Minister also read the replies, if any, received from the companies?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have not the replies here. In each case the President of the automobile company replied by telegram indicating his individual willingness to attend these meetings which were to be held on April 9.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, is it agreed that the Minister has permission to table the letter to which he has just referred?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We did hold this meeting, and we did have discussions with the automobile Presidents and the various officials and personnel whom they brought with them to the meeting. As a result of that meeting, it was my conclusion that any effort to convene a meeting at this stage of the automobile Presidents, union personnel and Government representatives was not likely to yield the kind of results that would help in a solution of this problem. However, out of this meeting did come an important development in that we did secure at least the assurance of cooperation from the automobile Presidents that they would advise both the Department of Labour and the Department of Industry about any prospective change of manpower in their individual plants. We did set up a series of meetings which took place on April 22 and 23 between officials of the Departments of Labour and Industry and senior management representatives of individual automobile companies in Toronto.
The purpose of these meetings was to secure, in advance, the likely manpower changes that would take place at each individual plant so that we could plan ahead. We cannot plan unless we know the extent and nature of manpower displacement. This was, I believe, the most effective way that we could secure the necessary information because the companies, operating in a competitive atmosphere, are not likely to broadcast publicly their plans which may affect their competitive position. We did secure this arrangement and we have continued to secure the kind of information that has made it very helpful for us in dealing with this problem. I do not
May 11. 1965	COMMONS
intend to pursue this and discuss the nature of the liaison we have, because it will emerge in the latter part of my remarks.
We did, subsequent to that, have a meeting with the President of the Ford Motor Company, following the announced lay-off. Following that, on April 29 I think, we did have a meeting with Mr. Burt, at which were present senior officials of the Ford Motor Company. We did, therefore, succeed in establishing an effective three way process of disseminating information. We intend to continue this in an effort to get information and in an effort to establish further co-operative arrangements.
A great deal has been said about the Ford lay-off. The hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has used this lay-off as an incident of importance in this whole situation, and it is. The initial announcement and reaction to it, in my judgment, has been exaggerated and it has led to real and unnecessary fears in the Windsor area because of the attendant publicity. Originally the lay-off was to take place in three phases; 250 men in mid May, 400 in mid June and in mid August 1,000 long term employees. Members of the House of Commons have been asking as to whether there will be any transitional assistance to these workers. I say, Mr. Speaker, that the best form of adjustment assistance is another job. With respect to the lay-off that was to have taken place in mid May, last night the Minister of Industry stated that that lay-off was now reduced to 49. Today, I have information that no lay-off will take place at all in the month of May. These 250 employees will be retained within the work force of the Ford Motor plant. Surely this illustrates what a dynamic and changing situation is involved and how difficult it is for the companies, acting in good faith, to give precise information which later they find to be incorrect. This is the case with respect to the lay-offs to take place in May.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Has the Minister any projections for June, July or August?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: With respect to the layoff of 400 people in mid June or possibly at the beginning of June, the National Employment Service, upon hearing of this lay-off sent a task group immediately from the regional office in Toronto and from the head office to Windsor for the purpose of assisting the local staff in dealing with this situation. The group held meetings with employers in Windsor who may have requirements for
DEBATES	1171
Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement labour. They held a satisfactory meeting with the head of the U.A.W. As a result of this, the National Employment Service advises me that there is reasonable assurance there will be no serious difficulties in finding work for the 400 persons to be laid off in mid June. This reduces by 650 the displacement problem if the proposal is carried forward, as I expect it will, that has been put forward in this debate.
Now, the question of the remaining 1,000 persons is another matter. These are long service employees who have a long attachment to the Ford Motor Company, and who will wish to return to their employment protected by seniority at the end of the year. I am advised that all those who will have been laid off will be invited back to their jobs in the expanded employment situation at Ford Motor Company.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
They, because of the relatively short duration of unemployment and because of their long attachment to the Ford Motor Company, will likely wish to resume their employment with that company, and it may be in connection with this group of workers we ought to consider whether any adjustment assistance is required.
I would like to come back to that problem a little later, but before doing so may I deal with the speech made by the hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas). He raised three points with respect to a Canadian program of re-adjustment for these workers, and suggested that the Americans were far better off than we were. But the fact is that we are better off than the Americans in providing adjustment programs for workers. They have been obliged to set up special machinery that is available to us on the Canadian scene.
We believe that from two points of view we ought to seize this opportunity of temporary lay-offs. The first is to up-grade the skills and educational background of workers who may be temporarily laid off, and the second is to provide the kind of skilled manpower that may be necessary once this plant is fully in operation. May I report to the House some progress made to date.
Arising from meetings between management and labour representatives in Ottawa during the last week of April, it has been decided that we will take advantage of impending periods of adjustment in the automobile industry to assist with the establishment and operation of training programs to
May 11, 1965

Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement upgrade and retrain those who may temporarily be laid off.
The possibilities will also be investigated of providing training needed by other workers now, in view of planned technological changes, so that the number facing unemployment may be further reduced. The provincial departments of education and labour have been contacted, and in both instances full co-operation will be forthcoming in the planning and implementation of suitable short and long-term training programs.
The United Automobile Workers have promised their support, and contact has already been made with some manufacturers so that discussions may begin at an early date to determine training requirements.
Under the cost sharing provisions of the technical and vocational training agreements with the provinces, the federal government will reimburse the provinces for up to 75 per cent of their expenditures for the operation of jointly approved plant and school centred training courses, and 90 per cent of living allowances paid to individuals who are unemployed when enrolled for training. The Americans have not anything like that.
In the automotive industry we could participate in basic educational upgrading, preemployment training, upgrading and retraining for semi-skilled occupations as well as the longer term training needed for the development of supervisors and skilled tradesmen from the ranks of the existing and potential work force. Our first meetings with labour, the provincial authorities and the automobile manufacturers have been scheduled to take place during the month of May.
My firm hope is that we will not lose the opportunity to give useful training, where it can profitably be received, to those who may be temporarily laid off. We have the framework through which this training can be effectively conducted in co-operation with the provinces.
The hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam has mentioned the problem of relocation, and of course Secretary Wirtz has mentioned this is one of the problems which must be faced in their adjustment program and which in their case, I understand, is a state responsibility, as are most of the adjustment proposals made by the United States government.
At present we have two ways of assisting mobility. One is through the designation of a surplus manpower area, and transportation assistance can be authorized by the Minister of Labour. In the second instance we have

a method of assisting mobility where manpower adjustment agreements are entered into under our new manpower adjustment program. Further, in the Speech from the Throne we have announced that we will introduce a broadened program of mobility, likely in the form of financial grants and loans that will make an important advance in closing what has been a gap in a total manpower policy in Canada. I hope we will have that in operation in time to assist in the adjustments that may be required in the automobile industry. So, in the field of training and relocation we have developed and are developing policies which can be employed in this situation.
As mentioned by the hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), I have received proposals from the U.A.W. He repeated them. I shall not read the letter which I received from Mr. Burt because it is unnecessary and I have not asked his permission, but in a press release dated April 22 the U.A.W stated:
We have today asked Labour Minister MacEachen to immediately put before Cabinet tentative legislation for presentation to Parliament. This legislation should provide no less than what the Johnson administration have presently before the U.S. Congress.
The hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam in his speech made the point that there is a difference between the approach of the Canadian Government and the approach of the United States, and he commended the U.S. program as a basis and as a model for Canadian action.
Mr. Woodcock, the second in command of the U.A.W. in the U.S., appeared before the U.S. committee and in a U.A.W. summary of his evidence the following paragraph appears:
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 pact.
This brings me back to the problem of the high seniority workers who will be laid off in mid-August, and the only remaining point of comparison between the U.S. and Canada lies in the question, what is the U.S. going to do for this high seniority group of employees who in the U.S., like in Canada, will be in receipt of unemployment compensation and will be eligible for supplementary unemployment benefits?
In the remaining part of my statement I would like to analyse its program and to ask ourselves whether in Canada we are not in the position to do as well as the
May 11, 1965	COMMONS DEBATES	1173
proposals of the U.S. government, and whether really we are in the position of being asked to pursue a phantom in the comments made by the hon. Member for Burna-by-Coquitlam.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty pursuant to Provisional Standing Order 39A to inform the House that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock today are as follows: the hon. Member for Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) education-request for increased per capita grants to universities; the hon. Member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) administration of Justice-report by Law Society respecting Ontario Supreme Court judge.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Hon. C. M. Drury (Minisfer of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the consent of the House to revert to motions for a minute or so for the purpose of making an announcement.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House give consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, following on the highly successful results in the development of nuclear power in Canada, have been very actively working on the design for a new version of the CANDU reactor that will produce a new and major development in the field of commercial nuclear power. Based on satisfactory progress in the current design studies, it is anticipated that a decision may be expected toward the end of next year to commence construction of a prototype of the new reactor, which will be known as CANDU-BLW. The reactor under study is for a nuclear power station of 250 megawatt capacity, natural uranium fuelled, heavy water moderated and cooled by boiling light water.
22620-76J
Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement
Agreement in principle has been reached with the Province of Quebec to locate the new prototype nuclear power station in Quebec. The project will be undertaken in active co-operation with Hydro-Quebec. The plant will be constructed by AECL but operated by Hydro-Quebec as a unit of its system. Ownership of the plant will be transferred to Hydro-Quebec when it has been demonstrated that the plant may be operated commercially as a unit in the utility system. The agreement between AECL and Hydro-Quebec covering design, development, construction, operation and eventual sale will be identical in principle to the agreement between Ontario Hydro and AECL for the Douglas Point station. The decision on siting will be worked out in consultation with the Atomic Energy Control Board.
There is no doubt that this co-operative arrangement between the Federal Government and the Province of Quebec will result in substantial advantages for Canada in the ever-growing requirements for power developments based on nuclear energy.

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


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, prior to the dinner adjournment I had been discussing the response that had been made to the problems caused by the auto agreement in the way of providing assistance to potentially displaced workers. I referred to the lay-off that had been proposed for the middle of May of 250 workers at Ford Motor Company in Windsor, and was able to advise the House, on the basis of most recent information, that no lay-off at all would take place in the month of May with respect to this particular group of workers. In connection with the lay-off that is suggested for early or mid-June, as the result of intensive efforts by the National Employment Service, in co-operation with management and labour, it is now possible to say with reasonable assurance that the displaced workers, numbering 400, will likely be absorbed into other employment without too much difficulty. These reports certainly reduce the apprehension that had been felt as a result of the initial announcement and the attendant publicity.
May 11, 1965

Canada-U.S. Automobile Agreement
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I referred to the efforts that had been made to establish liaison arrangements with the management and with the trade unions, the available training programs that can be established for temporarily unemployed workers under present agreements between the federal Government and the Province of Ontario, and the type of assistance that is available in support of these training programs. Finally, Mr. Speaker, I referred to the matter of relocation and drew to the attention of the House the indication in the Speech from the Throne that it is the intention of the Government to introduce a broadened program of mobility assistance which will certainly meet the problem of any relocation that is involved in the displacement of workers.
I had come to the point of referring to the cash adjustment allowance that has been proposed in the United States and which has been taken, presumably as a model, by the New Democratic Party and which is really the sole remaining point of comparison between the respective adjustment programs that may be employed in this situation. I do not intend to go into more detail on this question, except to refer to the House the statement made by the Secretary of Labour, Mr. Wirtz, before the House Committee on Ways and Means on the Trade Act of 1965, in his submission of April 27. First of all, there are elaborate criteria that have to be established before compensation of any kind is granted, and the eligibility for assistance is a matter, in the final analysis, of presidential determination. The amount of the compensation is 65 per cent of the worker's average weekly wage, or 65 per cent of the average weekly wage in manufacturing, whichever is the greater. That is the proposed level of assistance.
I would draw to the attention of the House that any worker, to be eligible for this assistance, must meet the State requirements regarding availability for work; in other words, a displaced worker for whom an available job can be secured may not be eligible for the cash adjustment allowance. Furthermore, he must have been attached to employment for 26 of the 52 preceding weeks, and he must have been employed for at least half of the three-year period prior to his lay-off. So these are quite important restrictions surrounding the eligibility of any worker for a cash adjustment allowance. But that is not the main point, Mr. Speaker. The main point is that the level of the assistance is 65 per cent
[Mr. MacEachen.l
of the average weekly wage, or of the average weekly wage in manufacturing.
What is the situation of the average worker involved in this August lay-off? This worker is a high seniority worker and will be eligible, in most cases, for the supplementary benefits or the S.U.B. plan of the United Automobile Workers which, when combined with unemployment insurance, will approximate from 60 per cent to 70 per cent of the worker's total income. So that the level of assistance available now in Canada is comparable to the cash adjustment allowance that is available under the proposals made in the United States Congress. With regard to this program, everybody is happy, and what has been said is, "Give us the American plan", and presumably it is all right. I am saying that potentially the Canadian arrangement will provide the American plan; that is the point of my argument.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If anybody wants to confirm my argument, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that he refer to the evidence given to the Committee by the second-in-command of the United Automobile Workers, where he argues at pages 17 and 18 this very point. The argument made, of course, in his testimony as I read it was that the assistance to be available under the Government plan ought to be considered aside and apart from the S.U.B. if not from the unemployment compensation. But "Give us the United States plan" is the cry. The United States plan has not given this particular provision to the United States workers. Under the Trade Expansion Act which is before the United States Congress, and which is the model for the enactments in this present legislation, to my knowledge no decision has been made by the United States Government to grant this additional compensation; as far as I understand it, it will require a new decision on the part of the United States Government. So, Mr. Speaker, what I am saying is that the present arrangements available to the Canadian worker in the Ford lay-offs, to the best of the information I can get, with the seniority I have described, are comparable with what is given to the United States worker in the present circumstances.
The United Automobile Workers have argued: Why should be we asked to pay part of our S.U.B. fund which we could have taken in the form of wages to meet a dislocation that is for the national benefit? That is the argument made in the United States and it is
May 11, 1965

the argument made in Canada. The Members of the N.D.P. say: Give us the United States plan. The United States plan is as I have described it, and something additional will be required, in my judgment, to make it better than what is available to the Canadian worker at the present time.
The United Automobile Workers have come to me and to other Members of the Government and have pressed me and the Government for a decision on any additional form of compensation, whether we intend to give it, and in what form. We are examining very carefully the United States practice which has commended itself so mightily to the movers of this amendment. We are examining certain proposals in respective Departments at the present time. We hope to be able to meet the situation, occasioned by an agreement which will provide greater employment and production, in a way which will minimize any hardship to Canadian workers.
In concluding my remarks, Mr. Speaker, may I quote from the testimony of the United Automobile Workers before the Congressional hearings in the United States. They say as follows:
We in the United Automobile Workers hope that this agreement will be a great success.
That, Mr. Speaker, is a far cry from the sentiments which have been embodied in this amendment.
We share the hope of the administration, expressed by Assistant Secretary Johnson, that, when the agreement is reviewed by the U.S. and Canadian governments in three years' time, "further steps can be taken toward the goal of removal of all restrictions upon free trade in the automotive products industry."
In conclusion the testimony reads:
In spite of the problems it presents, we believe that the Automotive Products Agreement is sound in principle and that it will provide substantial benefits for both the United States and Canada. It will permit a more efficient use of productive resources, and a corresponding reduction in costs.
Mr. Speaker, in the sentiments which have inspired the testimony of the United Automobile Workers in the United States, taking into account the soundness of their arguments, I ask the House to defeat this amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendmei
lost.	
[Translation]


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the Secretary ol State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I was paired with the hon. Member for Charlotte (Mr. McLean). Had I voted, I would have voted for the amendment.


Mr. Groos:: I was paired. Had I voted, I would have voted against the amendment.


Mr. Cowan:: Mr. Speaker, I was paired with the very honourable Member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), who is attending a dinner at the British Embassy this evening and discussing matters not only of the greatest national-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Douglas Scott Harkness: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; there is no British Embassy in this country. I think the hon. Member for York-Humber should apologize for having made that statement.
[Mr. MacEachen.l


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please; the hon. Member will have ample opportunity very shortly. The question is on the main motion. [DOT] ( 8:50 p.m.)


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak tonight on a subject that I believe should be brought to the attention of the country I should like to remind the Members of the House that it is exactly one year ago today when the last discussion occurred on this question of water levels in the Great Lakes. While I spoke for some seven minutes on the question of the water levels of the Great Lakes at that time-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order please. Perhaps the hon. Member might wait just a moment until the situation has recovered itself in the Chamber. Order please.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I wish to point out that while I spoke a year ago today on the question of water levels on the Great Lakes, I wish tonight to draw the attention of the House to a situation that applies to one lake only in the Great Lakes system, and that is Lake Ontario, where the water level has reached a point that it has become a problem for the Province of Ontario, the State of New York, and even for the two nations that border on the Great Lakes.
At the present time there is an investigation being held into water levels on the Great Lakes, as a direct result of the comments made a year ago following a private Member's bill. But I say to you that the question of controlling the water level of Lake Ontario is not intertwined with the problem of controlling the water levels of Lake Erie, Lake Huron, Lake Michigan and Lake Superior. If one spreads his attention to the water level problem of the Great Lakes, on all five lakes concerned, he is going to be wasting time regarding the problem of Lake Ontario, because Lake Ontario can be controlled at the present time if action were to be taken.
Lake Superior is under control at the present time, and has been since 1921 when the International Joint Commission took control of it and has maintained its level within a range of four feet for more than 40 years. In fact at the present time the water level of Lake Superior is confined to a range of only 18 inches. It varies in height above sea level from 602.1 feet to 603.6 feet, which is a mere range of 18 inches on the greatest of the Great Lakes.
May 11. 1965	COMMONS
The water levels of Lake Huron, Lake Michigan and Lake Erie are not controlled in any manner at the present time, but when you come down to the last of the Great Lakes, Lake Ontario, you have a body of water that is segregated from the other lakes by the great Niagara Falls, where you have a drop of 168 feet, to say nothing of the drop in the rapids section above the falls and the rapids section below the falls.
Lake Ontario, being isolated from the other Great Lakes, should be considered absolutely independently of the others when consideration is given to the problem of water levels. Now, in considering water levels one has to go back to the basic bedrock of the whole control system, and that is the international treaty, signed in 1909, between the United States and Great Britain on behalf of Canada. It was as a direct result of that treaty that the International Joint Commission, as we know it today, was set up. Its first major activity, following its establishment in 1911, was the regulation and control of Lake Superior, which it has been able to control to the satisfaction of all concerned.
The important point to bear in mind in this treaty between the United States and Great Britain on behalf of Canada, which governs the international boundary waters, is article 8, and I maintain that this international treaty is being violated every day of the week and every week of the year, and no action is being taken to enforce that treaty despite the fact that it was signed on Canada's behalf by one of the most brilliant negotiators the world has ever seen, Lord Bryce.
In article 8 of the treaty there is an agreement between the United States and Canada, through the British government, which states:
The High Contracting Parties shall have, each on its own side of the boundary, equal and similar rights in the use of the waters hereinbefore defined as boundary waters.
The following order of precedence shall be observed among the various uses enumerated hereinafter for these waters, and no use shall be permitted which tends materially to conflict with or restrain any other use which is given preference over it in this order of precedence:
(1)	Uses for domestic and sanitary purposes;
(2)	Uses for navigation, including the service of canals for the purposes of navigation;
(3)	Uses for power and for irrigation purposes
I wish to stress as strongly as I can that water used for domestic and sanitary purposes is given No. 1 priority or precedence. Water to be used for navigation is given second precedence, and the third or last precedence is for water power and irrigation
DEBATES	1177
Water Levels of Great Lakes purposes. If this treaty were being observed to the letter, as I maintain international treaties should be observed when Canada signs them or her representative signs them, we would not have the trouble on Lake Ontario that we are having today.
There is no shortage of water. There is certainly and definitely a shortage of regulation. The problem in connection with Lake Ontario is simply that more water is being allowed to flow out of it than comes into the lake.
There are three major sources of inflow to the lake, the greatest one of course being the Niagara River, which empties all the waters of the Great Lakes down into Lake Ontario. The second great source of water for Lake Ontario is the inflow of such rivers as the Trent, the Moira, the Cataraqui, the Humber, the Don and other rivers that flow into the lake, the Genesee on the south side, and then you have rainfall and snow.
From that sum total of the inflow from Lake Erie, plus the inflow from other rivers and lakes flowing into Lake Ontario, plus rainfall and snow, you have an ample supply of water to keep Lake Ontario at any level man may desire, if the control dams at Iroquois, Ontario, or at Cornwall, Ontario, should be operated with the intention of controlling the level of Lake Ontario.
But unfortunately the powerhouse at Cornwall has been erected with no thought of controlling the water level of Lake Ontario, but primarily with the thought in mind of developing as much electric power through the use of water as it is humanly possible to generate from the waters flowing through the St. Lawrence River.
I have in my hand a yellow or orange covered book which is entitled, "The Regulation of Lake Ontario, Plan 1958D." This book is the report to the International Joint Commission by the International St. Lawrence River Board of Control. This is the book by which the International St. Lawrence River Board of Control operates the canal system, the locks, the dams and the power houses on the St. Lawrence River between Kingston and Montreal.
This book is the bible for the operation of the river as I have mentioned, and I regret exceedingly that the book does not observe the terms of the treaty where precedence is established for the use of water as from 1909. This treaty of 1909 may be 56 years old, but the signatory for Great Britain on behalf of Canada was, as I said before, one of the greatest minds the world has ever seen,
May 11, 1965

Water Levels of Great Lakes Viscount Lord Bryce, and the man who negotiated for the United States was one of the greatest statesmen they have produced, Elihu Root, Secretary of State in three different cabinets of the United States and a man who must have been of great ability and integrity because in 1912, which is something like 53 years ago, he was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Mr. Root considered the proper evaluation of the uses of water and came up with the three divisions I have mentioned to you. Those three divisions are true and sufficient for all time.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
It is not necessary to add anything to that three-part table; but I would point out to you that the Oxford English Dictionary defines "precedent" as, "a thing or person that precedes or goes before another". Notice the word "precedes". And the Oxford English Dictionary states that "precedes" means "to go before or beyond another in quality or degree; to surpass, excel; to exceed". But if you look at the control statements prepared by Government employees who are endeavouring to operate the St. Lawrence River system, you will find reference time after time to treating all the users of water "equitably". "Let us treat them on a compromise basis". "Let us treat them equally". The table of precedence in the International Boundary Waters Agreement does not say "to treat the users of water equitably" or "on a compromise basis"; it says that they shall be treated on this basis of precedence.
When looking at the operation of the St. Lawrence system one has to consider the low water that is resulting in Lake Ontario as a direct result of the operations now being conducted on that stream. It is more than passing strange that these Parliament Buildings are in a position to overlook the operation of the Ottawa River which is dammed in many places for power development purposes; the Rideau Canal, which is dammed in many places in order to control it for navigation purposes; and the St. Lawrence River, which is within 60 miles of the Parliament Buildings. Here below Parliament Hill you can look down upon the Rideau River with its dams and controls. The water is maintained at an even level and the canals are made navigable by maintaining a certain depth of water during the navigation season. The Ottawa River, which is below Parliament Hill here, is controlled by the Quebec hydroelectric power dam at Carillon, or Point Fortune, and controls a body of water 60 miles in length from

Carillon right back to the Chaudiere Falls just west of the Parliament Buildings.
But what do you find if you look 60 miles to the south down toward Cornwall, Prescott or Johnstown? You find the third side of the triangle where the water is running as free as the day the world was created; as free as it ever ran in history. Yet we are told that Lake Ontario is under control.
I have in my hand a copy of the official application of the Government of Canada to the International Joint Commission in 1952. I see that the Government of Canada was asking the International Joint Commission for the right to proceed with the development of power works on the St. Lawrence River. There are many, many phrases in this application of the Government of Canada, but there are one or two that I wish to draw to your attention specifically. We find this. The application, in paragraph 10, subsection (c), of the Government of Canada asks the International Joint Commission for permission to build these works and says:
Subject to the provisions of paragraph (e) of this section, the flow through the International Rapids Section in any period shall equal the discharge from Lake Ontario as determined for that period in accordance with Method of Regulation No. 5 referred to in paragraph (b) of this section and this flow shall be maintained uniformly throughout that period.
That is a lot of words of which the substance is that the flow of water in the St. Lawrence River after the power development works are installed shall be as great as it ever was before. Why, in the name of heaven would you build a dam at Iroquois and build a powerhouse at Cornwall, both of which are capable of holding Lake Ontario at a predetermined level, if you did not intend to use them? But here we are told:
Subject to the provisions of paragraph (e) of this section, the flow through the International Rapids section in any period shall equal the discharge from Lake Ontario as determined for that period in accordance with Method of Regulation No. 5-
In this interesting application we are also told in subsection (a) that "the works shall be operated and maintained in conformity with the requirements of the prior rights and interests of navigation on the St. Lawrence River." It does not say whether these prior rights of navigation are for the people downstream on the St. Lawrence or upstream; it refers to the prior rights of navigation on the St. Lawrence River. At least in this application, in these words it is admitted that navigation has a prior right on the use of
May 11, 1965

water, over power. But it goes on to make this very amazing statement:
-and in such manner as to protect the rights and interests of others engaged in the development of power in the river below the International Rapids section.
I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the use of that word "below". On any stream of water, the people on the upside have prior rights over the people on the downside. The St. Lawrence River is downside from the Great Lakes, which are the headwaters or source of the St. Lawrence River. Those people who live in the basin of the Great Lakes have prior rights and prior claims to the use of the water in the Great Lakes system over and above anybody on the downside, or downstream, end of the water. But this application to the International Joint Commission, section 10, subsection (a) has that amazing clause in it:
The works (shall be built) in such a manner as to protect the rights and Interests of others engaged in the development of power in the river below the International Rapids Section.
The amusing thing-and I am making a change here from "amazing" to "amusing"- in this application is that the Canadian application has 14 clauses in it; the American application to the same International Joint Commission has 17 clauses in it. The first 11 sections are exactly the same in making their application to the International Joint Commission; but from section 12 on to No. 17 the American application differs in several important respects from the Canadian Government's application. It is interesting that in section 10 of both the Canadian application and the American Government's application we have the phrase appearing that they will give consideration to the "development of power in the river below the International Rapids section and in such a manner as to protect the rights and interests of others engaged in the development of power in the river below the International Rapids Section". It is interesting in this way; that the clause might as well read that in the eighth day of every week we will do so-and-so with the river. There is not an eighth day in the week, as anyone knows, and I would like to emphasize to you that there are no prior rights for people downstream. But it is in this application of the Canadian Government, and appears in the American government's application. Don't think that this makes the use of "prior downstream rights" legal, because an interesting angle comes up in the American application beyond paragraph 11;

Water Levels of Great Lakes because immediately thereafter, in paragraph 13, the Americans say:
In submitting this application, the United States expressly reserves all its existing rights in the Great Lakes and the St. Lawrence River including among others the rights mutually extended to the United States and Canada under the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909-
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
You will see that the Americans are not releasing any rights to downstream residents, and after having willingly put clause 10 into their application, they point out in clause 13-this clause does not appear in the Canadian application-that in submitting this application the United States expressly reserves its existing rights in the Great Lakes. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the existing rights of Canadian residents on the Canadian side of the Great Lakes remain and are the same in 1965 as they were prior to 1952. But the Canadian Government's application does not spell it out the way the smart Americans spell theirs out, after having signed these amusing and amazing clauses that, when establishing the power developments on the St. Lawrence, they would protect the rights and interests of those engaged in the development of power below the International Rapids section.
After these two applications had been received by the International Joint Commission they considered the matter for a short while and then issued a permit to the two Governments to participate in the power development of the St. Lawrence River. In their granting of the rights to develop the power on the St. Lawrence River we find an interesting situation. I have before me the permission granted by the International Joint Commission, and in section (c) on page 3 we read this:
The works shall be constructed, maintained and operated in such manner as to safeguard the rights and lawful interests of others engaged or to be engaged in the development of power in the St. Lawrence River below the International Rapids section.
Then the International Joint Commission says in this formal order:
The works shall be so designed, constructed, maintained and operated as to safeguard so far as possible the rights of all interests-
I point out that this is in open conflict with the International Treaty of 1909, which establishes a table of precedence in which domestic and sanitary purposes is in number one position, navigation is in number two position, and water power and irrigation in number three position. But that does not stop
May 11, 1965

Water Levels of Great Lakes the International Joint Commission from issuing an order that the works on the St. Lawrence shall be so designed, constructed, maintained and operated as to safeguard so far as possible the rights of all interests affected by the level of the St. Lawrence. It makes no reference to the table of precedence as established by the international agreement, as it should have done.
So we have a situation where people are complaining of the low water in Lake Ontario because of the trouble they have in putting their boats into the lake in the summertime. We have complaints from the municipalities because the suction pipes to draw in the water are in shallow water today rather than in the deep water the municipalities have come to expect. We have complaints from the shipping people that they have to light load their bottoms for the simple reason that if they load them to the 25J foot draught, about which we do a lot of talking, they are going to scrape the bottoms of their boats in the lakes and in local harbours, and damage will be done to the boats. This despite the fact that navigation is given second precedence in the table of precedence. And when it comes to the power users we have to give that matter very serious thought.
In the manipulation of the levels of Lake Ontario we are told-and it is a fact at the present time-that efforts are made to control the low and high levels of the lake. In the summer months from April to December they are controlled between 244 feet and 248 feet as nearly as may be. In aiming at this figure in the navigation season of 244 feet up to 248 feet it is thought that this will give boats coming into Lake Ontario all the depth they require. I am assured by officials of the Toronto Harbour Commission that a height above sea level of 244 feet will allow the boats to come into Toronto harbour with a 25i foot draught, as promised in all seaway speeches, in a 27 foot channel. But once the navigation season is over-and this is generally unknown to the public-these control figures for Lake Ontario are changed and the level of the lake goes down. We are told that in the wintertime they endeavour to control Lake Ontario between a level of 248.05 feet on the high side, and 243.07 feet on the low side, which is a range of over four feet.
The interesting thing about letting the water level down to 243.07 feet is that boats which are tied up in Hamilton harbour, or Toronto harbour, or Rochester harbour, or

Oswego reach the bottom of the harbour when the Lake Ontario level is lowered, a fact generally unknown to the people on the shores. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that when the average level of Lake Ontario has been 246 feet for 105 years, according to Government records, we should not go below that average level of 246 feet. We can justify a figure of 246 feet above sea level because this has been the average for 105 years. Property owners around the shore of Lake Ontario and on the St. Lawrence River cannot complain if they have the average reading they have had for 105 years. But when we start to give them a reading during the navigation season which is as low as 244 feet, two feet below average, and when in the wintertime we give them a reading of 243.07 feet, when as I say the average for 105 years has been 246 feet, then we are playing fast and loose with the people who enjoy a priority right in the international treaty, a right which is being violated every day of the year, every month of the year, year after year for the past several years. The first use is for domestic and sanitary purposes; the second use is for navigation; and the third use for power and irrigation purposes, Mr. Speaker.
The more I speak on this question of low water levels in Lake Ontario, occasioned by the water which is drawn off for power purposes, the more I am accused of wishing to hurt Ontario because I wish to restrict the amount of power development. I am not in the slightest hurting Ontario in demanding that the international treaty be observed and that the people who are given first priority in the treaty should enjoy the right that is theirs to use this water primarily for domestic and sanitary purposes.
The water power in the St. Lawrence River goes through three interesting hands. At the Cornwall power house one half goes to the Ontario Hydro Authority, the other half to the New York State Power Authority, which is the name of the organization which takes their power at Cornwall. Downstream you have the Cedars powerhouse on the St. Lawrence and the Beauharnois powerhouse, both owned by the Quebec Hydro Power Commission. So you have three power developers interested in getting as much water as they can out of Lake Ontario in order to develop power to sell to their customers.
When people in the basin of Lake Ontario who are anxious to see the minimum figure of 246 feet above sea level maintained the
May 11, 1965

year round-because it has been the average for 105 years-say to the authorities that they should not let the water level go down to 243.07 feet in the wintertime and 244 feet in the summertime during navigation season, they ask us what we will do about power, and ask us to think about the power we lose by not being able to suck the water off Lake Ontario. To which we simply reply that they can impose restrictions on the use of power and in that way reduce the demand. There is certainly no requirement on the power interests that they shall rob the people in the basin of Lake Ontario of water in order that they can sell horsepower here or a horsepower there, or take on a big commercial block contract on the United States side, or in Quebec or in Ontario.
One of the original proverbs of all time is that you cut your coat according to your cloth, an adage first printed in 1546 in the sayings of John Hey wood. Why cannot we develop the power in the international section of the St. Lawrence according to the water that is available to us? This should be used not primarily for the development of power, but to meet the everlasting demand for a supply of water. Many people talk about the use of water to provide power to operate electric stoves, razors, and other electrical appliances, but let me remind hon. Members that we have done without all these things in the past, and that there is a more important need.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
There must be a more reasonable judgment of the values of the water in the Great Lakes. The attitude that people display in respect of the control of the water in the Great Lakes, and particularly in Lake Ontario, is one of constant amazement to me. There is supposedly a control dam at Iroquois, which is within 60 miles of Ottawa. At that point there is a great sign which refers to this control. It is at the locks and states:
Lock is required for ships to by-pass Iroquois dam which controls the level of Lake Ontario.
This sign appears over the name of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority, but having made some inquiries I am informed that the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority has no control in this regard.
This sign should read, "this lock is required for ships to by-pass the Iroquois dam which could control the level of Lake Ontario." I have gone by this Iroquois dam on scores of occasions and I have yet to see the gates closed. I have never seen the gates 22620-77 J

Water Levels of Great Lakes completely closed, but on one occasion I saw them about one third down, but not more.
Mr. Speaker, we have the means of controlling the flow of water downstream from Lake Ontario, and it is high time the Government told the International Joint Commission to instruct the International Joint River Board to control this level at a set minimum. The average level of water in Lake Ontario, over a period of 105 years, is 246 feet. If they are instructed to bring that level higher, even to that which it has been, 249 feet, all they have to do is let those gates down. This should be done, and this wastage of water should not be allowed, because of the interests of the millions of people who reside in the basin of Lake Ontario.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Would the hon. Member permit a question?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I am afraid I do not have time to answer questions now, but if the House will allow me to do so, I will answer them later, Sir.
I should like to draw this to your attention, Mr. Speaker. I am sure you will be interested in a statement which appeared in an article on February 20 in the Toronto Globe and Mail week end magazine in reference to the levels of the water in the St. Lawrence River system. This article was written by Robert Rice, who is a resident of Montreal. He states:
Lake Ontario, which holds Montreal's water, got the least of all.
It is surprising to me that the people of Montreal would consider the water in Lake Ontario as theirs. I suggest that the people who live on the shores of Lake Ontario should be able to enjoy this lake and consider it as their water, at least until they allow it to rush downstream unchecked to the Atlantic Ocean.
It must be remembered, Mr. Speaker, that the water from Lake Ontario rushes down the St. Lawrence River past the City of Montreal at the rate of 205,000 cubic feet a second on its way to the wide Atlantic. Many people in this country talk about the amount of water used by Chicago. The consumption of Great Lakes water by this tremendous city is in the neighbourhood of 3,100 cubic feet per second-1,500 feet for sewage purposes and 1,600 feet for navigation purposes. Let us consider at the same time that water rushes down the St. Lawrence past Montreal at the rate of 205,000 feet per second, in order to flush Montreal's
May 11, 1965

Water Levels of Great Lakes untreated sewage downstream. That is a project which requires a great deal of water. No effort is made whatsoever to control the flow of water at the east end of Montreal Island. If there was any desire to control the flow, a dam could be built. But instead of a dam to build up a harbour depth desired by the people of Montreal, they are now building a tunnel and a bridge at Boucher-ville, neither of which will impede the flow of the St. Lawrence River to the broad Atlantic.
I see no reason for allowing the water from Lake Ontario, which is important to that city, to the harbour of Hamilton, to Port Weller, to Kingston and other major centres along the St. Lawrence, to be released without control for downstream flow. I suggest that it is for this very reason that the rule to which I have referred regarding the various values of water was established. Surely there is not much point to any attempt to maintain water levels at the acceptable level of 246 feet in Lake Ontario while at the same time expecting this tremendous amount of water to rush downstream unchecked. In this regard one must remember that 205,000 cubic feet per second rushing past Montreal represents a sufficient quantity of water in one month to supply all the municipalities of Ontario, for a year.
As an example of what I am suggesting, let me point out that the City of London, England, has the greatest impounded body of water in the world. During high tide the boats tie up in locks, with a water depth level of 25 to 40 feet, and remain there until the return of the tide. They then proceed on their way at high tide. This same situation occurs in respect of Rotterdam and Antwerp. No one can convince me that this same practice could not be followed in relation to the City of Montreal, so far as usages and levels of water are concerned. At the present time this water is allowed to pass by the Iroquois dam without stopping. In my opinion that as it is now operated is a useless structure.
I think the people in authority should follow established precedent, and regard the waters of Ontario for the following purposes, in order of importance: domestic and health purposes first, navigation second and power third. Many people will say that what is good for the power interests is good for Ontario. And this is similar to what they tried to say in the United States, namely that what is good for General Motors is good for the United States. I say that many millions of


people in the United States maintained that the truth is that what is good for the United States is good for General Motors. And I say that what is good for Canada is good for the power interests. We should restrict the flow of the St. Lawrence River so that the water level of Lake Ontario is maintained the year round at the 246-foot level.
Mr. Speaker, let me say to you that there is no better maxim than that which states, "waste not, want not". In this regard let me quote a four-line quatrain written by Rowland Howard as follows:
Waste not, want not, is a maxim I would teach.
Let your watchword be dispatch, and practise what you preach:
Do not let your chances like sunbeams pass you by,
For you never miss the water till the well runs dry.
This quatrain appeared in Peterson's Magazine in 1876.
Let me say that if the dam at Iroquois is not used in order to control the water, the water level in Lake Ontario will not be maintained and the well will run dry very shortly. More water is being drawn from the lake than is entering Lake Ontario, and if the present practice is continued, we will be faced with a most critical situation in the very near future.
I have many tables of government figures to support my statement that more water is being drawn out of Lake Ontario than enters it. I intend to speak on the main estimates of the Department of Northern Affairs, the Department of Justice, the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Public Works, and will supply the figures in great detail during those discussions


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. Member permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. Member that his time has expired. He may only answer a question with the consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Would the hon. Member agree with me that it is high time the Government adopted a national water resources policy and instituted a national waters authority, accordingly?


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, I only hope that the burden of my song reached the minds of my listeners in the way I intended.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is too deep for me.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I see the hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka on his feet. Does
May 11, 1965	COMMONS
that hon. Member wish to refer to this same topic or grievance? Are there any other Members who wish to refer to this grievance?


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Speaker, I will give way to the hon. Member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates).
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)



ALLEGED FAILURE OF THE MINISTRY TO SUPPLY INFORMATION

["Order. It being ten o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to section 4(f) of Standing Order 56, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.\nMay 11, 1985", 'Motion (Mr. Mcllraith) agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.\nThe estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:']
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, in the past two years we have heard a great many reasons why the House of Commons is not running like the well oiled machine some people desire it to be. We have heard many excuses. One of the most prevalent comes from the Government treasury benches and is to the effect that Members of the Opposition, especially the Progressive Conservative Party, are obstructionists and that the main reason for the holding up of the business of the nation is obstruction by our party. I think that all those who were in the House of Commons yesterday and those who have read the pages of Hansard containing the comments of various Ministers supposedly in answer to questions put to them by Members of the Opposition in all parties regarding matters of extreme and current importance in this nation will realize what is probably the main reason that the House is facing the problems it is at this time with regard to the business of the nation.
When questions are posed by Members of the Opposition to Cabinet Ministers regarding matters of current national importance, no one expects those Ministers to have at their fingertips the minute details of departmental operations, although some Ministers obviously have a better grasp of their departments than others. In my opinion the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) has displayed in the past two years a real ability in handling the questions put to him by Members of the Opposition on matters related to his department. At the same time, however, the Secretary of State (Mr. La-montagne) seems to have no knowledge of what is going on in his department, and almost without exception takes a question as notice. Then we have the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Hays)-


Mr. Stewart:: May I ask the hon. gentleman a question?


Robert Carman Coates: When I have finished my comments the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State may ask me any question
DEBATES	1183
Alleged Lack of Ministerial Information he desires. We have the Minister of Agriculture who thinks the House of Commons is a place where he can amuse the country with his impersonations of Mortimer Snerd. Then we have the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) who, by all yardsticks, will win any prize when it comes to incompetency in the House of Commons.
Yesterday was a very important day in the House of Commons. We had learned over the week end of the expulsion of two Russian diplomats from Canada. We knew that the Department of External Affairs and the Department of Justice were critically involved in this situation. We knew that a press release in regard to the situation had been issued on Saturday. We must bear in mind the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) had had two days in which to prepare himself before coming into the House of Commons to answer queries put by Members of the Opposition on a matter affecting national security.
What was the result, Mr. Speaker? The Prime Minister, after two days of preparation and after having been briefed by his officials, did not know these things. He did not know why the press release was timed to be issued on Saturday afternoon. He did not know whether the money that had been given by the Russian diplomats to the individuals concerned in the espionage case had been recovered. He did not know how much money was involved. He did not know how many other Canadian citizens were involved. He did not know over how much of the country these activities were spread. He did not know over what period of time the activities took place. He did not know whether the civil servant involved was still in the employ of the Government. These were all very important questions, Mr. Speaker, and there were other related questions of major current public interest which were put to the Prime Minister.


Mr. Peters:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, could I ask you whether you have been able to ascertain what the grievance now under discussion is? The hon. Member seems to be covering a number of subjects. There are other Members who wish to raise specific grievances. I wonder whether you have been able to ascertain what the grievance is? If not, I would ask you to do so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think that the point raised by the hon. Member is well taken. A very specific point has to be made by any hon. Member wanting to raise a
May 11, 1965
1184	COMMONS
Alleged Lack of Ministerial Information grievance at this time, and perhaps the hon. Member for Cumberland would want to indicate to the Chair and to the House specifically and particularly what the grievance is that he is discussing at this time.


Robert Carman Coates: Surely, Mr. Speaker, it is not difficult to appreciate the point I am trying to make. I have pointed out to you that we have been talking about changing the rules of the House to make it more efficient. I have pointed out that a great many reasons are put forward why the House has not been doing the business of the nation as efficiently as it should and I am indicating certain reasons other than changes in the rules that might very well have a bearing on increasing the efficiency of the House and expediting the business that comes before the House.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Member has now stated what he considers to be his grievance I make the suggestion that there is no grievance and that another Member be called upon.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, in Votes and Proceedings there is notice of the intention of the Government to move certain resolutions dealing with this very matter and so it is abundantly clear that there will be a full opportunity for the hon. Member to deal with this matter. I would think that the grievance period should be used to discuss specific grievances for which no opportunity for debate is provided on the Order Paper.


Robert Carman Coates: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I point out that it is not for some other Member of the House to start selecting the grievance that I desire to bring before the House. With regard to any grievance that may be brought up, I would point out that there may very well be some other place where it can be brought up, either on estimates or on some piece of legislation that may be on the Order Paper.


Harold Edward Winch: I want to ask the hon. Member one question. What is the grievance he wants to raise now?


Robert Carman Coates: If my hon. friend will sit and listen to what I am saying he will discover what my grievance is.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)


Mr. Barneii:: The hon. Member for Vancouver East asked the hon. Member to state what his grievance is. The hon. Member in reply stated we must sit and wait, presumably for another half hour, before we can


learn what his grievance is. In case any of us might wish to participate in the discussion, I think the hon. Member should be asked to state his grievance.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: As was indicated a moment ago, the point raised by the hon. Member for Timiskaming was well taken. The hon. Member for Cumberland cannot simply refer to general complaints and suggest in the course of his speech at this time he is dissatisfied in general with the way things are being run. He has to make a very specific complaint, state a specific grievance, for the benefit of other hon. Members and for the guidance of the Chair. Once this has been done the Chair can then rule whether or not the hon. Member can pursue his remarks at this time.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I started out by indicating to you some of the reasons for my feeling that the business of the House is being held up. If you want a more specific example, I hope I will be able to give it to you very shortly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Well, nothing in what the hon. Member has just said now answers the very legitimate objection raised by the hon. Member for Timiskaming and other Members. A grievance has to be stated. What is the grievance the hon. Member has? It may be quite legitimate, but certainly the hon. Member should be prepared to state what it is.


Robert Carman Coates: My grievance, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) came into the House yesterday ill prepared to provide the House and the country with the information which should have been available with regard to the espionage case that was broken on Saturday. Instead of getting detailed information, instead of having explained to us just exactly what the Government's position was, and how far the Government could go, we found that our-


William Arnold Peters: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I draw to your attention the fact that this matter that is now being discussed was the subject of a lengthy debate this afternoon on motions. I feel that the things that are being said now were said this afternoon. I consider this repetitious and therefore not a grievance that is recognized in this particular period during the debate on a supply motion. I would ask that you call on someone else to present a grievance.
May 11, 1965


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am afraid that the Chair cannot agree at this time with the argument being advanced now by the hon. Member for Timiskaming. The hon. Member for Cumberland has stated his grievance and he will be allowed to continue with the grievance, but his remarks have to be limited to the particular point he has now mentioned.


Robert Carman Coates: I should like to draw to the attention of the House pages 1089 and 1090 of Hansard which indicate that the Prime Minister was asked questions by Members of the House. Specifically, I should like to draw your attention to page 1089 which indicates that the Prime Minister, stated in reply to a question:
-I will be glad to look into it further and then make a considered reply.
He was replying to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker): A little later, in reply to a question from the hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson), he said:
-I will make a more detailed statement on that aspect of the case after I have obtained all the details.
I ask, what was he doing for two days if he was not securing those details? Then, again referring to page 1089 I find that the Prime Minister stated:
-I want to get all the information available before making a considered reply.
Once again I quote from page 1089 where the Prime Minister said:
-I will get the information which bears on these points and pass it on to the House.
On page 1090 of Hansard the Prime Minister is reported as saying:
I will get all the information I can and which it is appropriate to give to the House.
Again quoting from page 1090, the Prime Minister said:
I cannot answer that categorically at the moment.
My point is this: Here was a matter affecting the national security of this nation, here was a matter that was two days old according to the press release, and surely even before the press release was given to the country the Prime Minister, the Minister of External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) must have had many meetings or should have had many meetings on this subject. Instead of the Prime Minister coming into this House well prepared, in a position to provide us with detailed information on these aspects of the subject, we find that the Prime Minister was uninformed, careless and casual about the

Railway Passenger Facilities subject in question. This was an incredible performance, in my opinion, and one that I feel has done a great deal to increase the degree of inefficiency in this House. The Prime Minister is not alone in this because many of his Cabinet Ministers are in the same box. If the Prime Minister and his Ministers would give the kind of answers that should be available as a result of proper briefing on these questions, then the question period would be a lot shorter and the country would be a lot better informed. Instead, we find an almost careless abandon about the affairs of this nation. In my opinion, this is the best example of this carelessness, this casualness about matters affecting the national security of this nation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?



Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I want to raise a very specific grievance relating to the lack of accommodation available to meet the demands of railway passengers for service in Canada today. Now, Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize to the Members. I had all these notes out, but I expected we would not get to this grievance tonight so I folded them all up.
We know there has been a severe curtailment in the facilities and equipment offered by railway companies, particularly the Canadian Pacific Railway, during these past few months. At the same time, almost every Member in this House whose constituency lies some place along the main line of the Canadian Pacific Railway, knows that there are people continually being turned down in their applications for space both sleeping accommodation and day coach space.


Harold Edward Winch: Although it is not taken when you get on the train.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: I am getting to that point. The reservations system of the Canadian Pacific Railway seems to be antiquated to the point where they cannot even make arrangements for the filling of the space that is available from time to time.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
This apparently stems from the over-all policy of the Canadian Pacific Railway to discourage passenger service to the point that the railway will get out of it altogether. I contend it is the business of the Government and Parliament to see to it that railway passenger accommodation is provided to meet the demand. It is, of course, impossible for
May 11, 1965

Railway Passenger Facilities the railroad to meet the demand every single day if that demand is erratic. But, Mr. Speaker, for example last April 24 I was in Calgary. I went to the C.P. ticket office and asked for a space on a Dayliner coach. They said there was none available. In fact they said they had not been able to accept any request for space on that train for the previous three days, that it had all been booked. The same was true for all sleeping car space.
This becomes important at the present time because we are informed that the management of the C.P.R. has informed certain of its employees that it intends to withdraw the mail service from trains 7 and 8, that is, the Dominion, which runs between Montreal and Vancouver, and as of September this year it intends to withdraw these two trains from service altogether.
This is not justified at this time because rather than there being a decline in the demand for railway passenger service there is in fact an increase, and this has been noted since 1961. I have before me a chart of the number of passengers carried between just Medicine Hat and Lethbridge, and with the exception of one month there has been a net increase in the number of revenue passengers carried on that train service. But no record is kept of the number of requests that are turned down.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I suggest it is the responsibility of the Department of Transport and the Board of Transport Commissioners to order at once an inquiry into this situation. I have before me a great deal of correspondence from people in Vancouver, Calgary, Medicine Hat, Winnipeg and many other points along the line, complaining that they have waited three days, five days, in fact up to six weeks during which they have been denied reservations on C.P.R. passenger trains, yet at the same time the company is taking the kind of action that will further curtail this service.
One of the reasons why we must deal with this thing at once is that under the provisions of the Railway Act the C.P.R. is not required to receive permission from the Board of Transport Commissioners to reduce service, but it must have permission from the Board to abandon service. Every time it reduces service and reduces the amount of revenue derived from a particular train, the C.P.R. has a new bench mark of revenue against essentially the same level of expenses, and it uses this in its argument to the Board to allow it to abandon a service completely.

The argument keeps coming up that the air lines are taking over the job of moving passengers across Canada, but I suggest the air lines will soon be in a position where it will not be convenient for them to carry passengers except for distances of 300 to 500 miles and more. It is essential therefore that sufficient train passenger service be maintained to take care of the demand. In addition, many people in Canada do not like to fly, yet they want to travel across the country. Highway and bus services are adequate for some months of the year, but they are not as convenient and as comfortable as railroads for travelling during the winter months.
I hope the Minister, the Department or the Board will order an investigation into these rumours that the C.P.R. is going to curtail further its railway passenger service, so that we can find out how much demand there is for this kind of service and see whether or not the railways are doing what is necessary to make sure it is being provided.


An hon. Member:: They are trying to kill it.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, they are, but the fact is that under the Railway Act the railways are obliged to maintain adequate service and facilities, and the Board has full authority to require that reductions in passenger service, for example, be not proceeded with if, in the Board's opinion, the reduction would reduce the service below what the Board would consider adequate in the public interest.
There is provision in the Railway Act to see that this service is supplied. In addition to the information that the railway has been providing up to this point, respecting the number of passengers carried, the railroads should also be required to provide the Board of Transport Commissioners with the number of requests they receive for railway passenger service. I say so because if you accept only 65 or 90-whatever the day coach carries- and turn down another 130 requests, and do not list them, you do not give an adequate or correct reflection of the demand for this kind of service. I would hope immediate action will be taken because during the ensuing months there will be an increased demand for this kind of passenger service, and by all the indications the C.P.R. is going to decrease this service rather than increase it in keeping with public demand.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being ten o'clock it is my duty, pursuant to section 4(f) of Standing Order 56, to interrupt these proceedings and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.
May 11, 1985

Motion (Mr. Mcllraith) agreed to and the House went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
The estimates of the following departments were first taken up and entered for consideration:


DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
Administration-
1. Departmental administration including the Canadian Agricultural Services Co-ordinating Committee, contributions to the Commonwealth Agricultural Bureaux and a special contribution not exceeding $62,000 to the Agricultural Economics Research Council subject to approval by the Treasury Board, $4,186,600.

[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental Administration including the care, maintenance, and custody of stand-by defence plants, buildings, machine tools and production tooling and grants to municipalities in lieu of taxes of Crown-owned defence plants operated by private contractors, $16,922,800.

[Stage Direction]
1. Administration, Operation and Maintenance including payment of remuneration, subject to the approval of the Governor in Council and notwithstanding the Civil Service Act, in connection with the assignment by the Canadian Government of Canadians to the staffs of the International Organizations detailed in the Estimates, and authority to make recoverable advances in amounts not exceeding in the aggregate the amounts of the shares of those organizations of such expenses, and authority, not withstanding the Civil Service Act, for the appointment and fixing of salaries of Commissioners (International Commissions for Supervision and Control in Indo-China), Secretaries and staff by the Governor in Council; assistance and repatriation of distressed Canadian citizens and persons of Canadian domicile abroad, including their dependents; Canadian participation in the Commonwealth Arts Festival to be held in Britain in the fall of 1965; payment to the Roosevelt Campobello International Park Commission for the purposes and subject to the provisions of the Act respecting the Commission established to administer the Roosevelt Campobello International Park; a cultural relations and academic exchange program with the French community, and grants as detailed in the Estimates, $13,176,800.
[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration including grants and contributions as detailed in the Estimates, $1,387,000.
[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants as detailed in the Estimates, $6,007,600.
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE Legal and Other Services-
1. Administration including the Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy, grants and contributions as detailed in the Estimates, gratuities to the widows or such dependants as may be approved by Treasury Board of Judges who die while
Business of the House in office and authority to make recoverable advances for the administration of justice on behalf of the governments of the Northwest Territories and the Yukon Territory, $2,504,300.
[Stage Direction]
1. General administration, including grants as detailed in the Estimates; the expenses of the International Labour Conferences; the promotion of labour-management co-operation; the promotion of a program for the employment of the older worker; the promotion of programs for combating seasonal unemployment; the organization and use of workers for farming and related industries; and the manpower consultative service, $4,833,500.
[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, including grants to Military Associations, Institutes and other organizations as detailed in the Estimates and authority, notwithstanding section 30 of the Financial Administration Act, and subject to allotment by the Treasury Board, for total commitments of $2,560,546,715 for the purposes of Votes 1, 5, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 45 of this Department regardless of the year in which such commitments will come in course of payment (of which it is estimated that $1,044,262,000 will come due for payment in future years) and authority to make recoverable advances under any of the said Votes and, notwithstanding the Financial Administration Act, to spend revenue received during the year in respect of assistance rendered to the United Nations, any party of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization or any provincial or municipal government, $5,204,855.
DEPARTMENT OF TRADE AND COMMERCE General Administration-
1. Departmental administration including fees for membership in the International Organizations listed in the details of the Estimates, $5,664,700.
[Stage Direction]
1. Departmental administration, $6,694,000.
Proceedings reported.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)

Mr. Mcllraith:: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we propose to bring forward for the consideration of the House, first, order No. 6 on today's Order Paper, second reading of Bill No. C-98, an Act to make provision for the retirement of Members of the Senate; then order No. 13 on today's Order Paper, second reading of Bill No. C-101, an Act to amend the Bank of Canada Act; then order No. 5, the resolution preceding the National Housing Act amending bill; then order No. 10, being a resolution providing for the setting up of a Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons to consider the state of penitentiaries; then order No. 3, second reading of Bill No. C-102, an Act respecting banks and banking.

May 11, 1965
Business of the House
We would hope to follow that order of business, and I have listed several items so that Members will be ready for discussion of any of them in the next few days. But it may be that we will have to readjust the order of calling them if any are not dealt with by Thursday night.


Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Government House Leader?


George James McIlraith: Yes.


Harold Edward Winch: In view of the fact that the House acceded to his request to have ten departments pass through on the first supply motion, the understanding being that they will be referred to the Committees, will the House Leader for the Government say when the Committees to which the estimates can be referred are going to be appointed?


George James McIlraith: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would be very glad to deal with that subject. Notice of the procedural reforms is on today's Votes and Proceedings and can only be on the Order Paper by Thursday.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Tomorrow.


George James McIlraith: It is transferred tomorrow to the Order Paper. In any event, that order embraces several proposed changes to the Standing Orders, one of which is the rearrangement of Standing Order 65, which provides for the setting up of the Committees to which the estimates would be referred. As soon as that can be dealt with, it is our intention to immediately refer these estimates to the Committees and proceed with them in the Standing Committees.


Mr. Starr:: If I may ask a question, Mr. Speaker, in view of what the Government House Leader has now said, and in view of the fact that I think all of us are anxious to expedite the work on these estimates, would it not be logical for the Government to consider these rules in order to set up those Committees on Thursday, rather than wait until next week?


George James McIlraith: I will give it consideration, Mr. Speaker. The reason I did not call it for Thursday had to do with the expected absence of the Prime Minister on that day. But I will certainly consider the suggestion that it be considered earlier than I had otherwise anticipated.


Michael Starr: Otherwise the Committees will spend a week doing nothing.
[Mr. Mcllraith.I



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Provisional Standing Order No. 39A deemed to have been moved.

Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to participate in a debate at this hour of night. However, the needs of the universities of this country cannot be interfered with, I think, and a minute or two to bring this matter to the attention of the Government once again will, I hope, be useful. The problem I face, of course, is that there is such a mass of information about the problem facing our universities in Canada today that it is rather difficult to boil it all down into a minute or two.
The Minister of Finance in his Budget, when referring to federal assistance to universities, said that he and his colleagues were prepared to wait until the results of the study being made by the Bladen Commission were brought down. The Bladen Commission was set up by a private group, the Canadian Universities Foundation, and financed-this is part of the Canadian paradox-by United States and Canadian corporations. The C.U.F. asked the Minister of Finance in December 1963 to increase per capita grants for universities in this country. As a matter of fact, the first brief was submitted to the Prime Minister in May of 1963, and one of the mysteries of this Government-at least I consider it a mystery-so far as assistance to universities in this country is concerned is that they have done absolutely nothing since the time they assumed office to the present day.
Dr. John Deutsch, who is featured in the May issue of the Atlantic Advocate, an issue which concerned itself largely with education for national growth, had something to say about this. After all, Dr. Deutsch is Chairman of the Economic Council of Canada. He recommended that the contribution of the Federal Government be increased by $2 to $3 per head of population. He goes on to say:
A rapid and sustained expansion of university education, including education at the postgraduate level, must be given a high priority in making available the necessary resources in comparison with other forms of public expenditure.
May 11, 1965

He adds:
There has long been a deficiency in our educational system in regard to the training of technical personnel beyond the high school but short of the university level. The value of our natural wealth is great, but. .. there are even greater riches in the knowledge and skills of men.
It is not often, Mr. Speaker, that a Government is given both the problem and the answer to the problem in such simple, clear and readily understandable terms. After all, the problem is that the universities of Canada are receiving grossly inadequate amounts of money from the federal Government. The answer to this problem, or a good deal of it, is contained in the submission of the Canadian Universities Foundation made to the Minister of Finance in December 1963, and is as follows:
University operating costs are rising at a rate greater than 16 per cent per annum. The chief contributing factors are:
(1)	Enrolment of full time students is going up at an average of between 11 and 12 per cent per annum;
(2)	Additional university teachers are being appointed each year, and their salary rates are rising;
(3)	As more buildings are provided to accommodate students and staff, maintenance costs increase;
(4)	Facilities for graduate studies and research are being expanded, and these are costly to operate.
Effective for the fiscal year 1962-63, the then Government of Canada increased the sum available for university grants by raising the rate per capita of the population of the province to $2. Including allotments, direct or indirect, for all ten provinces, the grants totalled $37 million in that year. If the federal Government contribution to the operating costs of the universities had kept pace with the rise in those costs, the total sum available for 1963-64 would have been $43 million.
I interpolate at this point, Mr. Speaker, that I understand that as of now the amount of money would be some $58 million.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
As I say, the problem I have is to try to digest the tremendous amount of evidence now available to the Government concerning what has been rightly classified as a crisis.
I am trying to boil it down and make a presentation to a Government which up to now has done nothing about this crisis since it assumed office. And they have the answer. The Canadian Universities Foundation in its brief has presented the Government with the answer. Dr. Deutsch, the Chairman of the Government's own Economic Council, has supplied the answer. Members of Parliament have tried during the months to provide this answer. I think it is deplorable for the Minister to slough off his obvious responsibility in the manner in which he has done. The
DEBATES	1189
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion urgency of the problem relates to the fact that students are now preparing themselves for the fall of 1965, yet they are told that they must wait, and that the country must wait, for the Bladen Commission report.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Member, but his time has expired.


Mr. L. T. Pennell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I propose to take up only a moment or two in reply to the hon. Member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather).
It is scarcely necessary for me to say that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon) is acutely aware of the importance of additional finances for higher education. Let me point out again that during the Budget debate the Minister made it clear that this matter was receiving close attention, but that a final decision had been deferred until there has been an opportunity to discuss with the Provincial Governments the report of Professor Bladen and his colleagues.
The hon. Member for Royal suggested that there was a simple answer to this problem. I wonder whether he has ever communicated with the chief financial critic and spokesman for the Official Opposition, the hon. Member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), who has expressed dissatisfaction with the present per capita formula for university grants. I expected that the hon. Member for Royal would propose a new formula, but in view of the fact that he did not, I assume that he acquiesces in the suggestion of the Minister of Finance that we wait for the Bladen report.
May I also suggest that there are two sides to this coin as far as higher education is concerned. This Government has taken action by way of student loans to provide assistance for people who wish to attend university. It has also given higher grants to university scientific research programs. Let me assure the House, Mr. Speaker, that when the Bladen report has been received, this Government will consider it in an appropriate and responsible manner.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-REPORT OF LAW SOCIETY RESPECTING ONTARIO SUPREME COURT JUDGE

Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I feel about as nervous as a maiden speaker, because I have never spoken in the House at such a late hour.
1190	COMMONS
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
I asked the Minister the following question: Has the Minister received, and has he had time to examine, communications from the Law Society of Upper Canada about the position of Hon. Mr. Justice Landreville, a Justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario; what is the nature of the communication received, and what, if anything, does he intend to do about this situation which has cast a shadow over the administration of justice.
Mr. Speaker, I must admit my surprise when I heard the ruling made by Mr. Speaker, that this was a question for the Order Paper. My surprise was occasioned partially by the fact that a similar question asked a few days ago was allowed but the Minister at that time had not yet had time to examine the communication. My surprise was heightened because I thought anything that affected the integrity of the administration of justice was of the highest urgency.
I need hardly tell you, Mr. Speaker, that the Benchers of the Law Society of Upper Canada are the governing authority of all members of the Bar of Ontario. This body has the reputation which one would expect of the senior leaders of the Bar-a reputation of extreme caution, particularly in respect of matters affecting the reputation of the judiciary.
It is my understanding that the Law Society did something unprecedented in the legal history of Ontario about a week or two ago, when it was announced in a press report that the Benchers of the Law Society concerned had sent a report concerning Mr. Justice Landreville to the Minister of Justice. What I want to know and what I think this House should want to know is whether this responsible, and I might almost say ultra respectable body indicated in their report that there was any reason for the very grave disquiet that many have felt about this situation.
The activities of this judge shortly before he was appointed to the Bench have been revealed by a series of investigations and trials. I will not attempt to outline them here. It is only fair to point out that in criminal proceedings it was held by a magistrate that there was no case for criminal trial on the charges laid. But the standard expected of a justice of the Supreme Court is not just the standard of avoiding the application of
DEBATES	May 11, 1965
the criminal law. What is complained of here may not be within the purview of the Criminal Code but it still might be a matter unbecoming one who occupies high judicial office. In any event, I think this House is entitled to know whether or not the Benchers of the Law Society have made a report which either directly or indirectly suggests that action should be taken by the Minister or by this House in regard to the matter.
It is my conviction, Mr. Speaker, that the absolute integrity of the judiciary is one of the most important pillars in the whole fabric of our judicial system and, indeed, of our whole democratic system. I trust the Minister will leave no stone unturned to make sure that justice in Canada is above reproach. I look forward to a direct answer from the Minister or from his Parliamentary Secretary.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I can say on behalf of the Minister that in fact a report has been received from the Benchers of the Law Society of Upper Canada in connection with the matter to which the hon. Member has referred. I am advised that the report followed a letter which arrived two days before marked "private and confidential" and that the Minister assumed that this applied to the report. It is for that reason that the contents have not been revealed.
Following upon receipt of the report the Minister took steps to advise Mr. Justice Landreville to the effect that it had been communicated to him and invited Mr. Justice Landreville to express his own views on the question. These are expected from the judge either late this week or early next week.
The hon. Member has said that he feels that justice in Canada should be above reproach, a general principle with which I think no one will disagree. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that before any decision or action on this particular question is taken both viewpoints on the question should be heard. Therefore I think any statement should be deferred and that we should await the response from the judge which, as I have indicated, is expected late this week or early next week.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.19 p.m.
May 11, 1985



APPENDIX


[Stage Direction]
Saturday, May 8, 1965
The Department of External Affairs today announced that the Ambassador of the Soviet Union was requested on May 4 to arrange for the departure from Canada of two members of his mission, Mr. A. E. Bytchkov, of the commercial section, and a chancery clerk, Mr. V. N. Poluchkin. The Canadian Government had learned that they had engaged in activities incompatible with their official status and had, therefore, found it necessary to declare them persona non grata. They left Canada on May 7.
In one instance a Canadian civil servant was paid thousands of dollars to gather information and documentation in Canada, the purpose of which was to assist in the establishment of espionage activities in Canada and in other countries, and to perform economic intelligence tasks, including the provision of detailed information on the Trans-
Mountain Pipe Line system in Western Canada.
In another instance a naturalized Canadian citizen was paid thousands of dollars to provide technical information in the electronics field related to defence industry and to compromise other Canadians, including female employees of the Government, with the object of securing their assistance in obtaining access to classified information. He was given specialized photographic training to assist him in these tasks.
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.
[Stage Direction]
Wednesday, May 12, 1965