1966-05-05

[Stage Direction]
Mr. Jean-Eudes Dube (Restigouche-Madawaska) presented the first report of the standing committee on external affairs, in both French and English.
[Note: Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[Stage Direction]
Mr. Gerard Pelletier (Hochelaga) presented the fifth report of the standing committee on broadcasting, films and assistance to the arts.
[Note: Text of the foregoing report appears in today's Votes and Proceedings.]
[DOT] (2:40 p.m.)


Mr. J. C. Munro (Hamilton East) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-176, to amend the Criminal code (insanity at time of trial).
He said: Under the present law a person suffering from mental infirmity, or a mentally retarded person, has the issue of his fitness to stand trial determined before the main trial and may, in some cases, have a charge hanging over his head for years. This bill, if adopted, would enable the issue of fitness to be postponed until the opening of the case for the defence.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
INQUIRY AS TO SPEECH BY MINISTER On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I would ask the Prime
Minister whether the speech made yesterday by the Minister of Finance in which he enunciated an economic manifesto represents anything new, or any new viewpoint, in government policy. I would also ask him whether, in view of the minister's strictures against foreign control and the possibility of the growing curtailment of Canadian independence, the government has any further steps in mind to remove the influence of United States guide lines from firms operating in Canada?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I can say that the minister's statement was, I thought, a clear expression of existing government policy in this field.


John George Diefenbaker: That is something of a generalization, since the interpretation which has been given-and I ask whether it is true-is that because the hon. member for Davenport is about to have a book published showing Canada the way-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: May I interpolate, sir, and say I congratulate the former minister on the widespread support he still has in the Liberal party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: The interpretation that has been given is that the Minister of Finance stepped in ahead to outline his own program in order to forestall the Gordon concept.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, naturally I would like to do anything I could do with propriety to advertise my hon. friend's book, but I am afraid I cannot comment on the interpretation given to the speech of the Minister of Finance and its relationship to this particular book.


John George Diefenbaker: It looks bad for the
Gordon policies.



NATIONAL SECURITY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, April 5 the Prime

May 5, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry Minister said that he hoped to be able shortly after the Easter recess to announce the personnel and terms of reference of the commission which would look into security procedures in Canada over the past 20 years. I want to ask the Prime Minister, is he now in a position to make such an announcement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not at the moment, Mr. Speaker, but as I have already stated to my hon. friend from Medicine Hat (Mr. Olson)-and I apologize for having to repeat this statement-we are anxious to get this commission established as quickly as possible. For the last week or so I have been preoccupied with aspects of security matters other than this particular commission, but we are doing our best to get the personnel established for this commission. We will, I think, need three royal commissioners on a task of this importance and magnitude. The terms of reference have been drafted and I hope to get them before cabinet and approved for submission very shortly.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could he tell us whether there has been any communication, either from NATO or from the French government, regarding the report that overflights and landings on French territory by Canadian NATO aircraft will require a different basis of permission than has been given heretofore in the blanket agreement?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: I must say that the member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) intended to put the same question as the hon. member has just put himself.

I can confirm that the Canadian embassy in Paris was informed by the French foreign office on May 3 that existing arrangements whereby R.C.A.F. aircraft are permitted to overfly or land on French territory in Europe, will henceforth be subject to monthly review.
I have not yet had direct confirmation of the report that similar notification has been given to other NATO governments, but I see no

reason to doubt it. We are, of course, examining the implications of the French government's intention to place arrangements for overflights on a stand-by basis.


Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: As a
supplementary question, will this new policy undertaken by France in any way affect the different protocols signed between that country and Canada?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to make a definite reply to that question at this stage until there has been an opportunity for examining fully all the implications involved.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the recommendations to the United States government by industry in that country for the subsidization of United States exports, a move which would have a serious adverse effect on Canadian exports, will the government advise the United States government that Canada already has an adverse commodity trade balance in excess of $1 billion with the United States, and that any move of that kind would be completely unjustified?


Hon. Robert Winters (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is well known that Canada attaches the greatest importance to exports on a multilateral basis, and I think our determination to increase our exports has been made clear abroad. We have recently had an opportunity to stress to the United States government the importance of our exports to that country, and will continue to press for an increase.


George Harris Hees: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, this is a move of very recent date. This is something quite separate from any other moves made in the United States. Would the minister address himself to this particular, serious situation?


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, this has not become United States policy. It is simply a submission to the United States government by a group of responsible American businessmen.
May 5. 1966


Mr. Colin Cameron (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Could the minister inform the house whether the Canadian government has pointed out to the United States administration the results for Canada if these proposals are accepted? Have they warned them of the difficulty we would face and the courses we might have to follow.


Robert Henry Winters: Mr. Speaker, there is virtually day to day communication with the United States government in this field. They are well aware of the importance we place on the maximization of our trade.



HIGHWAY SAFETY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Graffley (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry. In view of testimony before the house committee in the United States yesterday, in which a government authority said that millions of Americans were travelling on unsafe tires and that the United States government intended to take action in 60 to 90 days, could the minister assure this house that the federal government in Canada will take similar action, that the population of Canada similarly will be protected, and that the safety code people in his department will study tire standards?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, the government is concerned that tires on cars should be as safe as possible. I can assure the hon. member that the committee on safety standards is looking into the question of tires. Without having looked at the details of the United States proposals, at the moment I cannot give any assurance that we will copy them completely.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question. I assure the minister and the house that I am not asking for a legal opinion by the government, but is the minister now in possession of a legal opinion from the Department of Justice telling the minister whether the federal government has jurisdiction to impose safety standards on the automobile industry in Canada?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen it yet.
Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION



METHOD OF APPOINTMENT OF MEDIATOR IN DISPUTE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Roberi McCleave (Halifax):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister, and is urgent by reason of the meetings of a house committee. Was Stuart Keate engaged by order in council or by some other means to inquire into the "This Hour Has Seven Days" controversy, and does he have purported powers to require the C.B.C. to hire personnel?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would think this question refers directly to committee hearings in progress at the moment and might be asked more properly in committee.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, if I may elaborate on why I raise the question at this time


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I understand why the hon. member asked the question. I do not think it can be accepted.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister table today or tomorrow in this house the document which engaged Mr. Keate?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there is no document. I discussed this matter with Mr. Keate personally and got his agreement to act in the way that has been announced.


John George Diefenbaker: A supplementary question. How could Mr. Keate operate if there is no order in council giving him authority and power? Under what circumstance can a cabinet or a prime minister give an individual the right of mediation without there being any cabinet authority in the form of an order in council?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the terms on which Mr. Keate was asked to begin his operations have already been made public. He was asked to discuss with the parties to the dispute ways and means of bringing about a resolution of the dispute in accord with detailed terms of reference to be worked out between them.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I ask how Mr. Keate can have any authority unless there is an order in council. A mere verbal

May 5, 1966
Inquiries of the Ministry Ipse dixit on the part of the Prime Minister or the cabinet cannot give that authority to any individual.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will recognize that his question is argumentative. He is perhaps asking for a legal opinion from the Prime Minister.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The question has not been accepted, so there can be no supplementary. The hon. member may put another question.


Mr. Fairweather:: May I put a question. Is it proposed that Mr. Stuart Keate be paid by the government of Canada for this mediation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The mediation has not yet begun. Mr. Keate is discussing with the parties concerned how best his work of mediation can be accomplished and within what exact terms of reference it can be accomplished. I will be very glad indeed to table anything that can be tabled about the modalities concerned in the matter.


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I think the Prime Minister missed the terms of my question. Is it proposed to pay Mr. Stuart Keate for his services?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. Under what condition or understanding as far as expenditures are concerned did Mr. Keate take on the responsibility of negotiating this dispute?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Keate is discussing with the parties concerned the dispute between them, as I have said. He came from Vancouver to do this at my request. If Mr. Keate has to operate in this regard at the request of the government the necessary technicalities will be followed to make it possible for him to do so.



WATER RESOURCES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. I

see by his smile that he knows what I am going to ask him. When can the house expect the statement by the minister with reference to the problems of water pollution, particularly on the great lakes?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: We are working on it, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: May I ask a supplementary question. The minister has been working on it for several months. Has he any idea when we might expect some definite information?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the expose on which I am working will not change anything in the present activities on the great lakes. We are just trying to bring to the attention of the public what is being done there. It is not a question of policy or decision; it is just a question of education, if you want to put it that way. These matters are rather difficult to couch on paper, but we are working on it.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I have a further supplementary question. I presume we have been waiting in vain for something useful.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct this question to the Minister of Fisheries. Can he inform the house as to what progress has been made regarding lamprey control in Lake Huron and Georgian Bay, and are there any special efforts contemplated in this regard for this body of water in 1966?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I feel that this question is of a general nature and not so urgent that it cannot be placed on the order paper or discussed on the adjournment motion.


Percy Verner Noble: Mr. Speaker, I think this is an important question because an investigation is being conducted at this time in my area by fisheries people. I am sure the minister could answer it if you would allow him to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: I think it might be preferable for the hon. member to discuss it during the debate on the adjournment motion.
May 5, 1966



AIR TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to again put a question to the Minister of Transport which I asked a few days ago, and I do so on the same basis and in the light of certain findings made by aviation research agencies in respect of reaction time in the air under vital circumstances. Is his department making any representations or participating in connection with applications by two major air lines in Canada for authority to serve alcohol on aircraft?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, there have been some inquiries made by members of my department with regard to the issue raised by the hon. gentleman. The information I have is to the effect that there is little evidence to show that there have been any incidents endangering safety in the operations of other air lines on which alcohol is served.



NATIONAL DISASTERS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, as a pragmatic socialist I should like to address a question to the Prime Minister. I apologize for not sending him notice, but I received several phone calls during the last hour or so. In view of past experience in Canada with regard to disasters-and I now refer particularly to the Manitoba floods-and in light of the growing demand for some legislation regarding such situations, is the government giving consideration to bringing in legislation which supports in principle the private member's bill introduced by the hon. member for Kootenay West, which is aimed r.t establishing a Canada disaster fund?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as a pragmatic Liberal as well as a convinced one-and that is where I differ from my hon. friend-I would naturally want to give consideration to that bill. I shall be glad to do so, because I am very much aware of this problem. We in the government have been giving consideration to this situation for some time, and I hope the progress of parliamentary business will enable us before long to deal with this matter of disasters on a
Inquiries of the Ministry somewhat different basis than the pragmatic way in which we have been approaching it over the years.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister?
According to newspaper reports, Mr. McNamara, the American Defence Secretary, will be in Montreal some time this month. Will Mr. McNamara confer with the Canadian authorities at that time?


Mr. Speaker:: I do not believe that question urgent enough to be in order at this time.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Sainl-Hyacinihe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration?
Has the minister had the opportunity of reading the statement made by the premier of the province of Quebec with regard to manpower "jurisdiction".


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question is out of order in its present form.


Mr. Maurice Allard (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, may I put a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration?
Further to the undertaking the minister gave last Tuesday in answer to a question of mine, is he in a position today to make a statement on manpower policy?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, my reply to the question was that I had not seen the text of the premier of Quebec, I have not yet seen it, because the premier very likely spoke without notes.
The only reply I can give is that I feel the premier was commenting on the provincial Liberal platform. As for the aims of that program, they contain on the whole nothing contrary to our policy, save the employment offices.

May 5, 196G
Inquiries of the Ministry


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I only rise to point out that the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) has just put a question similar to mine and that his was accepted while mine was turned down.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question.
In view of the fact that the premier's speech was broadcast and tape-recorded and that the views therein expressed do not at all seem to concur with the opinion stated today by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, is it the intention of the minister-


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon. member that he seems to be on the point of initiating a debate on a question which, to my mind, is not debatable.
I apologize to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard) if a similar question he intended to put was rejected. The reason why I accepted the question of the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Allard) is that he started by saying that he had previously put a question and that the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was to consider it. That is why I accepted his question.


Gilles Grégoire: If you will allow me to put my question, Mr. Speaker, I was just going to.


Mr. Speaker:: I will allow the hon. member for Lapointe to put his question. I will then rule whether or not it is in order.


Gilles Grégoire: My question is as follows. Is it the intention of the minister to obtain the tape recording of the speech of the premier of Quebec, in order to compare his manpower policy with his own?


Mr. Speaker:: This question is out of order, fEnglish]


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister now in a position to advise the house of the attitude the government of the United Kingdom intends to take in respect of the resolution passed by the legislature of Quebec to alter and vary the powers and authority of the legislative council? Is this matter going to come up before the United
[Mr. Marchand.l
Kingdom parliament, and might the resolution in question, passed only by the Quebec legislature and a recommendation made by the government of Canada, be accepted by the United Kingdom parliament as a means to amend the constitution?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know of any change in the situation with regard to this resolution being on the calendar of the United Kingdom parliament, though in the eyes of the United Kingdom government there may not be the same haste in bringing it before parliament because of the existing electoral situation in Quebec.


John George Diefenbaker: On April 5 the Prime Minister said he would make an inquiry. Has he made an inquiry, and what has been the answer from the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that my right hon. friend did ask me to make inquiries, and I did make them at the time. Perhaps the hon. gentleman would give me a few hours to look into the question and see what reply has been received.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Has the minister yet received the Donald report? If not, when does he expect to receive it; and having received it, will the government make it public?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I received a phone call two days ago from Mr. Donald. He told me he was dotting the "i's" and crossing the "t's" of his report, and that it would be forthcoming in a few days.


Malcolm MacInnis: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister answer the third portion of my question? Will that report be made public when the government receives it?


Jean-Luc Pepin: This has not been decided yet, Mr. Speaker; but this is the responsibility of the Minister of Finance because the report is coming to him.
May 5, 1966	COMMONS



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. Is the minister now in a position to answer the very urgent question that was asked the other day about an increase in the facilities for the record of performance testing of swine?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I am now prepared to answer this question. There was a meeting between my officials and the officials of the Ontario Swine Breeders' Association in this regard on Friday last. The representations made by that organization are now being given very active consideration by the members of my department.



EPIDEMIC TREMORS IN POULTRY-USE OF U.S. VACCINE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, the other day the hon. member for Huron asked me a question with respect to the testing of vaccine for epidemic tremors in poultry, namely whether this vaccine had been approved for use in Canada. I am pleased to advise the hon. member that a permit is being issued to allow the importation of this vaccine.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert Simpson (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the numerous opinions expressed during the recent debate on the subject of the abolition of capital punishment, pointing out the necessity of amendment of the parole laws and regulations-incidentally, these opinions were expressed by abolitionists and retentionists alike-is it the intention of the government to bring forth any amendments to the parole regulations at this session of parliament?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this matter is being considered by the ministers concerned, in the light of the debate in the house.
DEBATES	4725
Inquiries of the Ministry REVIEW OF REPORT ON JUVENILE DELINQUENCY
On the orders of the day:


Mr. S. J. Enns (Portage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. Some time ago I asked the Minister of Justice about the report on juvenile delinquency tabled in the house two months ago. I ask him now what progress his department is making in its review of this report. I would further ask whether he has considered the advisability of referring the more useful recommendations contained in this report to the standing committee on justice and legal affairs.


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Minister of Justice):: As the hon. gentleman knows, the question of juvenile delinquency comes under the portfolio of the Solicitor General. This matter is being looked into, but I am not sure whether the question of referring the subject to the committee has been followed up to date.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is the minister in a position to make a statement concerning what could be today's most important item of news, namely the report that a Canadian father and son team of scientists may have discovered a cure for cancer?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have no statement on that matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister look into this matter and make a statement to the house at an early date?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to investigate the matter and report to the house later.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I wonder whether the minister has considered making a grant available to this father and son team, and to the three scientists who discovered the new antibiotic drug myxin just a week or two ago.
May 5, 1966

Inquiries of the Ministry


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the department makes a very considerable amount of money available for research, including research into the problem of cancer. We have a continuing interest in this problem, and I am sure the representations made by my hon. friend will be considered.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture.
Is the minister aware that his dairy subsidy policy has not reached the amount of $4 per cwt. as promised, and will he take action so that this price of $4 per cwt. may be reached immediately?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the hon. member's question is rather general in character and cannot be accepted.


Gérard Laprise: I would ask your permission to debate it at ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member cannot ask a question which is supplementary to another one that has been rejected.
If he has a new question, he will be allowed to ask it.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the general dissatisfaction which prevails


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member ask his question?


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Yes, Mr. Speaker, but I want to give some sort of advance notice. In view of the general dissatisfaction which has prevailed among dairy producers since the last statement made on this matter-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows better than I do that he cannot express an opinion before putting his question as he just did.


J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, will the minister change his dairy policy since the price of $4

per cwt. has not been reached under his new policy set up some time ago?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member's question is very closely related to the one ruled out of order when put by the hon. member for Chapleau (Mr. Laprise).


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question and that one will be in order.
Can the minister tell us if he has instructed his officials in the Department of Agriculture to apply that policy of at least $4 per cwt. of milk or if he has yet to give such instructions?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that this question is of the same kind as the other two. The hon. member is asking whether or not the Minister of Agriculture gave instructions. I fail to see how that can be urgent, and in view of the fact that one of the hon. member's colleagues has just given notice that he wants to discuss that matter at ten o'clock, that side of it can also be considered at that time by the minister.


Gilles Grégoire: Another supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker, which I trust will be in order this time. In view of the fact that the minister has already made a statement in the house on that matter and that the officials of his department have not implemented it, I would like to know if the latter really intends to carry out what he stated in the house. Besides, if he was not talking seriously, a statement from the minister is in order in these circumstances.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I do not think so.


Gilles Grégoire: Well, I do, Mr. Speaker.



INQUIRY AS TO REVISION OF NATIONAL POLICY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. Has the operation of the national oil policy, which was established more than five years ago, given any indication of a need for a revision of that policy today?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this question is not so urgent that it should be asked at this time.
May 5. 1966	COMMONS


Hon. Marcel Lamberl (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that oil is a very important commodity in this country, both nationally and internationally, with the greatest respect I would put a question to the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. In the light of strong representations from the petroleum industry that the national oil policy must be brought up to date, will the minister advise whether any consideration has been given to this and whether there has been any evidence over the past three years that the policy must be revised, and revised now?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I feel I cannot accept the premise that there is general dissatisfaction in the oil industry in Canada. On the contrary. I was in Calgary recently and I gained there the opposite feeling. Some people have expressed resentment in regard to the present situation, one person in particular, but I do not think that this represents public opinion or the opinion of the oil industry in Canada.
The hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees), then minister of trade and commerce, started something in 1960-61, and the production of oil in Canada has more than doubled in the last five years. I think that the hon. member should be satisfied with what has been done. The policy itself is reviewed continuously, and if we find in the coming months that something is wrong we will try to remedy it.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I have a supplementary
question, Mr. Speaker. My question is motivated by the replies given to me by the former minister of trade and commerce, now the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp), that the policy was due for revision and improvements. We know, of course, that it has worked well, but it still could be improved upon.


Jean-Luc Pepin: A national policy like that one is always being reviewed.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo South):: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister received representations that the national oil policy has worked to the great disadvantage of every consumer in Canada who purchases gasoline?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the question is not in order.
DEBATES	4727
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSE OF COMMONS



CONSIDERATION OF ELECTIONS ACT BY HOUSE COMMITTEE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Considering the long period which has elapsed since a thorough committee study and scrutiny was made of the Canada Elections Act, can the Prime Minister indicate when it is intended to have the act referred to the standing committee on privileges and elections for exhaustive study?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am perhaps becoming repetitious, but again it seems to me that this question is not so urgent that it should be asked at this time.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainle-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct my question to the Minister of Transport?
Yesterday, the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Klein) asked the minister whether he had undertaken an investigation into the disastrous fire which occurred in Montreal harbour. The minister then answered that it was a very worrying situation and that he would conduct an investigation.
I would ask the minister which measures he intends to take immediately to prevent any other such disasters and provide a better protection for the workers and users of Montreal harbour.
[English1


John Whitney Pickersgill: Every possible precaution, sir.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Sainte-Marie have a supplementary question?


Georges-J. Valade: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the following question.
Has the minister communicated with Montreal authorities to set up a joint policy concerning security for the users of Montreal harbour?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, the harbours board has been in the closest touch with the city authorities of Montreal.
May 5. 1968

Inquiries of the Ministry Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern): Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Did the stabilization board or the department have any butter in storage in Montreal which was affected by the fire?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I doubt whether this is a supplementary question, and if it is not I do not think it is acceptable.



UNITED NATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning the subject which he talked about at a conference last night. Has the minister or the Canadian government suggested to the United Nations that the cost of maintenance of the United Nations peace keeping forces be estimated in the future before any of these programs are set up? This question concerns all countries participating in peace keeping activities, particularly Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he should consider his question further and put it in another form, or perhaps place it on the order paper. I do not see that it is so urgent that it should be accepted in its present form at this time.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question which I want to direct to the attention of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Last week, in the absence of the minister, I asked this question and the Prime Minister was good enough to say that he would direct it to the minister.
My question is this. Having in mind the recent report of an official of the health department to the effect that there has been a very marked increase in cigarette smoking among Canadian school children in the 12 to 14 years age bracket, would the minister say what is happening to the program which is being financed by the public through his department to reduce or end this addiction?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question should be placed on the order paper.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry. Does the government accept the addition of contiguous census districts to qualifying national employment service areas under its designated area program, providing these districts meet the income level of the National Employment Service area to which they could be added?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentlemen has correctly read the regulations.



EDMONTON-LAY-OFFS AT NORTHWEST INDUSTRIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry. Has the minister yet replied to the letters and telegrams which he and his colleague the Minister of National Defence have received from the international association of machinists with regard to the heavy lay-offs at Northwest Industries in Edmonton?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that the hon. member is not asking his question properly. He is asking whether the minister has replied to certain telegrams. He may wish to put his question in another form.


David Orlikow: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Can the minister tell the house whether the government made commitments to the effect that work would be given the company in Edmonton under the defence sharing program? Is this the case?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, a reply has gone out in answer to the representations to the effect that the government has been doing and is prepared to do all in its power to assist Northwest Industries to even fuller participation in the production sharing program with the United States.



INQUIRY AS TO BY-ELECTION IN NICOLET-YAMASKA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Augusie Choquette (Lolbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, thank you for having aided my
May 5, 196G	COMMONS
digestion, I have been rising for thirty minutes.
I have a question to put to the Prime Minister and it is an urgent one for the following reason: The riding of Nicolet-Yamaska is henceforth without a member. A government victory is foreseeable-


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The hon. member may put a question but no more.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.
The member for Lotbiniere has just deliberately misled the house by saying that a government victory is foreseeable in Nico-let-Yamaska. He has no right to say things contrary to the truth, as he has been doing just now.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that the rules do not provide for forecasting and deciding of a by-election in Quebec and to report on it. The question period has expired. But in view of the circumstances, and considering that the hon. member has waited for 30 minutes before putting his question, he may now put it.


Auguste Choquette: It is quite a normal question I intended to put to the Prime Minister.
Is it his intention to call an early by-election in the riding of Nicolet-Yamaska, in view of the fact that a Creditiste will assuredly never be elected in that riding?


Mr. Speaker:: Order please. The question period is over.
1English]



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT AND CRIMINAL CODE


Hon. Guy Favreau (President of the Privy Council) moved: the second reading of Bill No. C-169, to amend an act to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Criminal Code.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, is the minister going to make a brief statement?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, this legislation was originally introduced in 1959 and enacted because the statement of evidence submitted concerning the raw fish inquiry by the director of research and investigation cast doubt upon the legality of the arrangements and agreements between the fish packing companies and the fishermen relating to the supply
DEBATES	4729
Combines Investigation Act and price of raw fish. As a result the companies declined to negotiate prices with the fishermen's union as in past years and it appeared that a strike might result leading to the loss of the salmon catch and possibly other catches if legislation were not enacted to provide that the anti-combines legislation was not applicable to such an agreement during the period January 1, 1959 to December 31, 1960, both dates inclusive.
It has been necessary to amend this legislation from year to year by extending the period of its application as in the present bill. This extension has been occasioned by delay in completing the inquiry because of a series of court actions or injunctions bearing on the procedure in the inquiry.
In 1963 a federal-provincial committee of officials of the federal government and the provincial government of British Columbia was appointed, and they have now made a report. A recommendation of that committee is to the effect that negotiation procedures between the fishermen and the fish processors should be formalized.
It has not yet been possible to implement the conclusions of that federal-provincial report and it appears that, unless the exception is further extended and the exemption of the British Columbia fishing industry from the application of the act is continued, prejudice will ensue. Therefore the present bill provides for the extension of the exemption of the British Columbia fishing industry under the combines act and the Criminal Code.
It had been intended to ask for a further extension of 18 months, but in order to prevent the requirement of coming before parliament again in the event that the report is not implemented within 18 months the amendment has been drafted in such a way as to provide for a continuation of the exemption, it being provided, however, that the exemption will cease to be in effect if a motion of discontinuance is made and passed in this House of Commons.
[DOT] (3:30 p.m.)


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, this is not such a simple and straightforward question as the President of the Privy Council has so blandly expressed it. It has a far deeper significance than explained by the hon. gentleman who introduced the bill.
To understand the significance of what I am about to say we need to look at the history. The statement of evidence by the director of research and investigation to
May 5, 1966

Combines Investigation Act which the minister referred arose out of a decision, as I understand it, of either six or seven people in the fishing industry who became disgruntled and unhappy because of a strike in the fishing industry a number of years ago. They took steps under the Combines Investigation Act to set out the basis of their claim that the act had been contravened and that a conspiracy to set prices had been engaged in between the United Fishermen and Allied Workers Union, the Native Brotherhood of British Columbia, and the fishing industry of British Columbia.
The director of research and investigation under the Combines Investigation Act had no recourse whatever under the law but to launch an investigation, because the provisions of the law are that when six citizens of Canada lay a complaint together with background information before the director he is then duty bound to proceed to conduct an investigation. The director made a statement respecting the procedure itself, which became an issue in the 1957 federal election. At that time we argued, and we still argue, that section 4 of the Combines Investigation Act, which says that workmen or combinations of workmen may engage in activities for their own reasonable protection, should have been brought into force and that the investigation ought not to have been proceeded with.
The government of that day saw fit not to enforce the law, thereby protecting the rights of those in the fishing industry, but instead launched a prosecution. Subsequently there was a reluctance on the part of the fishing industry to negotiate with the fishermen's union over wages, hours and working conditions because it was claimed that if there were negotiations the companies in the fishing industry would be laying themselves open to another prosecution under the provisions of this act. Therefore, in order to ease the awkward situation prevailing in the fishing industry the original amendment was brought in exempting contracts, agreements and arrangements between fishermen or associations of fishermen in British Columbia from the workings of the Combines Investigation Act.
At that time we argued that the exemption ought to be permanent. We argued that if there was doubt in the minds of members of the government preceding this one as to the definition of "workman" in the fishing industry, which has been a perennial problem, that doubt ought to be resolved and some exemption should be provided for fishermen in the

fishing industry in British Columbia. We argued that the exemption should be a permanent one and should be brought within section 4 of the act which now provides a permanent exemption for workmen in regard to certain actions for which they would otherwise be prosecuted under the Combines Investigation Act.
I shall quote section 4 of that act so that it will appear on the record. It reads as follows:
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to apply to combinations of workmen or employees for their own reasonable protection as such workmen or employees.
That section has been interpreted and reasoned to mean that a combination of workmen or a union that involves itself and a company or industry in collective bargaining for a collective agreement does not contravene the Combines Investigation Act by such negotiations in reaching a collective agreement. We say that this is the correct approach. There ought to be this protection and exemption from the conspiracy sections of the law in so far as unions and their collective bargaining rights are concerned. However, if there is doubt on the part of the government whether fishermen can be classified as workmen, then the provision in the bill now before us, which has been on the statute books since 1959, should be made permanent so as to extend to fishermen in the fishing industry of British Columbia or in any other part of Canada the same sort of protection that exists with respect to other workmen under the Combines Investigation Act. The present government and its predecessor have failed to make the exemption permanent. The failure to do so means that the government is engaging in the game of playing favourites. It is discriminating against a segment of industry for some peculiar or odd purpose.
In 1960 the Combines Investigation Act was amended quite extensively. We spent many hours, both in the house and in the Banking and Commerce Committee going over the proposed changes which were introduced by the hon. gentleman who is now the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton) but who was then the minister of justice. One of the interesting changes made in 1960 was, in effect, a provision to exempt the fishing companies from prosecution under the Combines Investigation Act if they engaged in a conspiracy to fix prices in the export market. In other words, they were exempted from prosecution. The parliament of Canada in 1960 singled out one section of the industry under
May 5, 1966

what I called the Pickersgill-Fulton formula or amendment, because both hon. members conspired the one with the other, to develop the exempting section of the Combines Investigation Act which exempted that industry from prosecution under the act if it conspired to fix prices for the export market.
The effect of that provision in so far as the fishing industry in British Columbia was concerned was to bring about an exemption from prosecution for fixing prices in the domestic market. We all know that the various companies in the fishing industry of British Columbia, having been given the authority to sit down with each other and fix common prices for their products in the export market, surely do the same thing when they establish prices in the domestic market. Is there any suggestion that this does not happen? Certainly not. When we buy canned fish that comes from the coast of British Columbia we are buying canned fish whose price has been set by a conspiracy among the companies concerned which has the protection and sanction of law.
The previous government of that day, with the assistance and help of the present Minister of Transport, sought to exempt one section of the fishing industry in British Columbia from the law. This government has not the courage and the common decency now to take the next step, the one that ought to have been taken, namely, to exempt another section of the fishing industry from the provisions of the law. That is one-sided favouritism. It was one-sided favouritism when that concept was originally introduced. The President of the Privy Council is carrying on that one-sided favouritism by asking parliament to continue the temporary exemption respecting fishermen on the west coast. This is not nearly good enough.
[DOT] (3:40 p.m.)
It indicates that the President of the Privy Council has not learned very much as a result of his transfer from the position he used to hold in the cabinet to the one he holds now, that he has not come to appreciate that you cannot play favourites, that it is unethical to pick and choose among groups in the nation, that it is politically immoral to take steps to exempt the fishing industry from prosecution under the act while taking other steps to preserve the possibility that individual fishermen or their organizations may be prosecuted.

Combines Investigation Act
The gobbledegook of a while ago in explanation of the various safeguards was misleading, to say the least. There is only one reasonable, sensible, fair and just course to take. I can appreciate that the government may not fully understand what is meant by "just". But the only course which would be just to all so far as the fishing industry in British Columbia is concerned is this: If there is any doubt as to the interpretation of the word "workmen" or the phrase "combinations of workmen" in section 4 of the act we should take the bill now before us when we get into the committee stage and make this exemption permanent in the same way that a permanent exemption was granted to the company side of this industry.
The minister says that the bill provides for repeal because as soon as the collective bargaining procedures which may result from the work of the joint federal-provincial committee are worked out and in effect there will be no further need for exemption under the law. If a simple process of establishing a system of collective bargaining in the fishing industry of British Columbia will obviate the need to provide for an exemption from the law, what is the purpose of the law in the first place, because this system of collective bargaining is already in existence? What comes to mind is that there is in contemplation a collective bargaining procedure which will not be true collective bargaining but which will result in the imposition by one group of hours, wages and working conditions on another group. This is not free collective bargaining; it is dictatorship. If the minister contemplates the introduction of a system in British Columbia whereby one element in our society will be told what their hours, wages and working conditions shall be, I agree there could be no conspiracy because those who are under the heels of a dictator have a difficult time conspiring with one another.
One thing this bill has done has been to reveal once again the attitude of the present government which is identical with that of its predecessor and shows its complete lack of interest in fair play. It is not interested in fair play, only in paying attention to those elements in our society which have control of the government itself.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Minisier of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as I recall it, during the debate that took place in the twenty fifth parliament I more or less supported the view which has been taken by the last speaker. I felt there were sound arguments for making the exemp-
May 5. 1966

Combines Investigation Act tion permanent. If my memory serves me correctly, the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Mather) also supported this view. However, the government of the day felt that the extension of one year which it had suggested might be on the short side and eventually acceded to a suggestion that the term be extended for two years.
Considerably more than two years have elapsed and this, I think, vindicates the position that was taken by the hon. member for New Westminster and myself at that time. Since then, as the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau) has announced, a federal-provincial committee has been studying this problem. It is one which merits study because the fishermen and the fishing industry in British Columbia have been following certain practices since the last decade of the last century and nobody ever suggested that they were not legal until the investigation which took place in the late 50's.
Since the federal-provincial committee is now making a study of this situation, I think it is desirable that if ten members of the house wish to question the propriety of the exemption that right should be reserved to them. The result would be in effect that under this amendment the exemption for which the hon. member and others have asked in the past will continue in perpetuity, unless and until ten members decide they want to propose a change you will have a permanent exemption.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that what the Minister of Labour (Mr. Nicholson) has just said is correct. Unless there is an objection made by ten or more members the provision will be permanent. What the minister neglected to mention is that there is a provision for the repeal of the bill as a result of other action by the house; in other words, if superseding legislation is brought in this measure may be repealed. That is my understanding of the position, and if it is not correct I hope the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Favreau) will tell me so.
I do not intend to speak at length on this matter but I should like to say that in my view it is nothing short of a national disgrace that for ten years uncertainty has hung over the heads of the fishermen of British Columbia. I was a member of the house when the complaint under the Combines Investigation Act was laid. It was startling at the time. It was even more startling to find that

the terms of the act which specifically exempt workmen were considered not to prevent the application of the section requiring the director to make an investigation. My impression was that the then minister of fisheries, Hon. James Sinclair, was as surprised as I was to find that this question had arisen in respect of a practice which, as the Minister of Labour has said, has been going on in British Columbia for decades, certainly for longer than I can remember.
[DOT] (3:50 p.m.)
I was not a member of the house at the time the action was taken to which the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) referred. I certainly agree it was a regrettable course of action but I shall not go into it. However, I would like to direct the attention of the house to the fact that in addition to that protective section in the Combines Investigation Act there are similar provisions in parallel sections of the Criminal Code.
I well remember the lengthy discussion which took place in the house during the 1953-54 session, when the Criminal Code was being completely revised, on this very question of conspiracy and the protection of working people from the application of the conspiracy sections of the Criminal Code. As we all know, the battle for the protection of working people against charges of criminal conspiracy goes a long way back into the history of our country and of that country where functions the mother of parliaments.
For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I consider it a national disgrace that this situation has gone on and on and that over the years there have been nothing but temporary extensions of the act. I do not know what kind of proposal will be placed before the house arising from the special committee of federal and provincial authorities, but from reading the committee's report I am not too optimistic that its proposal will be one that will really protect the rights of the fishermen of British Columbia. I hope I am wrong in my forecast.
Inasmuch as the hon. member for Skeena has referred to the section in the Combines Investigation Act I think I should put on record the parallel sections of the Criminal Code. Section 411 deals with the whole question of various types of conspiracy which might be considered in restraint of trade and commerce, including the fixing of prices. Subsection 3 reads as follows:
This section does not apply to combinations of workmen or employees for their own reasonable protection as workmen or employees.
May 5, 1966

Section 409 of the Criminal Code, also dealing with conspiracy in restraint of trade, says that such a conspiracy is an agreement between two or more persons to do or to procure to be done any unlawful act in restraint of trade. Subsection 2 states:
The purposes of a trade union are not, by reason only that they are in restraint of trade, unlawful within the meaning of subsection (1).
This, of course, raises the whole question of the determination of what is a trade union. The United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union has operated as a union on all fours with the normal operation of any other union in this country except that instead of bargaining on an hourly rate or monthly wage it has to bargain on a rate for piece work. But this is not a unique situation. The Minister of Labour knows that in relation to certain activities in the logging industry in B.C. the traditional method of bargaining has been on a price for 1,000 feet of lumber or logs.
No matter from which angle we look at this situation, for example, from the angle of this house having passed the Canada Labour (Standards) Code last year, it is incredible that even if we pass this bill we still leave unsettled the basic question of whether or not these fishermen are working people under the laws of Canada.
I am not going to prolong my remarks on the bill. Certainly I shall support its passage in lieu of any better proposal but I hope that the President of the Privy Council, who is perhaps not as fully acquainted with the circumstances surrounding this situation as the Minister of Labour, will take a good look at the definition of a workman around which this whole unhappy situation has hinged.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I know I should not rise a second time to speak in this debate, but during his remarks the hon. member for Comox-Alberni posed a question to which he is entitled to an answer. He was concerned with the last few words in the proposed amendment, "or such sooner day as this section is repealed." I assume that those words were inserted in order to permit the repeal of the section if a constructive proposal comes forward from the federal-provincial committee. Otherwise, as I said earlier, the exemption will continue indefinitely unless and until ten members of the house feel that parliamentary action is necessary.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, in view particularly of the remarks made a while ago by the
Combines Investigation Act hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard)-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I should advise the house that if the minister speaks now he will close the debate.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Guy Favreau: That is why, Mr. Speaker, I took a long look around the house before beginning my remarks.
[DOT] (4:00 p.m.)

In view of the remarks of the member for Skeena (Mr. Howard), I feel it is important that the matter should be made clear at this stage.
He said that, in his opinion, this legislation designed to extend temporarily the exemption of the British Columbia fisheries from the provisions of the act is immoral because this exemption should be permanent.
Personally, I note that on four occasions between 1959 and 1964 inclusive, the Canadian parliament saw fit to provide for the temporary nature of this exemption by enacting a similar legislation. I feel therefore that for the moment, since the circumstances making the previous exemptions necessary have not changed, it is quite in order for the minister now responsible for the application of the act to ask parliament to provide for an exemption similar to those previously granted.
In order to indicate that the present government has no intention of removing the exemption before making sure that the legal and other conditions in British Columbia are likely to protect as completely as possible the situation and interests of the fishermen of this area, the bill now before the house is designed to ensure that the exemption be made practically permanent, so as to provide that, barring very special circumstances, the exemption will remain in effect until the recommendations of a federal-provincial committee, which reported in February 1965, have been implemented in some pieces of legislation.
Since there are still some particulars to be looked into, those measures will come exclusively under provincial or federal jurisdiction or under joint jurisdiction, being complementary to one another.
I think it was essential that the previous exemptions, and the one which is now asked
May 5, 1965

Combines Investigation Act tor, be granted because if in 1959 as well as for the following years, the exemption had not been applied, the strike threats which existed during that whole period could have resulted in the complete loss of the catch during those years and in lay-offs for all the fishermen concerned. That is why I think that the legislation which was passed was essential and that the one now before the house is also essential.
When the situation has been settled by legislation and we know exactly how it works out, then we can revise our Combines Investigations Act and find out, before cancelling the exemption, whether or not it will be necessary to amend the act in any way.
Hon. members can rest assured that the government has no intention of cancelling the exemption before all those facts have been studied and before it is convinced that the future and interests of all the fishermen concerned will not be prejudiced in any way.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Batten in the chair.
On clause 1-Application of acts to fishing agreements.
Frank Howard: This clause, Mr. Chairman, carries with it a relatively new concept in legislation, namely, one which gives the initiative only in the repeal of a law and not its carrying out to any ten members of the House of Commons. I am in agreement with that general principle. It long has been my contention that the cabinet has taken unto itself far too much authority and control over parliament. At least in a small way the provision of the right to any ten members of parliament to initiate a certain legislative step is in itself good. The corollary of this, however, is that this right to take the initiative to repeal or remove the exemption applies only to fishermen in so far as the fishing industry is concerned. In other words, any time any ten members, for whatever reason, feel it is necessary to place the fishermen as individuals and their union in the position of facing potential prosecution for conspiracy under the Combines Investigation Act they can do so.
I think that what the President of the Privy Council should have done, if it is his sincere desire to see this procedure used, was not to have stopped here but rather to have given the same right to any ten members to
CMr. Favreau.]

initiate legislation to repeal the present sections of the Combines Investigation Act which permantly exempt the industry from prosecution for conspiracy to set prices. On the one hand he says that any ten members of parliament should have the right to remove the exemption which now applies to the fishermen, but on the other hand he says he does not want any ten members of parliament to have the right to remove the exemption which now applies to the company side of the fishing industry.
I submit that this is discrimination. As the law stands now, it says that the court shall not convict in any prosecution if there is a conspiracy, combination, agreement or arrangement relating only to the export of articles from Canada. As I pointed out, this is the argument that the fishing industry used as its defence for what the companies were doing in the period prior to 1956 when they came under the glare of the director of research and investigation.
They said then: We are not fixing prices on the domestic market; while it is true that we negotiate with the United Fishermen and Allied Workers' Union, in our selling policies we do not fix prices on the domestic market but, because of international competition, we have to be able to consult with each other to fix prices for the export market. I would point out that by a process which I believe Professor Skeoch called osmosis the price fixing arrangements on the export market also extend into the domestic market. And this is so.
If the minister is sincere in saying that any ten members of parliament should have the right to initiate a law to remove the exemption in so far as one section of the fishing industry is concerned, why did he not introduce a bill containing the same right to remove the exemption of the company side of the fishing industry as well? Why the different approach? I would very much appreciate an answer from the minister on this point before we proceed to pass the bill.
[DOT] (4:10 p.m.)


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me there is no discrimination or unfair treatment. As concerns exports, the same treatment applies to all, but for the domestic market, each and every one, save the exceptions herein provided for, is covered by the Combines Investigation Act.
May 5, 1966	COMMONS
Nevertheless, I have duly noted the remarks of the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard) and I can give all members of the house the assurance that I shall study them and that later consideration of some provisions of this act will be made in the light of the remarks made here. It is clear that if agreements allowed on exports were carried over into the domestic market and were to produce illegal agreements, well then, the necessary investigations would be carried out, whether initiated by the director or at the request of outside persons.
I was pleased with the very frank remark made about the procedure set out in this legislation to the effect that if it is desired at any time to cancel the exemptions, that will not be done by an order in council according to the wishes of the government but by a decision of the members of this house. But I wish to point out also that it was intended by the government to ask for an 18-month exemption, as it did the last time, because it feels that over the next 18 months the matter will be settled to everyone's satisfaction. Then we considered the fact, which the hon. member of Skeena mentioned, that if the exemption had to be continued after 18 months, it would be appropriate to decide if it could be cancelled by an order in council. That is when we decided to abide by the much more democratic principle providing that the decision of the house, and not that of the government, would prevail in those circumstances.
But I want to clarify one thing. It is obvious that the exemption cannot be cancelled at any time simply following a motion by ten members of this house. There is an exemption for a minimum period of 18 months, that is until December 31, 1967, and that exemption will remain in force afterwards unless a motion is passed by this house.
1English]


Frank Howard: Mr. Chairman, I did not ask the President of the Privy Council to examine the proposition I put to him or to examine the situation in the light of my remarks. I did ask him whether he thought it correct to follow a more democratic procedure than the use of an order in council, and those were his words, as a result of giving ten members of parliament the right to institute repeal of the exemption. If he is of that opinion why did he not take a further democratic step in respect of fishing and other companies which
DEBATES	4735
Combines Investigation Act now have an exemption under the Combines Investigation Act and which now can and do conspire to fix prices for the export market? Why did he not follow his ideas about democratic procedures and take the next step? After all, what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. Ten members have the right to initiate the procedure of repeal in respect of the exemption as it applies to fishermen and their unions. On the surface it seems to me that the minister is thinking in terms of democratic procedure on one side of the coin but not on the other.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, I should first like to point out that ten members of parliament cannot abrogate the exemption. The House of Commons can do so on a motion introduced by ten members. As to the further extension of what the hon. member refers to as the democratic process, I think we are here concerned with one rather narrow issue, whether or not the exemption in favour of the fishing industry in British Columbia which has been granted by this house on four occasions should be continued.
So far as the balance of his remarks is concerned, I said a few moments ago that at the time of any further review of the act, those things he referred to will have to be taken into consideration. What he has referred to is a modification of one of the broad and basic principles of the Combines Investigation Act. Surely if any such modification is necessary it ought to be made as a result of an act of parliament rather than through the special type of provision by which ten members of parliament can move a motion to be approved by the house.
The hon. member, I repeat, can be assured that if it is discovered that the application of the exemption from the act to any type of industry for the purpose of export markets is transposed to the Canadian market in terms of an illegal combination, the matter will be looked into by the director of investigation and research.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Chairman, the President of the Privy Council and the Minister of Labour made reference to the possibility of superseding legislation, and I am using my words, not theirs. I realize that at this stage we cannot consider the details of possible legislation. The question in my mind relates to the fact that this proposed extension is more permanent than the extensions provided by other bills of this type. Nevertheless it does retain in essence the principle that these
May 5, 1966

Combines Investigation Act fishermen are exempt only because of a special exempting provision.
I should like to relate that fact to the question I raised earlier which has been of some concern to me since the problem of the application of the Combines Investigation Act to a group of workmen first arose. Has the President of the Privy Council or the government in mind that any superseding legislation which may be passed will clarify the existing provisions of the Combines Investigation Act regarding what constitutes "workmen". Some of us felt that these provisions protected working people from any application of the Combines Investigation Act. The provisions of section 7 relating to a complaint by six or seven people destroyed what some of us had considered up until 1956 to be a specific provision with general application to working people. Who is to say that tomorrow some other group of workers may not find themselves in the same position as the fishermen were in 1956? It has not happened in the last ten years but, as the Minister of Labour pointed out, it did not happen in connection with the fishermen in British Columbia over a considerably longer period, even though the practice followed in negotiations between them and the fishing companies had been on all fours with what it was in 1956 and in fact has continued to be as a result of this kind of exempting legislation.
[DOT] (4:20 p.m.)
Could the minister give us some clarification on any proposals the government has in mind in relation to the application or interpretation of this exempting clause of the Combines Investigation Act? I would also ask for clarification in relation to the parallel clause in the Criminal Code.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Chairman, the concern of the hon. member for Comox-Alberni with the possibility of further incidents in other provinces or industries is well understood. The hon. member will also understand that the reason this particular exemption has been granted stems from the fact that the word "workers", or the elements which integrate the notion of a worker within the meaning of the general exception were not precise enough to allow a determination of whether they covered the case of fishermen in British Columbia. Rather than provide at the time for a basic review of the principle involved here, it was decided that the thing to do in the interests of the fishermen and the fishing industry in British Columbia was to exempt

that particular industry from the provisions of the act and the Criminal Code.
I am not in a position to say whether it will be the intention or decision of the government to extend further the notion of "worker" within the meaning of the general extension. Hon. members will appreciate that it would be difficult and probably unfair for me to use the pretext of the narrow clause now before us to forecast a basic or general review of the principles of the act. But I might say at this time that within the next ten days or so I intend making a statement with regard to a governmental decision respecting a broader view of the Combines Investigation Act. However, for the moment, because government policy is involved and a general review of the act as such is not being discussed here, I think I should not state that policy. But I can tell the hon. member that within the next ten days or so I intend to make a further statement on a more general view of the act itself.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read a third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Guy Favreau: the third reading of the bill.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I might say one word on third reading. I meant to say this at the committee stage but was called out to the telephone. I apologize for my absence. For my own part I think the bill is phrased correctly, because I believe that the more we do to strip the Senate of any function the better off we will be. But if I were in the Senate I would object most strenuously to the bill. I am sure hon. Senators will say that the House of Commons is taking unto itself exclusively the right to repeal legislation whereas our concept of repealing legislation is by means of the Governor General, the House of Commons and the Senate as an entity indivisible. It seems to me that legislation drafted in this way is terribly poor, even though I agree that this is the way it should be done.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong this discussion but I think the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. May S. 1966

Howard) is labouring under a misapprehension. As I understand the bill, it means that ten members could initiate the legislation if this bill is passed by the House of Commons and the Senate in the usual way. I should like an opinion in this regard.


Guy Favreau: I take it, Mr. Speaker, that the hon. member is putting a question?


John Angus MacLean: Yes.


Guy Favreau: In answer to the question I would say that the basic issue, of course, is an extension by both houses of parliament of the exemption for a period of 18 months until the end of 1967. But the exemption is to continue subsequently until such time as the House of Commons, upon motion of ten of its members, decides to repeal it.


John Angus MacLean: If I may continue my remarks, Mr. Speaker, because I did not make myself clear, my point is that this legislation gives that authority to ten members of the House of Commons but this legislation has to be approved by the Senate.


Guy Favreau: Yes.


John Angus MacLean: We in the House of Commons cannot by ourselves take away this right from the Senate. It is even possible that the Senate will not pass the bill if they feel their rights are being denied. In closing I wish to congratulate members on the treasury benches who have taken part in this debate for a more responsible attitude regarding this rather difficult and contentious problem than was habitually adopted by them when they did not have the responsibility of administering these measures. I sometimes think what a tremendous benefit it would be if the hon. member for Skeena had the advantage of sitting on the treasury benches for a while so that this attitude might be transformed to some extent, but on balance I am not sure which would be worse for the country.


Guy Favreau: I am sorry I misunderstood the original question put by the hon. member. He is completely right, of course. In dealing with the present bill the Senate will be completely free to accept the principle which is very humbly suggested to them. They will, I hope, understand that the basic issue will be resolved by them in the same way as it is resolved by this house.
[DOT] (4:30 p.m.)


Mr. Rapp:: Mr. Speaker, I have one question. Do development projects come strictly
Research Council Act
within the prerogative of the provincial governments or is the federal government making recommendations in this area?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in this debate, the issue is not yet completely clarified whether there is here an exclusive provincial jurisdicition or an exclusive federal jurisdiction or whether both provincial and federal legislation which will complement each other will have to be passed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



RESEARCH COUNCIL ACT


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: the second reading of Bill No. C-150, to amend the Research Council Act.
He said: Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out when the resolution introducing this bill was under discussion, this is rather in the nature of a housekeeping bill made necessary by the passage of legislation setting up a Science Council of Canada. The principal object of the bill in its few clauses is to reconcile the position of the National Research Council with the new Science Council. In addition to this, steps have been taken to make a number of small operational changes in the latter clauses of the bill for the day to day operation of the National Research Council.
Since I have already made a statement both on the Science Council and the National Research Council, I think perhaps if we could proceed to committee without delay I would be prepared to answer any questions that there may be.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to delay the bill reaching the committee stage but I think my remarks with respect to the principle are more aptly put on second reading and can be made in about ten minutes. I do not believe they will seriously hold up the bill in any case, and an orderly procedure will be correctly maintained.
As the minister stated, this bill is a housekeeping measure designed to change the name and to make one or two other adjustments in the act. One of these adjustments is to relieve the National Research Council of its responsibilities in an advisory capacity or, to put it more accurately, to refer matters to

May 5, 1966
Research Council Act
a committee of the cabinet on science policy. I believe that in this principle a more coherent pattern is being followed than heretofore. I know from the minister's first statement that this results not only from the recommendations of Dr. Mackenzie, the past president of the National Research Council, but from studies carried out following his report. With the council on scientific matters and the secretariat in the cabinet we are beginning to get a framework now whereby we can separate policy and the investigational branch of the National Research Council's work into two parts under an over-all umbrella of a committee of the cabinet dealing with scientific matters.
My remarks today are directed through you, Mr. Speaker, not only to the National Research Council but to the minister who reports to parliament for it. Many people in Canada, over the last score of years ,have spoken at some length on the necessity of research as part of the adjustment that must be made in a modern industrial country in order to keep pace with technological advances. I should like to say, and I am sure the minister supports me in this, that the work of the National Research Council of Canada is outstanding the world over. My remarks are along the line that the tremendous effort by the National Research Council requires, I believe, a little reinforcement. Let me give some examples. One of the duties of the National Research Council is the job of doing basic research which might be classified, for the purpose of my argument, as government research. Within the field of government research a tremendous amount of pure research and applied research springing from pure research has been done. I do not believe that any country in the western world exceeds Canada in this regard.
With respect to the second duty listed in the act, whereby the National Research Council representing the government, if you will, joins with private industry to do research, there is much to be desired. The chief fact, as I see it, is that even though the relationship is voluntary between the National Research Council and industry there has not been as much government-industry research in Canada as there has been in most of the other industrial nations. I do not think this is the fault of the National Research Council to any extent whatsoever. As I see it, the fault lies in the fact that many industries in Canada are American owned or American controlled and they have developed a pattern

of behaviour under which their research is done for them by their parent companies in the United States. To a certain extent the remark I have just made about American owned and controlled industries also applies to British owned and controlled industries in Canada. In other words, the subsidiaries of foreign enterprises in Canada find it difficult, under the pattern of behaviour which has been established in their industries, to come voluntarily to the National Research Council and join with it in industrial research which would do so much for industry in Canada.
Therefore I am going to suggest to the minister, even though the act does not lay down any such responsibility for him, that he could serve his country well by using the considerable prestige which goes along with his portfolio in deliberately searching out opportunities where the facilities of the National Research Council could be combined with those of various industries which have the job of producing a particular product that is the end result of the pure and applied sciences in co-operative research programs. We do have some examples of this. In connection with nuclear development and the use of nuclear energy for peaceful purposes in producing electricity, we have the example of the co-operation of the Canadian subsidiaries of Westinghouse and General Electric. The Atomic Energy Control Board has done tremendously fine work in providing us with a type of nuclear power production which equals anything in Great Britain or the United States.
[DOT] (4:40 p.m.)
In this particular type of co-operation these subsidiaries took great pride in the fact that they were able, in co-operation with a Canadian government agency, to go along a path different from that taken by the parent companies. They took great pride that in some aspects of this problem they exceeded the work done by the parent companies. I do not believe there was any loss financially to the parent companies; in fact, the opposite was the case.
I would suggest that the bringing together of these two subsidiaries of United States companies and a Canadian government agency resulted in benefit for Canada economically as well as from the point of view of prestige and research. I just use that as an example because I am sure there is need for the same thing in many other fields. I want to come back to this matter in a moment
May 5, 1966

Another phase of the work of the government research council is the contracting out and delegating of certain problems of research to the scientific departments of the various universities of Canada. One of the main purposes of this technique is to develop scientific facilities at our universities but at the same time to supplement the work of the National Research Council. It is this particular phase of the work of the National Research Council that I believe will enable the people of Canada, through the federal government, to bring about a tremendously increased amount of work which will not only add to our basic research but will be a device acceptable to the provinces which will allow the national government to play a large part in the financing of education in Canada.
I think the reports dealing with the cost of higher education indicate that the largest single component of that increased cost is and will be not only in the field of basic research but in the facilities which are made available to do this research. In this phase I believe the minister would have the support of all parties, including his own, if he were to use this as an opening wedge into the education field without in any way destroying the legitimate right of the provinces under the British North America Act to full control over education. This is an acceptable way in which we could move in this field.
This is something which cannot be pushed effectively by the personnel of the National Research Council; it has, I believe, to be a matter of deliberate government policy. I think that in this regard the minister will get not only the support of members of all parties but also the enthusiastic thanks of men and women across Canada who are trying to build up our higher levels of education.
I want to conclude my remarks on this aspect, Mr. Speaker, by reverting to the question of the minister's contribution in backing up, supporting and reinforcing the work of the National Research Council. I deal with this subject under the heading of "Education of the Public".
Let me turn, first of all, to education of industry. I do not think there are many of us here in the house who are not aware that through the basic research of government agencies we have produced new technology that should be utilized in our industries across Canada (a) to make them more competitive and (b) to produce new and superior products. Yet we realize that much of this basic knowledge, for the reasons I advanced 23033-301
Research Council Act
earlier, lies at the root of ownership and control.
I want to say without any malice whatever that I think I can put forward the thought that one of the functions of the minister as he surmounts the organization period in his department is more and more to make the country aware of what these technological changes are which have been made available by basic research here in Ottawa and across Canada. He should also publicize the fact that certain industries are not adopting these potential improvements.
I am not an expert in these matters, Mr. Speaker, and my views are only those of a layman, but let me once again give the house some tangible examples. I think of the mining industry. Canada is one of the leading mining countries of the world; yet the great bulk of the mining machinery utilized in Canada is imported from the United States. There has been a definite lack of basic research into the type of machinery required in our mining operations in Canada, and we actually build our mines around the type of machinery which is available.
The new move in Canada these last few years of beginning to re-examine the type of mining operations we are carrying on in this country provides a great oportunity to develop new types of machinery suitable to our own particular problems, which in turn could be put before the steel industry complex and the industrial machinery manufacturers in Canada. With the help of the National Research Council they could produce a type of mining machinery unique to Canada and which would be both efficient and suitable to the new type of mining I am now going to describe.
One of the new problems created by the new type of mining has resulted from the change from deep mining operations to the extraction of minerals from the surface-open pit mining, if you like. The type of machinery which is utilized in most cases is the same as that utilized for the extraction of any soil or dirt. Not enough thought has been given to the techniques of moving minerals or mineralized rock to the concentrator or to increasing efficiency to the point where there is a dramatic reduction in cost. I still see being used bulldozers and loaders that carry 12 to 15 tons and in some cases even 35 tons. The type of machinery used in building a highway is being used to move the rock to the place where it is crushed.

May 5, 1966
Research Council Act
There is also the type oi machinery which is used in the coal mines around Estevan in Saskatchewan. There the largest machinery in the world is used to move tremendous tonnages of coal per day per man, thereby producing a very low unit cost per ton. This is the type of machinery we must start developing in Canada not on a single unit, custom basis but on a mass production basis which would result in several hundred units every few years, thereby making available to open pit mining the type of low cost machinery which must be made available.
The reason I mention open pit mining is that much of the ore in Canada is low grade. To make money out of low-grade ore you first of all have to have a great volume of such ore and, second, you have to have a very low unit cost for moving the ore to the concentrators.
The Minister of Industry will be moving into a field already very large and lucrative, one which has already grown at a tremendous pace, and I have put forward this example so he will realize that here is a type of secondary industry which helps not only itself but primary industry to develop. As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I am not an expert in this matter; these are the observations of a layman. However, I believe they merit examination by those around the minister who are experts.
[DOT] (4:50 p.m.)
If there is merit in what I am saying I think the minister could serve his country well by bringing these problems to the attention of industry. The National Research Council could bring about a great forward step in the types of operations along the same lines as the steel industry which I should have liked to describe.
Most of us in Canada realize that for many decades to come steel will remain a basic industry of the modern industrial nation. We know that government agencies in Canada have done a great deal of work in this field. In that regard I should like to mention the metallurgical division of the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys which has done research work resulting in the addition of uranium to steel, thereby coming up with a steel the characteristics of which are superior to other types of steel being produced elsewhere in the world. Since we have the basic uranium supplies, since we probably have the largest iron ore reserves in the world, since we have the energy to process steel through electrolytic techniques, through the

traditional open hearth technique or through the new chemical techniques, and since we also have the water necessary to do this, a great advance in steel production can be accomplished.
As the United States rapidly becomes short of water for industrial purposes, which is probably more important than anything else, our water can probably be used as an inducement to bring heavy steel industry into Canada. If this is accompanied by increased technical know-how developed by our research people, with our basic energy, water and other resources I believe we can accelerate the fantastic growth of the steel industry even more than has occurred in the past eight years. Instead of being so proud that we have gone from 4 million tons to 8 million tons in eight years, let us think in terms of doubling and redoubling in short periods the present volume of 10 million tons.
In this particular industry we are completely competitive with the United States. As a matter of fact, we cannot even produce enough for our own needs in Canada, let alone export steel. I believe that the Minister of Industry could reinforce the work of the National Research Council if he were to inform himself as to what is available by way of know-how from the various government agencies, bring together all this knowledge and then ask pointed questions as to why it is not used. I will not deal with the other industries I have referred to in my notes. I have said enough to make my point.
My final point has to do with the consumer. In this field I know that traditionally the National Research Council has high ethics. When a product is produced by an industry and is brought to the National Research Council for examination, it is examined and the results are available if they are requested. Let me ask this question. How many times have the millions of home owners and consumers in Canada hoped and prayed for the day when there would be some form of easily available knowledge so that it would be possible to check on the efficiency and relative cost advantages or cost benefits of the various products available on the market? When a person buys a furnace, an automobile, a refrigerator and so on, he always asks himself when making his choice: What is the best article of that type for me?
I know that it is not according to the ethics of the National Research Council to issue comparative information of this type. But I have often wondered in thinking about the
May S. 1966

matter why the minister would not put himself in the place of the consumer today who is hard pressed by rising costs, not only of basic products but costs of distribution and those brought about by the tremendous added cost of advertising, and give the consumer some sort of standard to use from which to judge what is the best buy. Some sort of code might need to be set up. It might be part of the advertising; I do now know. I am simply saying that there is a tremendous need now among the consumers of Canada for some type of basic information that will enable them to judge what they are buying objectively in some reasonably fair way.
I know that when you buy an automobile you can get information from the automobile magazines published by private enterprise and thus get an evaluation that way. That is the sort of information needed when it comes to traditional hard goods such as stoves, refrigerators, dishwashers and all those things that go into a modern home, to say nothing of bigger things such as furnaces and so on.
I have made my point, Mr. Speaker, that the general principles of these housekeeping amendments have my support. Second, I have taken advantage of this opportunity, in the general freedom of the debate on second reading, to put forward some proposals that are additions to the terms of reference, if you like, to be utilized by the National Research Council. Most of the additional things I have suggested I hope will be given attention by the minister. I hope he will apply the dynamics of his position to achieve the ends I have suggested, because they really come under the understood terms of the act.
I am suggesting that the work of the National Research Council, plus the work of government agencies such as Atomic Energy of Canada Limited and the work done by research people in the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, the Department of Forestry and so on, should be brought together under the scientific committee of the cabinet. I think that the ministers on this committee, particularly the Minister of Industry, should take the tremendous amount of knowhow, the tremendous amount of basic information, and try to give to industry all the available knowledge in order to put Canada in a more competitive position, both as to cost structure and the variety and quality of new products, vis-a-vis other nations. I think we should all be very glad to support the minister in any initiatives he might take even
23033-301J
Research Council Act
though such duties are not laid down for him in the act we are now amending.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order, please. Is it the wish of the house to adopt the said motion?
Some hon. Members; Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Rinfret in the chair.
On clause 1-
Mr. Churchill:: Mr. Chairman, I shall not take many minutes. I refrained from speaking on the other bill dealing with the advisory science council and also on second reading of this bill simply to expedite the business of the house and not because of lack of interest in the subject matters of the two bills. I had a long and profitable association with the National Research Council, Atomic Energy, Eldorado and other people engaged in scientific activity in this country. I look with favour on scientific progress. I think that the very capable and dedicated men who are doing scientific work in Canada should interpret the debate in the House of Commons as a commendation of their efforts. The very fact that we are not spending much time on these two bills is not because of lack of interest in parliament with regard to what is going on in scientific research but rather because of a general desire to get on with the job.
[DOT] (5:00 p.m.)
I propose to do no more than ask a few questions this afternoon. My hope is that the proposed changes will be to the general advantage of scientific development in Canada. Do I understand that the Science Council will not in any way supersede the National Research Council but will rather be of assistance to the National Research Council? Do I understand that the Science Council will give advice to the minister who will then pass on advice or direction to the National Research Council? In other words, is the situation such that we shall not find one organization treading on the toes of the other?
Next, I would ask the Minister this question. Will the National Research Council or, for example, the Atomic Energy Control Board, be represented on the Science Council so that they can give the value of their experience and advice to the council when it is considering long-range plans for the advancement of science in Canada?

May 5, 1966
Research Council Act
These questions have arisen in my mind with regard to these two bills which, of course, have to be considered jointly.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think it is safe to say there will be no phenomenon which might be described as treading on the toes as between the Science Council and the National Research Council. As I pointed out at an earlier stage, though in the past it was the duty of the N.R.C. to formulate a science policy for Canada and to advise the Canadian government thereon, the council has tended over the years to preoccupy itself with somewhat more immediate and possibly more pressing questions such as the operation of substantial and effective laboratories and the granting of financial assistance in support of research in the universities as well as making strides along the road indicated by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle in encouraging scientific research and development within industry itself.
The National Research Council has not tended to address itself to the larger issues of determining scientific objectives for Canada as a whole and making some measurement of priorities. It is because the National Research Council has not been in the habit of doing this that Dr. Mackenzie recommended the setting up of a Science Council of Canada. The Science Council will be undertaking a task which the N.R.C. is not performing so its work will in no way conflict with the operations of the N.R.C. I fully share the opinion expressed by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre of the excellent work which the N.R.C. has done in the past and which I hope it will continue to do.
So far as representation of the various government science agencies throughout Canada on the council is concerned, I would point out there are a considerable number of government departments and agencies, all of which are concerned with scientific research. If they were all to seek and be granted representation on the Science Council the latter would, I am sure, become an unwieldy body. We hope to have as members of the Science Council individuals who will be in a position adequately to represent the interests and the functions of government science.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: One of the questions which worries me is this. There is usually a scientific committee of the cabinet and unless the cabinet contains a minister who takes a great interest in these matters, there is a tendency

to allow the committee to become inactive. I believe the records will show that the ups and downs of the meetings of this particular committee over the past 20 years have been extremely noticeable.
Perhaps the minister will give us more information on this point. Am I right in thinking that the Science Council has the task of considering long-range policy? Does it then make recommendations to the Minister of Industry or to the science committee of the cabinet as was the case with all these agencies in the past?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The Science Council will report to a minister designated by order in council, not to the Privy Council committee on scientific and industrial research.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: If the Science Council reports to a minister, what part does the scientific secretariat of the Privy Council play in this arrangement?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: The scientific secretariat will in effect be the secretariat of the Science Council of Canada. I am sure the hon. member is aware of the importance of a competent secretariat in the operation of any advisory body, whose work, generally speaking, is fruitful or not depending largely on the effectiveness of the secretariat. Since the minister to whom the Science Council reports is subject to change, it was felt that the permanent location of the scientific secretariat should be in the office which provides general secretarial services for the government as a whole, namely, the Privy Council office.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: This underlines my main cause for concern. If the line of communication is to a minister and if the secretariat of the Privy Council is used as a repository for these recommendations and the minister to whom the council makes recommendations can be changed, as I see it there is this weakness. The Privy Council comes under the Prime Minister and on occasions prime ministers are for months involved in matters other than science. There is always a tendency to set science aside as being a low priority item.
I was wondering whether there would not be some improvement now in the method of communication in the scientific field so that the danger of science being left in a backwater might be avoided. If these matters were reported to a minister with an active secretariat, we would be in a better position to ask questions in the house about what is
May 5, 1966

going on. We cannot expect the Prime Minister to answer detailed questions about events which are taking place in the scientific field though I agree it is logical to place this secretariat with the Privy Council which is responsible for all the government's secretarial facilities covering matters which concern several departments. The weakness is that we have to look to the Prime Minister for answers to questions. If there were some other minister that we in the house could ask quest ons of, then I personally would feel a good deal happier.
[DOT] (5:10 p.m.)


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I do not think that the bill
stipulates that the minister designated be the Prime Minister. I am much interested in the views of the hon. gentleman that science might be better served were the minister designated by the governor in council to be one whose dut'es are less onerous than those of the Prime Minister. The bill itself does not provide that the minister designated shall be the Prime Minister merely because the science secretariat happens to be in the Privy Council office. There is complete freedom on the part of the governor in council to choose any one of the members of the government as the minister to be responsible for answering questions to the extent that the bill provides in respect of the operations of the council.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Obviously there is an administrative difficulty there but I am not certain I would be able to offer any solution. As I recall, because of the pressure of business on the cabinet it was difficult to give the attention that scientific matters should have received, and the committee which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle has mentioned has a long history of infrequent meetings. The minister named by the bill, unless he has some relationship to the National Research Council, would not be able to pass on the recommendations of the advisory science council to that body. But I do not expect we can solve that problem this afternoon.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I shall take note of that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, there is just a brief word I should like to say even though the matter to which I refer may not as yet have come directly under the National Research Council. However, I do think that the matter reported in today's issue of the Ottawa Journal, and perhaps in other papers throughout the country, is something which supports the idea of the government underwriting and assisting research work.
Research Council Act
Naturally I have no idea whether the claim made is a valid one, but newspaper reports today indicate that Dr. V. A. Mirkovich, who is a civil servant, and his father, Dr. V. V. Mirkovich, who is retired, claim that they have developed a hormone which may prove to be a cure for cancer. The story, as it is found on pages 1 and 7 of today's Ottawa Journal, is a most exciting one.
On orders of the day I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare a question about this report, and I took the liberty of characterizing it as possibly today's most important news. Even if these men have not achieved final success it would look as though they are making real progress. It would look as though mankind is on the way, and it would be a wonderful accomplishment for Canada if two Canadian scientists have achieved this tremendously important breakthrough in the field of human health.
As I say, this particular project may not be something that the National Research Council is concerned with, but it does demonstrate how much mankind owes to research and how important is the subject about which we are talking. The hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is quite correct in saying that although the house may not be debating this legislation at length, we all recognize the tremendous importance of the subject. If perchance the report that has appeared today is correct, then I feel the names of these two Canadians ought to be on this day's records of this house.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Chairman, following up what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said, this is an important point related at least indirectly to the legislation that is before us because here is an area in which the National Research Council ought to be taking more initiative. These two men are recognized scientists in their own right. For eight years they have been unable to get the necessary help for their research from any of the cancer research societies, nor I presume from the National Research Council. As a result they had to use their own meagre resources. They had to go to Mexico to carry out tests. If their claim has any merit at all,, and I think it has because cancer societies in Canada are aware of it, then it is the kind of thing the National Research Council ought to be investigating and supporting.
The report in the newspaper goes into some detail on the discovery of the hormone by the father and son Mirkovich team. 1 would just add my support to what has been said and 1

May 5. 1966
Research Council Act
hope the National Research Council will follow up this type of research.
I cannot help but think back to when I was just a boy and one of my sisters died from diabetes not too many months before the Banting and Best team discovered insulin. At that time there was hope on the part of some and ridicule on the part of others, but today these two Canadians are looked on as great benefactors for their work in an area of research which has saved the lives of millions of people. In passing I would point out that in the eight years since the Mirkovich father and son team began working more than 2 million North Americans have died from cancer.
I would also draw attention to the results of other research announced last week. I refer to the work of three Canadian scientists in the federal Department of Agriculture, Drs. Gillespie, Peterson and Cook. Their discovery of the antibiotic myxcin has been hailed as a tremendous breakthrough. In fact, the Minister of Agriculture, when mentioning it the other day in a press release, said that these men were heroes for what they have done.
This is the kind of thing in which the National Research Council must be interested. I know it does great work, but in this area we are dealing with something that concerns the welfare and health not only of Canadians but of people all over the world. Assistance for this type of research is something we should support even if in some cases the research itself should not achieve ultimate success. It is a part of an over-all program for improving the lot of all mankind.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 2 to 4 inclusive agreed to.
On clause 5-Tenure of office.
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Is there any deep explanation for the limit of three years?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Chairman. The present act provides that appointments to the council shall be for a term of three years. From time to time there have been occasions when, through decease, resignation or otherwise, members have ceased to be members of the council half way through their appointments, but the subsequent appointments have had to be for three years. The council has a system of rotation whereby one third of its members will be renewed every three years. The council likes to do this on a particular date so that

everyone starts off together and ends together. This provision will enable new appointees to fill out the remainder of a term rather than holding an appointment for three years ending at a non-conjunctive date.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
[DOT] (5:20 p.m.)
On clause 6-Duties of Council.
Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, this is the substantive clause.
The Council has charge of all matters affecting scientific and industrial research in Canada that may be assigned to it by the Committee.
The committee is the committee of cabinet. Based on friendly experience in trying to get something new in the scientific research field, I find there comes a period in the life of a cabinet when it is decided that this must be done. So a secretariat to the cabinet is appointed which is a permanent body. Then the committee of cabinet may not meet for five, six, or seven years, and if it does not direct anything to the National Research Council the council continues and falls into a set routine of carrying out and finishing what they already have in motion.
My point is that under this clause, as I read it, the National Research Council does not have the right to take the initiative to embark on research unless such is recommended to it by the committee of cabinet. Is this right?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, the initiative in respect of the National Research Council arises sometimes from within the council itself, which is quite natural, and sometimes from within the government. The infrequency of the meeting of the Privy Council committee on scientific and industrial research is not a difficulty from which we are presently suffering. I do think that not only the committee itself but also the panel of advisers under the committee have been re-activated and in my view are doing the kind of work they should be doing.
There is no question that activity on the part of the panel or the scientific committee itself is needed. I think that now this is not in an unsatisfactory state. However, I suggest that the initiative for new ventures and new operations comes from the bottom for ap-instructions.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Chairman, I take it that the minister does not consider this section is at all restrictive, no matter how it reads. I do not think it has been restrictive, in
May 5, 1966

any shape or form in the past. I believe that the National Research Council on its own initiative has instituted quite a number of investigations. I do not recall any question ever being raised which would limit its activities in any way and I hope that this will not be done now. However, when it comes to the allocation of funds the advisory council may feel that a certain course of action would be more profitable in the long run perhaps than some idea which has emerged from the National Research Council, but I hope it will not. Having in mind the limitation as to available money, I hope there will be no restriction on the activities of the National Research Council in initiating research.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I did not take it that in any way that was implied by the question of the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. There is no doubt about it; if the National Research Council were to rely on instructions from the government before proceeding to do anything it certainly never would have achieved the reputation it currently has.
I think the effect of this particular clause merely is to give a right to operate with authority in respect of all those things with which the scientific committee charges it. That is the way I understand it, and not in any way as limiting the activities of the National Research Council to a set of instructions provided from time to time by the committee.


Mr. Kindt:: Mr. Chairman, may I ask the minister a question concerning the distinction between fundamental research, for which the National Research Council was set up, and applied research? If I understood what the minister said, there will be no curtailment of fundamental research at the National Research Council. I always have thought that research in Canada should go one step further and that there should be an agency for applied research directly geared to industry where the end findings of pure research can be applied to industry. In respect of this bill I am wondering whether the minister had applied research in the back of his head. What is there here which will deal with applied research?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Chairman, there is nothing in this bill which will deal more with applied research than there is in the unamended act. As I mentioned, the purpose of this bill is to make the work of the National Research Council generally more effective, to provide a clear and comprehensible framework within

Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement which it will operate with respect to the scientific council, and that is all.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member for Macleod can get a pretty good idea of what is contained in the act by reading section 13 of the act which definitely includes applied research in many fields.


[Stage Direction]
Clause agreed to.
Clauses 7 to 13 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: When
shall the said bill be read the third time?


Some hon. Members:: By leave, now.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: the third reading of the bill.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.
[DOT] (5:30 p.m.)



INDUSTRY


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the agreement concerning automotive products between the government of Canada and the government of the United States of America, signed on January 16th, 1965, and that this house do approve the same.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it was indicated in the speech from the throne that parliament would be asked to approve a resolution concerning the important agreement respecting production and trade in automotive products which has been concluded between Canada and the United States. Subsequent to the throne speech the following resolution was tabled in the house:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the agreement concerning automotive products between the government of Canada and the government of the United States of America, signed on January 16th, 1965, and that this house do approve the same.
There is a great deal of interest in the agreement and I am sure members will wish to have a report on developments under it and the automotive program generally.
The automotive industries are a major sector of our economy, not only because of the magnitude of their production and the large numbers of workers they employ but also in terms of their requirements for a wide array of industrial materials and services. Like
May 5, 1966

determine whether the majority of the institutional barriers to trade have in fact been removed.
[DOT] (5:50 p.m.)
Also, periodic reports are being obtained from the industry regarding the attainment of the objectives and the fulfilment of commitments under the program. Furthermore, provision is made in the Canada-United States agreement for a review late in 1967 of progress in achieving the aims and objectives of the agreement.
I have outlined somewhat briefly the measures which the government has introduced to enable the Canadian automotive industries, and particularly the parts makers, to adapt their production and their facilities to the new and expanded market conditions in an orderly manner. However, a major economic program of this nature is bound to require transitional adjustments for some workers and firms. For example, many parts makers are finding that the increased demand for their products means that they can only produce in sufficient volume if they substantially re-equip and expand their facilities. In numerous instances, whole new plants are required and are being provided. In order to ensure that no Canadian parts producer is prevented, by a lack of available financing, from modernizing or expanding his facilities in order to take full advantage of the opportunities afforded by the program, the government has established an adjustment assistance fund. This fund is administered by an adjustment assistance board under the chairmanship of Dean Vincent Bladen of the University of Toronto.
The board is authorized to make loans at an interest rate of 6 per cent and repayable over not more than 20 years for land and buildings and 10 years for other purposes. To date, 13 loans amounting to approximately $10.3 million have been made and a number of additional applications are being processed and under consideration.
Provision has also been made for transitional financial assistance to workers laid off from plants in Canada of manufacturers of motor vehicles or motor vehicles parts -because of the agreement. Because of the relatively buoyant market for skilled labour in the economy generally and in this industry in particular, only a small number of applications have been received for benefits under this program.
Private Bills
In summing up, I believe that the success of the automotive program is more than amply demonstrated by the new investments, the increased employment, the expanded production, the greater efficiency, the higher exports and the narrowing in the Canada-United States cost differential for vehicles. The program has brought new employment opportunities and greater prosperity for Canadians and has made a major contribution to the further development of secondary industry in Canada on an efficient and competitive basis. I therefore urge the house to give this resolution strong support and endor-sation.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, as the time is now five minutes to six perhaps I could just outline the steps I propose to take in speaking on this resolution which is before the house asking us to give approval to one of the most important pieces of legislation that has ever come before this honourable chamber for many years or, as the minister said, I believe, that has ever been introduced in this chamber.
I should like to make a few introductory remarks and then I should like to proceed under four headings with the objections which we on this side have. The first point is the method by which this whole matter has been handled by the government. The second is the delay in bringing this important matter before the house. Third, what are some of the things which we might expect this great auto treaty will do in the interest and for the benefit of Canada? Fourth, what have been the results as we have seen them to date?
With those few introductory remarks, Mr. Speaker, I should like to call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfrel):: Is it
agreed to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PRIVATE BILLS


Mr. A. J. P. Cameron (High Park) moved: the second reading of Bill No. S-4, to incorporate Aetna Casualty Company of Canada.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I wonder
whether the sponsor is going to outline the purpose of the bill or shall we proceed to operate in the dark?


Alan John Patrick Cameron: Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks the incorporation of a company

May 5, 1966
Private Bills
under the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act to carry on business in all classes of insurance other than life insurance. The bill was introduced in the last session of parliament and was passed by the Senate on June 30, 1965, but received only first reading in the House of Commons before parliament adjourned.
The proposed company would be a subsidiary of the Aetna Casualty and Surety Company of Hartford, Connecticut. The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company is a corporation carrying on a substantial general insurance business in the United States of America with its head office at Hartford, Connecticut. The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company, with its subsidiary, the Standard Fire Insurance Company, carries on business throughout the United States of America and in all classes of insurance for which application is being made in the bill to incorporate the Canadian Company.
The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company was incorporated in 1907 and operated as a partially owned subsidiary of Aetna Life Insurance Company until late in 1964, at which time a reorganization was effected under which all the shares of the Aetna Casualty and Surety Company were transferred to and are now held by trustees for the shareholders of Aetna Life Insurance Company.
Aetna Life Insurance Company was incorporated and commenced to carry on business in 1853. It now carries on business throughout the United States of America and is one of the largest multiple line insurance organizations in the United States. Aetna Life Insurance Company commenced doing business in Canada over 100 years ago.
The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company of Hartford has conducted business in Canada for some years and has held a certificate of registry under the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act for the past 47 years. A substantial part of the business conducted by the Aetna Casualty and Surety Company has been related to business conducted by the company with United States corporations having subsidiaries operating in Canada. A certain amount of direct business has also been carried out, especially in connection with major risks, an example of which is the liability insurance for Expo '67. The company has not maintained any offices in Canada but has carried on its Canadian business through agents, Dale and Company of Montreal.

Aetna Casualty and Surety Company has been reviewing its operations in Canada and has concluded that it would now be desirable that its direct Canadian business should be carried on by a Canadian company incorporated under the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act. It is felt that this step would enable the Canadian operations of the company to be developed more effectively and with greater Canadian participation in the conduct of the business.
It is proposed that the head office of the Canadian company, incorporation of which is proposed in Bill S-4, will be in Toronto. Because the scale of operations in the first instance will be small it is not proposed at the outset to establish a large staff, but the experience and the services of the Hartford company will be available for the assistance of the Canadian company.
The Aetna Casualty and Surety Company is convinced that the general insurance field in Canada is an expanding one in which a new Canadian company would have an opportunity to share without adversely affecting existing companies.
It is proposed that the new Canadian company will from the outset be prepared to undertake all classes of business. While the bill provides for a minimum paid in capital of $500,000 together with a contribution to surplus of at least $500,000 before the company commences business, it is the expectation of the Aetna Casualty and Surety Company that in fact the paid in capital and contributed surplus will be in excess of these amounts before the company commences to carry on business.
[DOT] (6:00 p.m.)


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, first of all may I express appreciation to the hon. member for High Park (Mr. Cameron) for his fairly broad explanation which gives us a better understanding of the effect of the bill and of the company itself than might otherwise have been the case. I gather that in so far as writing insurance or participating in the insurance business is concerned, it really does not matter very much whether the bill passes because the company is in business through its United States parent and is writing insurance now. At least, that was the understanding I gained from the remarks of the hon. member for High Park.
The desire to incorporate a company in Canada under Canadian law permits of a bit of subterfuge and allows a company to capitalize on the psychology of Canadians who
May 5, 1966

like to see Canadian companies incorporated in Canada doing business in Canada. Yet in the over-all scheme of things the ownership and control of this company will not be here at all but in a foreign country.
Much was made some time ago of the provision in the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act which requires a majority of the directors of any company, and in the case of a company having more than one class of director, the ordinary directors or the shareholders' directors as the case may be, at all times to be Canadian citizens ordinarily resident in Canada.
Some of us advanced the reasoning in so far as companies other than insurance companies are concerned that this was thought at the time to be one way in which a company might think Canadian and act Canadian to a greater extent than might otherwise be the case. It was reasoned that if it was a requirement that the directors be Canadian citizens at all times ordinarily resident in Canada, this in itself would bring about a different psychology among the board of directors to the point that they would act, as the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Winters) indicated a few days ago in his letter to foreign subsidiaries, as good Canadian corporations under the act.
If there is a desire to develop Canadian ownership and control of companies, to see companies operated in such a way that they are beneficial to Canadians first and foremost, then the mere requirement that the majority of the directors be Canadian citizens at all times ordinarily resident in Canada is not nearly sufficient. As we know, Mr. Speaker, money talks more powerfully than people, and in the field of insurance, as in other businesses, only scant recognition is given to international boundaries. The prime concern of these companies is the colour of the ink used to tally up the year's operations. Such being the case, the interest of companies like this one in things Canadian becomes secondary to their desire to be economical-I could say "efficient" by way of another euphemism-or, more properly, their desire is to conduct a profitable operation.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am not persuaded too much by the argument that this company will be a Canadian company incorporated in Canada under Canadian law, with its head office in a Canadian city, or that this fact in itself will do much to augur well for Canada when the control of the company is in the hands of a group outside of Canada. It
Private Bills
also seems to me that this bill, seeking as it does to enable the company to write insurance from A to Z, which it does literally if one looks at the types of insurance in which the company wishes to engage-the whole alphabet has been exhausted in listing the various categories-should not be before us, because there is contained in it eight clauses which are spread over just a little more than one full page. The key part of the bill, the clause which carries the most weight, is clause 8 which states:
The Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act shall apply to the Company.
The Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act extends to some 111 pages in the booklet I have in my hand and contains innumerable sections going well beyond 150 in number. The Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act is the controlling legislation here, not the bill now before us. All that the bill currently before the house does is to indicate that certain people desire to form a company. It gives the name of the company, the capital structure and the type of insurance the company wishes to write. I would submit, as I submitted earlier with respect to other bills, Mr. Speaker, that it is a much more desirable end not to have parliament waste its time considering the incorporation of such companies, and in saying that I make no disparaging remarks about this company. I simply say we have gone far beyond the point where this sort of business should be the business of parliament.
In this house we are concerned with public business. Every day someone or other makes the statement that parliament is wasting its time, that parliament is not getting down to public business. Yet the government, which has been reminded of this time and time again by myself, persists in clinging to this archaic system of forcing people who want to incorporate an insurance company to go through the parliamentary mill, to proceed through all of the tortuous processes in the other place, and simply in order to do business under a public statute, in this case the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act.
I have not looked too thoroughly at that act in so far as powers of incorporation are concerned, but presumably it is because of the terms of that act that Aetna Insurance, for example, and other companies of a similar nature have to come to parliament. I know this line of reasoning can perhaps be

May 5, 1966
Private Bills
looked upon as being outside the ambit of second reading of this particular bill.
[DOT] (6:10 p.m.)
But it is a crucial and important point because the bill before us is one that is consuming the time of parliament. Whether it is examined scantily or in depth, it is consuming the time of parliament and of its staff because we are dealing with something which should not be here.
We have asked the government house leader to take steps by way of a public bill and bring in an omnibus piece of legislation which will permit groups such as Aetna Insurance Company to become incorporated in the same way as other companies, by going to a lawyer, asking him to do whatever is necessary and filing documents with the companies' branch to obtain letters patent to incorporate the company.
We think that is a much more sensible way to do things. There is relatively little interest in parliament whether Aetna Insurance Company is ever incorporated. Members of parliament have far more important things to consider. On their minds are matters concerning the very social structure of our nation and its economic well-being. They are the things parliament should deal with.
I should like to see this hour devoted to other kinds of business; whether it be government business, the introduction of public bills or the business of the public of Canada generally does not matter. I do not want to see the business of a few private individuals dealt with who are seeking to capitalize on the psychology that exists in Canada that a company incorporated by parliament somehow is better than one incorporated normally.
Whether the capitalization is $5 million or $50 million does not matter. Whether the shares are $50, $5 or 5 cents does not matter. I am sure it does not matter to the hon. member for High Park. It does not matter to members of our own party who will make up the initial board of directors. It does not matter what their names are, where they live or what are their occupations. Most of the other things in the bill do not matter very much either.
I submit that in this hour we should be seeking ways and means of preventing bills such as this coming before parliament. Public business generally ought to be dealt with. It does not matter whether it is an amendment to the Canadian and British Insurance Companies Act or something similar.

We do not require this tortuous process of incorporation for most other companies and I do not see why we should require it for insurance companies. Alternatively, we ought to require that all companies in Canada engaged in all sorts of business must be incorporated in this way. You cannot make fish of one and foul of the other. That, I submit, is grossly unfair.
I do not enjoy discussing Aetna Insurance Company. I do not enjoy the prospect that may be before the hon. member for High Park who in good faith is the sponsor of this company. I do not enjoy his having to proceed through this hour without his dream coming to realization, if that is what he wants. I do not enjoy the prospect of having to sit with other members in committee to go into the details of the operation of the company. I am sure there is not a solitary member in the house who enjoys such a prospect. I am sure all of us would much rather spend this period of time dealing with public business and not with the private business of those who want to enter the insurance field under Canadian law.
I hope that some day our words will carry weight with the government and especially with the Minister of Public Works as house leader. We hope he will see it is necessary to bring in a law providing for companies such as this to be incorporated in the same way as other companies.
We may have to persist in consuming the time in each private members' hour by talking on whatever bill happens to be before us. This is a regrettable course to take but we know from experience that often it is the only way to get action by this or any other government we have had in recent years. It is a course that has to be persisted in. We may be obstinate about it and sometimes incur disfavour and dislike among other hon. members who are affected in any way by the filibustering. However, that is not a prospect from which we shrink.
Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, this bill will receive second reading tonight and be referred to the appropriate committee. Perhaps it will not. In the long run it does not matter whether the bill passes. First, the company is in business and will still be in business and, second, one of these days the government is going to come to its senses and produce a general public law which will, I am sure, receive easy passage through parliament so that companies such as this one will not have to come to parliament in future.
May 5. 1966


Colin Cameron: Mr. Speaker, while I certainly agree with my colleague the hon. member for Skeena that it is essentially a waste of time for the parliament of Canada to deal with these insurance company bills and others like it, nevertheless it does give me an opportunity to discuss something which will be quite in order and which has disturbed me for some years since I came to Ottawa. I refer to the proliferation of insurance companies in this country. Never a session goes by but that we have a number of insurance company bills on the order paper. I note that there are five now including the one we are discussing today. I want to assure my clansman from High Park that it merely happens to be his bill on which I am going to hang my remarks.
I think it is very appropriate that at this time we are discussing this bill, which is to incorporate a branch plant, shall we say, of a United States corporation, within the context of the speech of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) to which such prominence was given in the newspapers this morning. The minister was dealing with some of the acute problems facing the Canadian economy. You will recall, sir, that he was emphasizing the necessity for taking steps to offset the ever-increasing United States ownership of the Canadian economy and suggested that in order to do this we must encourage the generation of Canadian capital in order that Canadian capital can be involved in the development of our country. In connection with this bill I would point out, as I did a moment ago, that we have a continual proliferation of new insurance companies. The point I want to stress is that in our modern economy one of the most important methods of pooling the savings of the Canadian people and carrying out the wish of the Minister of Finance with respect to the generation of Canadian capital is by means of insurance.
[DOT] (6:20 p.m.)
I have noticed that in spite of the fact that we have more and more insurance companies incorporated year after year, in spite of the great myth of competition which is supposed to be so beneficial, the cost of insurance does not appear to be down. If anything, it appears to be continually rising. In fact, in some fields, particularly in the field of car and accident insurance, the cost has risen at such a rate as to give rise to public protest across Canada.
Private Bills
I think the answer is not far to seek. Far from there being genuine competition which will bring down insurance rates to the public, all we have seen is an increase in overhead costs, all of which has to be borne by the policyholders, and the division and disintegration of the pools of savings which have become available to the insurance industry in this country.
It is obvious that when conditions exist such as exist in the insurance industry today, when, for instance, the mere renewal of a policy which would perhaps occupy the agent concerned for about 10 minutes nets him between 10 and 30 per cent of the face value of the policy, the more insurance companies we have the less chance there is to accumulate the capital which the Minister of Finance is suggesting is our major concern.
Particularly is this the case with regard to a company such as the one which the hon. member for High Park is seeking to have incorporated today. This is merely another branch plant operation. If it is established and if it is successful, it will constitute a further drain on the resources of Canada and render us less able to combat the growing concern which is disturbing so many Canadians, the ever-increasing sector of our economy which is falling into United States hands. It will add, as have all the recent developments in this area, to our balance of payments problem though in a minor way, I suppose, since I gather this company is not to be a very big one.
If we examine the history of existing insurance companies which are branch plants of United States corporations we find that a large proportion of the funds they have accumulated from the Canadian people are invested in the United States. And in cases where they are not incorporated Canadian companies a large share of the profits is funnelled to the United States, adding to our balance of payments problem.
I think it is time the government of Canada and the governments of the various provinces took a serious look at the insurance business and considered carefully whether the number of companies engaged in it should be allowed to grow without any serious check simply by getting an hon. member to sponsor a private bill on their behalf and hiring the necessary legal talent. All this, it seems to me, increases the cost of insurance to the Canadian people while, as I say, breaking up and disintegrating the pools of capital formed by the savings

May 5, 1966
Private Bills
of Canadians, funds which could be pooled under public auspices.
I can think of one particular type of insurance which it seems to me it is altogether improper to leave in the hands of private companies. It is, of course, a preposterous situation that any private corporation should be placed in a position where it can tell me whether or not I can drive a car on the roads of this country. This is what happens when we leave insurance in private hands. The same argument could be applied to a number of other insurance fields into which the company we are considering is proposing to enter. I suggest that insurance coverage could be provided much more cheaply and much more effectively under public auspices than under the auspices of the various insurance companies.
If year after year we allow new insurance companies to become incorporated, these companies will have to fight for their share of existing business. The hon. member for High Park tell us the volume of business is growing. Of course it is. Our population is growing and the incomes of our people are rising. But they are not rising at anything like the rate at which insurance companies are proliferating in this country and I suggest that the more lucrative this field becomes the more insurance companies will try to enter it. In order to survive they will have to keep premium rates high, higher than they are now, thus causing increasing hardship to the Canadian people.
The insurance business to my mind is one of the very weak spots in our economy from the viewpoint of its contribution to the welfare of the Canadian people. I have watched it over the years both in the house and in the committees which have dealt with this subject and I have had an uneasy feeling that what I have been observing was merely, shall I say, the barnacles attached to the economic barque. One might use an even better marine analogy and say these companies are something like the lampreys which I understand are destroying the edible fish in the Great Lakes-parasites on our economy.
These companies draw very large sums from the savings of the Canadian people and give very little in return. In fact, I think it would be almost impossible to find any area in which Canadian citizens can be sure of getting so little in return for the money they invest. And the more insurance companies we allow to be incorporated the less will be the

money Canadians will get in return for their contributions in the form of premiums.
I urge the government to take a serious look at what is going on in the insurance business in Canada today. If they do not already know these things, I suggest members opposite should walk along the main street of any sizeable city in Canada and they will find that every real estate office advertises itself as an agent for one or more insurance companies. They will find insurance agents by the score along any business street in the country.
[DOT] (6:30 p.m.)
They are deriving a livelihood out of the savings of the Canadian people which, as our Minister of Finance has told us in very emphatic terms, must be made available for the development of our country if we are to escape the fate that he and his predecessor in office appear to see before us due to foreign ownership of our economy. So, as my colleague from Skeena says, it will not make any difference to the people presenting this bill whether or not the company is incorporated. They will go on doing this anyway.
However, I hope the government will realize it is going to hear something about this each time this sort of insurance bill comes before us until it is prepared to take a serious look at what is happening to the Canadian citizen when he seeks protection in the form of fire insurance, accident insurance and all the other types of insurance listed in this bill.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, I join those who indicate concern at the increasing number of insurance companies being incorporated. It seems true, however, that only a few major companies are involved, the rest being ancillary, and it seems that the individual insurance agent acts for a large number of these companies on a fairly indiscriminate basis.
When I go to an insurance agent to buy insurance he usually looks in his drawer and pulls out a policy issued by a particular company, but it does not seem to matter to him which company it is. It is rather like the man who is owed a debt and who does not really object if he does not get paid so long as the debtor puts his bill in the hat when he is choosing which one to pay.
Insurance companies drain off a large amount of money from our nation and it is something over which the country has little control. The last budget pointed out that we should have more control of finance and the
May 5, 1966

distribution of finance for the development of our country.
Each year our order paper shows a large number of companies seeking incorporation, and it appears that there will be absolutely no value to the Canadian public if the Aetna Insurance company is incorporated. It is not going to do Canada one bit of good. It is not going to do one individual citizen one bit of good. Therefore its incorporation must be for the benefit of the people forming the company.
The list of things which the company proposes to do is lengthy but many of them will be of little concern to the average individual in Canada. The list is synonymous with those provided by most other companies of this type.
Insurance companies share in the risk that they underwrite. It is safe to say that this company will not hurt the situation in Canada but in my opinion it is not going to help it. I believe members of parliament should look at the matter from a Canadian point of view.
The sponsor of the bill should give us a reason for incorporating the company. In passing may I say I do not know why, under our parliamentary system, the same hon. member is willing to sponsor a number of these companies. It may be that they are divvied around and that his turn comes up oftener than any other hon. member. I presume he has no knowledge of the people applying for the incorporation although he may have spoken to them.
Of the names mentioned in the bill three are those of counsel. Therefore I presume they have no particular interest in the incorporation and that the main people involved are Albert Bruce Matthews, executive, and Melvin Kirkland Kenny, insurance executive. It is true that the company meets the requirement of the act to have $500,000 in their possession before starting operation, and this is to be divided into shares of $50 each. If this bill were going to establish a mutual benefit society covering a large number of people there would probably be some justification for it but I believe there is no justification for the establishment of this company.
I did not hear anything said by the sponsor of the bill and so I am not aware whether Aetna was a name chosen from a hat, but I suspect Aetna is the name of a company in the United States which will have an interest in this company and will provide the $500,000
Private Bills
immediately. If this company is to be an extension of Aetna Casualty of the United States or Aetna Life Insurance or the Aetna Sickness and Accident Insurance Company, with several of which I have had previous dealings, it will turn out to be a well financed and normally operated insurance company. Therefore it will meet some of the criteria.
However, this raises the problem mentioned by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) of keeping in Canada the money earned by these companies and preventing expenditures being made in the United States. We have a deficit with the United States because hundreds of similar companies are able to take a large amount of money out of Canada.
One stipulation made by our Department of Insurance is that insurance companies operating here must at all times retain sufficient money to cover current liabilities. Therefore I presume this company will retain enough money in Canada for that purpose.
[DOT] (6:40 p.m.)
We are faced with many of these companies which are only extensions of existing companies. I suppose it is a little like the analogy I drew a few moments ago of the storekeeper who does not object to the person who owes him money putting his name in a hat and drawing to see whom he will pay on pay day. I suppose this happens in respect of insurance companies and many of these insurance companies perhaps think to themselves, if we have 100 companies the chances of the name of one of our subsidiaries coming up more often is quite possible. This may be one of the reasons this is done.
In this country we should face the matter of insurance fairly and squarely and demand a reasonable return on the money invested so that we will get a fair break in the insurance rates. I think it also is true, when an insurance agent reaches into a drawer in his office, that no matter what the name of the insurance company is on the policy he draws out, whether casualty insurance or some other kind the premium on the policy will be identical with the premium of almost every other company for the same kind of policy.
If I thought that was not correct, the next time I buy fire insurance or some other kind I would ask for a comparison of the rates, but I have discussed this matter with insurance agents and they say it really does not matter which insurance company they insure me with because there is a set price anyway and

May 5. 1966
Private Bills
it is so much a hundred based on the facilities provided in the area in which one lives.
There is a total monopoly in the insurance field. There is absolutely no competition in insurance. If you get automobile insurance from Aetna Casualty Company of Canada, it will cost exactly the same amount it would cost had you taken it out through Aetna Insurance, General Insurance Company, Aetna car insurance company, Aetna auto insurance company or whatever other companies these people may have. So there is no competition. There is no justifiable reason why we should create a large number of additional companies when no service is being provided.
I am not aware of how the Department of Insurance, acting under the federal statute which provided for its creation, interprets several of the clauses which are included in the Canadian and British insurance Companies Act. The act does say, however, in the preamble:
Whereas the insurance business transacted within and outside of Canada by companies incorporated by the parliament of Canada, and by the legislature of the late province of Canada, and within Canada by British insurance companies, constitutes an important factor in the international and interprovincial trade and commercial relations of Canada; and
Whereas it is contrary to the public interest that insurance companies which are unable to discharge their liabilities to policyholders in Canada as they become due, or are otherwise insolvent, should be permitted to carry on the business of insurance in Canada-
It goes on to state what protection is provided. I think it is interesting to note the section which says that the establishment of these insurance companies constitutes an important factor in international and interprovincial trade and commercial relations in Canada. I believe this is true.
Therefore when we incorporate this company or any other insurance companies without any knowledge of whether or not it is in the interests of Canada, whether it is serving an individual purpose or is creating the possibility of additional coverage to that provided already by hundreds and possibly thousands of companies in Canada, it seems to me to be a waste of our time unless we collect a sufficiently large fee so that lawyers will really feel it is to their advantage to pursue the incorporation of these companies.
The other side of the coin, of course, would be the benefit received by those who hold shares in these companies because of the large amount of money invested by them.

The day will come very shortly when many types of insurance being underwritten by this company will not be carried by private carriers at all. That will be the day when we eventually decide to cover some of these items, and I will refer to several of them. One would be automobile insurance, another aircraft insurance, another guarantee insurance which is underwriting insurance or insuring insurance; another would be marine insurance which is becoming increasingly important with the advent of power boats and the large amount of equipment being used in a recreational way throughout Canada, a fairly recent innovation.
Sickness insurance obviously is a type of insurance which the federal government is considering in its intention of providing sickness and accident insurance through a national plan for all Canadians. Then there is another one which should be of national significance and that is weather insurance, if it means what it says, insurance against weather. There are many factors which go into bringing about a change in weather including a recent innovation which has come to my attention in northern Ontario. If we are going to change the weather and establish a company to insure against this, I should think that the federal government has some responsibility to decide whether or not this is within the jurisdiction of a private insurance company or is a major field of insurance in which the government of Canada must interest itself.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that there are fields in which the federal government will have to interest itself. I think it is an absolute fact that we probably are 50 years behind the times in establishing companies in the manner we do by private bills. As has been pointed out, I think this matter must be looked at. I believe some consideration will have to be given to the national good in the establishment of these companies, which we are not able to give in isolation concerning a particular case when we are not aware of the over-all situation which would come to the attention of the Department of Insurance.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, insurance is in the public domain in a number of ways, and not only in the hoodwinking of the Canadian public which takes place in the establishment of all these companies which really are not companies but are subsidiaries of other companies competing with themselves while at the same time establishing fixed firm prices on certain types of insurance. It must be in
May 5, 1966

our interest to know the intention and the reputation of the insurance companies involved with relation to the Department of Insurance. Surely we did not establish the Department of Insurance just for fun; surely there was a reason behind its establishment and the establishment of a superintendent of insurance who supervises insurance operations.
[DOT] (6:50 p.m.)
These bills are introduced as privately sponsored bills without any recommendation from the superintendent of insurance. We are asked to make decisions without having the advantage of the knowledge of the people we have appointed to supervise activities in this very complex and complicated field.
Surely it will make little difference whether we pass this bill or not, because the Aetna Casualty Company will not have agents in Canada. There will be a head office in Toronto, probably because this is a requirement of the law, but that will only be a place where the executive will hang out. This company will just send out forms to brokerage and insurance agents asking them to fill them in. We are wasting our time and the time of a good number of people by debating this kind of a bill because the people of Canada would be much better advised to do business with insurance companies now existing in Canada. Anyone who becomes a shareholder of this proposed company will be contributing money to the United States parent company.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order, please. I must advise the hon. member that the time allotted to him has expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the following questions will be discussed on the adjournment motion tonight: the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), United Nations-suggested contribution to campaign against illiteracy; the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), Public Works-Toronto-placing of fill in lake Ontario; the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette), House of Commons-inquiry as to holding of by-election in Nicolet-Yamaska.
Private Bills PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Cameron (High Park) for the second reading of Bill No. S-4, to incorporate Aetna Casualty Company of Canada.
Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, like some hon. members who have taken part in this discussion I find that I have some serious questions in my mind as to the advisability of giving approval to the incorporation of this proposed casualty company. I regret that I will not be able to advance my reasons for thinking this way to the same extent other hon. members have done because of the limited time available to me. However, in the time left at my disposal I should like to make one or two comments about my serious doubts.
Very often heated arguments have been reported in the press regarding the high cost of administering charity campaigns such as the Red Feather appeal. These articles have given consideration to the question of whether the overhead of these charitable activities is justified. If one compares the operating overhead of organizations such as the Red Feather campaign with the operating overhead of companies such as the one proposed for incorporation by the bill now before us, I am sure he would realize how great the disparity is between these two.
Because of that fact, one often wonders whether it is in the public interest to proliferate almost endlessly the number and variety of companies operating in various fields of insurance. It is my opinion that the business of insurance involves perhaps the most expensive bookkeeping system in this country. It is obvious that the insurance business is not productive because it does not create new wealth in our society. This is a business of keeping accounts and records. The way in which this proposed company will operate, similar to that of many other companies, is something which should give us cause for consideration, particularly when we are asked to increase the number of incorporated insurance companies in Canada. While I should like to pursue this debate, I will conclude my remarks on this stage.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Is the house ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
May 5. 1966

Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the standing committee on finance, trade and economic affairs.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Drury:
That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve the agreement concerning automotive products between the government of Canada and the government of the United States of America, signed on January 16th, 1965, and that this house do approve the same.
Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, just before the commencement of private members' hour I just had time to outline the steps I propose to take in debating the resolution now before us. This is one of the most important matters to come before this house and it affects many people.
The Canada-U.S. automotive agreement has far-reaching effects and involves very complex and complicated matters. I only wish that in preparing my remarks, I had the battery of officials available to and at the minister's disposal. Because this is such a complex and difficult subject I can only speak as a humble layman, but I propose to bring to the attention of this house the facts that have been brought to my attention by some of the individuals engaged in the automotive industry in Canada.
The Canada-U.S. automotive agreement was entered into by the government after having been conceived in secrecy, born in mystery and developed in controversy. This is a free trade agreement which provides for free trade for the producer but not for the consumer.
[DOT] (7:00 p.m.)
When you speak of free trade, you immediately think of free trade for the consumer as well as the producer. We must realize that the automotive industry in Canada was forgiven an amount of $50 million in the form of tariff reductions. This amount would have been collected from the industry if the treaty had not been instituted. I am broadminded enough to realize that this pact has its good points as well as its bad points. There are always two sides to any coin, and I am prepared to look at both sides. However, I believe that the present government in bringing this treaty into being had one major decision to make, and it was a political

decison. If anyone in this country is asked what is the main difference between the two predominant political parties in this country today, I suggest that this treaty would be an example one could use to illustrate that difference.
We in the Conservative party, practically since the days of its formation, have believed, since the days of Sir John A. Macdonald, and we still believe, that if you sell the economic birthright of your country you at the same time lose your political birthright. In other words, if a company in the United States has 61 per cent of the shares of a company in Canada, I think we all realize who will control that company; it will be Uncle Sam, or the United States.
Therefore I think this was the first decision that should have been made by the Liberal government before entering into this treaty. They apparently believe that Canada can sell her economic birthright and still retain her political birthright. I am one of those who do not believe this. Time will tell whether we in this party are taking a short-term view of this very important matter of free trade in the car industry between Canada and the United States. Have we sold out, in the long-term view, our economic control of this industry, or is this just a short-term outlook? I am afraid we have sold out our economic birthright in this industry, and I believe we must be prepared to pay the consequences.
I am a little confused about the thinking of the Liberal government in regard to policy. Just last night the Minister of Finance (Mr. Sharp) made a speech in Toronto. I should like to read a few quotations from the Globe and Mail of today's date regarding what he said concerning Canadian ownership of industry:
There is of course not only the question of the proper conduct in Canada of subsidiaries of foreign owned companies. I am even more interested in the retention and the establishment in Canada of Canadian-owned and controlled corporations.
Does this U.S.-Canada car treaty create a situation of which the Minister of Finance speaks? In my opinion it creates just the opposite situation. The Minister of Finance went on to say:
Canadians must strive to have their share of head offices. It is desirable too, that companies who have their major production facilities in Canada should have their head offices in Canada. Unless these views are accepted in the Canadian business community, we shall have to accept the limitations that go with a branch office economy.
May 5, 1966	COMMONS
Does not the United States-Canada car treaty create a branch office economy in this country? I humbly suggest that it does. In his speech the minister went on to say:
It is important too that we realize that there are certain key areas of our economy which must he controlled by Canadians.
Yet we sell out our car industry to the United States. Then he said:
As a final but by no means the least important item on my economic and financial "agenda for independence", I would put industrial development policy.
The minister went on to explain what he meant by that. Then he said:
If we are to be true nationalists today we must think in terms of a different kind of economic nationalism, which seeks to strengthen Canada in the context of growing interdependence between the nations and our obvious interest in the expansion and liberalization of world trade.
Having read that speech of the Minister of Finance, I cannot understand how he expects to have anything but a branch office economy in Canada flowing from this United States-Canada car treaty. We come back again to the old matter of cross-purpose legislation that seems to arise so often in the Liberal ranks.
In this regard I think of the last session of parliament when the Minister of Industry (Mr. Drury) was introducing this car treaty. It seemed to me he was suggesting a take-over of Canadian subsidiaries. At the same time the minister of finance of that time, the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. Gordon), was doing everything in his power to retain industry in Canada with Canadian control. It seems to me they were working at cross-purposes. Let us consider another field. The former minister of agriculture announced the payment of subsidies on the growing of tobacco, if this was necessary, and the former minister of national health and welfare spent $700,000 in asking people not to smoke cigarettes. This was cross-purpose legislation to the greatest degree.
Then we found the Department of Labour at cross-purposes with the Department of Justice. The former minister of labour announced the spending of a $3 million advertising program to get people 45 years of age back to work; yet the former minister of justice, when asked in the house about this situation, said, "No, we do not hire people over 45 years of age." One minister authorized the spending of $3 million to put people over 45 years of age to work, and another
DEBATES	4759
Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement minister would not hire them. Then we had the situation concerning cars of $5,000 in value imported from the United States. The former minister of finance did not want these cars imported, so he said, "All right; there will be no income tax depreciation allowed on these cars. We do not want them to come into Canada." Just about that time the Minister of Industry introduced the free trade car treaty. So again we had another piece of cross-purpose legislation. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it must be proven to me that the Minister of Finance is thinking along the same lines as the Minister of Industry in putting into operation this U.S-Canada car treaty.
Having said that in the form of an introduction, I should now like to deal with the objections we have to the introduction of this resolution. First is the manner in which this matter has been handled. How was it done? It was brought in by order in council; we never had an opportunity to debate it in the house. The Minister of Industry, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and another minister went to the United States and signed this treaty on President Johnson's ranch. Other officials went with them. On January 16 they announced to the people of Canada that they had entered into a far-reaching treaty that would be of great benefit to so many people in Canada. They did this without even giving elected members of parliament the opportunity to debate the matter or have anything to say about this very complicated treaty.
[DOT] (7:10 p.m.)
I ask, why was it done by order in council? Why was parliament not asked to endorse this before the treaty was signed? Before I leave that point, let me say that I cannot understand the change of thinking in the Liberal party since the days of their former great leader and prime minister, the late Right Hon. Mackenzie King. I quote here from a speech he made on June 21, 1926 when he was speaking in the House of Commons. Parliament was being asked to adopt a resolution standing in his name, the final paragraph of which read:
That the house considers that before His Majesty's Canadian ministers advice ratification of a treaty or convention affecting Canada, or signifying acceptance of any treaty, convention or agreement involving military or economic sanctions, the approval of the parliament of Canada should be secured.
Those were the words of the late Mackenzie King. Then on April 12, 1928, in the
May 5, 1966

Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement course of a debate on the international sanitary convention, the same right hon. gentleman had this to say:
I submit that the day has passed when any government or executive should feel that they should take it upon themselves without the approval of parliament, to commit a country to obligations involving any considerable financial outlays or active undertakings. In all cases where obligations of such a character are being assumed internationally, parliament itself should be assured of having the full right of approving what is done before binding commitments are made. I would not confine parliamentary approval only to those matters which involve military sanctions and the like. I feel that parliamentary approval should apply where there are involved matters of large expenditure or political considerations of a far reaching character.
This treaty certainly falls into that category. That was the thinking of the former leader of the party across the way, but apparently that is not the thinking of today. This treaty was signed, sealed and delivered without the elected members of parliament having an opportunity to voice their opinion one way or another.
What about the commonwealth? Since we are the senior member of the commonwealth, I believe that we should have had at least some respect or some thought about what effect this far reaching treaty would have on the commonwealth. As you know, cars are imported into Canada from the commonwealth free of duty. However the minute this treaty came into force American cars were allowed to come into Canada duty free. The English cars immediately had to meet this stiff competition, which was anything but fair.
What about GATT? We are supposed to be members of GATT, think highly of it and respect it. As all hon. members know, under the terms of GATT any member or nation which gives special privileges to any other member must give the same opportunity to all other members. I do not know whether this has been done or not. I do not think it has.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: It has.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I sincerely hope it has. The minister has never told us whether it has or not. This treaty has been in force for 15 months. There are so many things we do not know about it. We have asked for debates and so on, but we have never had an opportunity to discuss this matter.
The second objection we would like to register in this regard is the delay in bringing

the matter before the house. As I have just stated, it is 15 months since the treaty was signed and we have had no chance whatsoever of debating it. A supply motion was used back in 1965 and this was the subject which was debated. We had a very limited opportunity to discuss the matter at that time. We have asked numerous questions from time to time, which is about the only opportunity we have had to learn more about this very complex and far reaching subject. As I have said, this is a subject of great complexity and certainly every opportunity should have been given to allow the members to look into the whole question.
Those are the objections I wished to raise under that heading. The next heading was, what were we told that this Canadian-United States car treaty would do for Canada? I believe I am quite reasonable and fair when I list these four points which the minister told the house would be the important and beneficial results from the treaty. First, he said it would increase employment substantially and, second, that it would correct the rising trend of imbalance of payments in the automotive industry. Then third, it was understood that it would enable the Canadian automotive parts manufacturing industry to achieve a lower level of costs which would be competitive with United States parts manufacturers producing similar parts. Fourth, it would help to equalize the Canadian factory costs and selling prices in the automotive industry with costs and prices in the United States. In other words, Canadians would be able to purchase cars at the same prices as are paid for American cars. These were his selling points for this treaty.
Now let us take a look at these points one by one. The first was to increase employment substantially. I know the minister, in his introductory remarks, said that 10,000 more people are employed in the industry today. However, I would suggest to him that he forgot to subtract from that figure those people who have been put out of work in the industry. I am thinking of car parts manufacturers who have found it necessary to close their plants, and in other cases to reduce their staff. I do not propose to dwell on this subject. I know one hon. member in our party has had a car parts manufacturing firm close in his riding, throwing hundreds of people out of work. In my own riding I have had a manufacturer of car electrical harnesses who has had to lay off approximately 30 people because he can no longer compete
May 5, 1966	COMMONS
with his American competitors in the manufacture of car harnesses. Then not only do we have these industries closing, but it also affects the associated industries.
[DOT] (7:20 p.m.)
I know that in Windsor they have benefited from employment in many respects; I would ask the minister and those who boast about the great increase in employment whether these are the types of jobs we really want to maintain in Canada. I would ask the minister for a list of the extra people who have been employed in skilled capacities, such as draftsmen, technologists, purchasing agents, and all the way down the line. I know for a fact that Ford closed their Oakville purchasing department and moved it to their head office in Dearborn, Michigan. The firm which closed in Beaverton was the Canadian subsidiary of a United States plant, and it closed its doors because parts could be made cheaper at the head plant in the United States, which parts they can now ship into Canada duty free. So that if you want to create a lot of jobs for people on the production line, people who put nuts and bolts, together you can do so with ease; but I would ask the minister to think about the skilled men and technologists in the trade as well.
I know for a fact that McKinnon Industries in St. Catharines who have been making steering gear boxes for Chevrolet cars, is closing down and moving operations to their United States plant. How will this create more jobs in Canada? I know that the In-gersoll Machine and Tool Company had to find another line of manufacturing, or close down, because they lost their gear box steering business with Chrysler of Canada. This goes on down through the industry. Car parts manufacturers are losing orders. They are getting by on their 1967 model bids, or some of them are, but others do not even get the opportunity to bid.
In some cases these people have had to go and cry on the minister's shoulder, and ask him to help get orders for 1967 models or else they would have to close their doors. Is this the kind of treaty we want, Mr. Speaker, with individuals sitting on the minister's doorstep asking him for business, and with the minister telephoning Chrysler, General Motors and Ford and telling them to see that these people are given business because he does not want them to close their doors?
With regard to the second point, that the minister said this treaty would correct the rising trend of imbalance of payments in the
DEBATES	4761
Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement automotive industry, how many times have we heard this said? How many times did the minister go across the country in October, campaigning for the November election, telling the public what a great thing the car treaty was and how it would improve our balance of payments? As a matter of fact, our balance of payments position today has deteriorated to the extent of $100 million compared with last year, despite what we were told. While we argued, as did the minister, that it would cut back Canada's automotive deficit, the true picture is that it has increased it nearly $100 million, resulting in an imbalance of trade between the United States and Canada, so far as the automotive industry is concerned, of $674 million.
I agree with the minister that Canada's exports to the United States more than doubled in 1965; I do not question that for a minute. The figures went from $76 million in 1964 to $164 million in 1965. But United States exports to Canada far outstripped Canada's exports to the United States-$184 million compared with $838 million. So the result for Canada was that the net automotive trade deficit with the United States rose from $578 million in 1964 to $674 million in 1965, an increase of $96 million.
It was shouted from the house tops that this treaty would help Canada's imbalance of trade position; but the true picture is that we are now $100 million further in the red than before the treaty came into effect. I will say no more on that point.
The third point was that it would enable the Canadian automotive parts industry to achieve a lower level of costs and make them competitive with United States parts manufacturers producing similar parts. What do we find in this regard? The minister had some very fine objectives in this field, but once again he forgot to talk to the Minister of Finance. Here again they are at cross-purposes in their legislation.
During the budget debate the Minister of Finance did not remove the 11 per cent sales tax on productive machinery. The Minister of Industry told the people engaged in the car parts industry to go ahead and instal machinery; that they would have to buy machinery in order to increase production and bring about an efficient operation. He even set up a fund from which they could borrow money to buy machinery at 6 per cent interest. He may not in so many words, have said the 11 per cent sales tax would be removed, but these people were led to believe that it would be removed.
May 5, 1966

Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement
According to the Globe and Mail for March 31, 1966, the car parts manufacturers had this to say on this particular point:
Canadian auto parts manufacturers yesterday reacted angrily to Finance Minister Mitchell Sharp's failure to remove immediately Canada's 11 per cent sales tax on production machinery.
Parts industry spokesman said retention of the sales tax for the next year will impose such a heavy penalty that their companies will be unable to compete successfully-
A little later the article continues by stating that-
-his group's members were urged by Ottawa to buy the new equipment so they could produce parts in large enough quantities to serve the North American market. He said that because of Industry Minister C. M. Drury's encouragement, Canadian parts makers went ahead with expansion plans, although they felt at the time that the 11 per cent sales tax was a severe competitive handicap.
"We know that our U.S. competitors were not hampered by any comparable sales tax-
And so on. There is no 11 per cent tax on productive machinery in the United States, but there is in Canada, and the Canadian car parts manufacturer is supposed to compete with his United States counterpart. The article continues:
-but Mr. Drury told us to have the courage to expand" . . . Mr. Drury should have been talking to Mr. Sharp, not to me . . . When a government advocates free trade and then does something like this, you begin to wonder where the brains are!
So, on the one hand they talk of free trade; on the other hand they inhibit it or make it impossible for Canadian car manufacturers to compete. As I have said, in order to compete with the United States competitors, Canadian manufacturers have to buy machinery and produce efficiently. But first of all they are hamstrung with the 11 per cent sales tax on machinery. Then they cannot buy all this machinery in Canada owing to the backlog of orders and have to buy some machinery from the United States. They import it into Canada, making it subject to a customs duty of 22J per cent. Then they are told to go ahead and compete with their neighbour across the line and do the best they can. There is free trade on the one hand, and they are cut off on the other.
[DOT] (7:30 p.m.)
Another problem faced by the car parts manufacturers is opportunity to bid. I think the minister realizes, as I do, that the minute you cross the border into the United States there is only one way to get an order, and that is to offer the same or a lower price than that obtainable in the United States. They are

not going to buy from Canada if they can get it from their own producers in the United States. The only way they will buy here is if it costs less. The farther south you travel in the U.S.A. the more difficulty you have. You even have difficulty in getting your Canadian dollar accepted as exchange.
This brings up another point: Where would the car parts manufacturers of Canada be today if it were not for the 92J cent dollar that the Conservative government introduced a few years ago. The devaluation of the Canadian dollar has kept the Canadian car parts manufacturers in business. If it had not been for that, the whole bunch of them would have had a really difficult time, and more of them would have been out of business than are out of business today.
My time is running short, and I wish to bring up some other points. The point I wish to discuss is that it was claimed the Canadian people would be able to buy cars at reduced prices. The minister quoted prices this afternoon. He said that the main car manufacturers had reduced car prices. I am not going to dispute that. All I have to go on is what people have said to me who have bought cars. I have been told that they have had to pay the same prices for identical cars as they had to pay before the treaty came into operation. I have not purchased an automobile recently, and therefore I cannot speak from experience. However, people have written to me to say that they have found no difference whatsoever in identical cars bought this year, and those bought prior to the institution of the treaty.
I am told that 80 thousand cars, according to figures I have, made by Canadian Chrysler workers in Windsor, were shipped to the United States and each of them is sold for $615 less than the same model of car is sold for in Canada. Why cannot the same car be sold for the same price in Canada? Is the public in Canada subsidizing this company so as to allow it to sell cars more cheaply in the United States, or is that company making more profit on the cars it sells in Canada? Even taking into consideration the difference in the tax of 11 per cent, it still does not add up to $615. This is supposed to be a free trade treaty. I say that it is free trade for the producer but not for the consumer.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I go back to the points I mentioned at first. We object to the way in which this measure was introduced. We object to the failure of the government to
May 5, 1966	COMMONS
give the elected representatives an opportunity to debate this very complex legislation, and to deal with the points the minister said would be forthcoming by this treaty. I have tried to the best of my ability to show how some of these things, that were claimed would come about, have not come about.
Many people in the industry would like to have a say in this matter. I think this whole question ought to be sent to the Committee on Industry Research and Energy Development. People could be given the opportunity to appear before that committee, and lay their problems before it in addition to any ideas they may have concerning this unique but yet unproven treaty which was the idea of the Minister of Industry.
I conclude by saying what I said before: I am broadminded enough to know that there are some good points and that there are some bad points in this treaty. It remains to be seen whether there are more good points than bad points. I do not know how else we could find out, other than by calling people in the industry to appear before the committee and give their views. Failing that, time will supply the answer. In due time we shall know whether it was a good or a poor treaty.
I would remind the minister and I would remind his party that the first decision they should have made was a political decision and not an economic one. Their economic decisions, or principles, and our economic principles are not quite the same, because we feel that if you sell your economic birthright you lose your political birthright.


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforlh):: Mr. Speaker, in some ways we are engaged in a curious debate. The order paper says that we are to give approval to an agreement, or to an arrangement made by the Government of Canada some 15 months ago. It is a unique experience for us to have the infant before us 15 months later and to be asked to approve of his birth. Of course, what we are doing now is not legitimizing the infant, as my colleague behind me says, but reviewing the agreement and the changes which have taken place under it.
I was very interested in the remarks of the previous speaker, who seemed to feel that before the agreement was brought into effect the government ought to have decided whether or not we could have a Canadian automobile industry of our own. I would say to him that that decision was made many years ago. Canada, at least as far as the automobile
DEBATES	4763
Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement industry is concerned, passed the point of no return long ago. There does not now seem to be any way in which we can economically construct a Canadian car manufacturing industry. The decisions that brought this situation about were made many years ago, and are probably irreversible.
Of course, the agreement brings out the whole problem of foreign ownership. The real problem, it seems to me, about foreign ownership in Canada does not come out of trying to make political decisions. The real problem that I have encountered in the little travelling I have done in Canada is that the Canadian people themselves do not have the guts to build a Canadian owned economy. They want all the advantages and the high standard of living that comes with increasing domination by the people to the south, but they are not prepared, from what I have been able to ascertain, to make the effort and the sacrifice that would be involved if we were to try genuinely to come to grips with the whole problem of foreign control of our economy.
In the few minutes I have available I should like to deal with four aspects of the problem. What I say may be somewhat repetitious. I want first to deal with the general background, and with the way this whole agreement came into effect. Second, I want to touch on its general performance to date, in the light of the forecasts made for it by the minister. Third, I want to bring out some criticisms of the pact in certain areas where we feel it can be justifiably criticized, and where we think it needs strengthening, notably with respect to the prices of cars, assistance to displaced workers, and as it affects car part manufacturers.
In conclusion, and fourth, I want to make some general observations of what we think are certain disturbing aspects of the plan, which seem inconsistent with certain fiscal policies of the government and with its professed interest in the field of foreign control.
[DOT] (7:40 p.m.)
It is interesting to look back and remember the circumstances in which this agreement came about. No doubt there was some need for an approach such as this, given the general picture of the automotive industry in Canada which, effectively, as has been pointed out, was a branch plant operation built up behind the protection of tariff walls. It has always had a limited manufacturing base- short runs resulting in higher prices, making it virtually impossible to get into export markets.
May 5, 1966

Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement
Canadians would not be prepared to accept anything but a wide variety of models. We all look at those great Canadian programs, Bonanza, and the Dinah Shore show, which create in us a desire for all the models and ranges the Americans have. This has always resulted in a measure of inefficiency in production here. For example, in Oshawa, in the 1965 model year, 595 different types of cars and trucks were assembled, while the most complex assembly line in the United States was building 256 models. Hon. members can see the difficulty, or the danger, of this situation.
In order to cure this state of affairs, hon. gentlemen opposite introduced what is called the Drury plan. This was an arrangement for the remission of taxes. The minister will recall that it was brought in with all the fanfare which he is capable of bringing to his imaginative schemes. We on this side said we thought it looked suspiciously like an export subsidy, though we hoped it would not be so regarded. However, it was immediately regarded as being such and quickly ran into lots of trouble with United States tariff authorities. When it became obvious that the commission would find against it, some of the "whizz kids" in the Department of Industry got busy and drew up this plan to counteract what appeared to be the implications of the Drury plan. This is how the present pact came about.
The intent behind it is good and in some ways it is an imaginative solution to the problems of the industry. The intent is to rationalize and integrate the industry so that specialization can occur on both sides of the border. Let us hope that this will lead to increased expansion, more jobs, more efficient products, a lowering of prices opening exports to the U.S. market, and an easing of our balance of payments position.
As has been said, this is an important agreement. It was introduced in the usual Liberal fashion amid fog and secrecy, lack of information and midnight diplomacy. Then all concerned went down to Texas to sign it. Later they came back and told us what had been done. We were able to get very little information from the minister about this agreement but he did give us his bland assurance that all would be well because he was handling the affair. As a matter of fact we obtained most of our information from the hearings in Washington. Incidentally, it has always been embarrassing to me as a member of the House of Commons that we
have to rely on the senators in Washington to snap their fingers and get the detailed information which we wanted from our own government in Canada but could not get.
It seems to us that important policy changes of this nature involving taxation and finance should be given the full legislative treatment, rather than coming before the house later to be rubber-stamped or inadequately criticized by an unprepared and possibly inadequately informed opposition.
Contrast what is being done here with the way in which this was handled in the United States. The issue went before the legislative committees of both houses. Exhaustive investigations were made and full disclosure of information was obtained. Only afterwards did the legislators feel they could pass judgment. It seems to me we should follow this example to a far greater extent in Canada. While we may be in agreement as to general objectives, our inability to criticize important measures involving taxation and finance is, it seems to me, one of the reasons why our parliament is not giving effective leadership to the country. This is sensed by the public and it is partly because of this failing that our parliament is at a low ebb in terms of public esteem.
This leads me to the consideration of the general performance of the agreement. I listened with interest to the minister extolling the virtues of the pact. Nothing like it, he said, had ever happened before. What he says is, to some extent, true. The performance of the automotive industry generally has been phenomenal. There has been a notable increase in production and sales. For example, in 1961 production amounted to some 328,000 units. By 1965 the figure had jumped to more than 710,000. This is a remarkable increase. Sales rose from 446,000 to 786,000 in the same period, again an amazing performance for an industry.
I do not know what proportion of this increase is attributable to the agreement. I do not think the minister knows. Obviously the figure would be hard to establish. All the investigations we have carried out indicate that a good deal of this expansion would probably have taken place in the absence of an agreement. This good performance does not really tell us very much about the plan. A better test is to see what is happening to our balance of payments figures.
I can remember when the plan was introduced. The government made an extravagant

May 5, 1S66	COMMONS
presentation claiming that this was the answer to our whole balance of payments problem. This, they said, would cure it. Of course it has not done so. The imbalance rose from $386 million in 1961 to $615 million in 1965. This was the net deficit in the automotive industry. I realize that it might well have been worse in the absence of an agreement. Indeed I suspect this would have been the case. But the agreement has not been the cure, the answer, as we were all led to believe it would. I know the minister will tell us that the deficit is becoming less serious each year than would have been the case had there been no agreement. But this does not help us much, in view of the fact that it is continuing to increase. I should like the minister to tell us what he has in mind-what means he proposes to employ to deal with this problem since, to date, the agreement has not done so. I should add, however, that in other areas the agreement has been a real source of success. There has been increased production and there have been more jobs provided-and we are glad to see this happen.
I wish to turn, now, to the third section of my submission on this subject-the price people have to pay for their cars. We all remember the discussion which took place when we were told that the automotive companies would, in effect, receive a "bonanza", a saving of $50 million, because they would not be paying the tariff charges. We were told that a lot of this money would be passed on to the consumer. Any way, we were told, the poor automobile companies needed the money in order to finance their expansion programs. General Motors needs the money like we need three holes in our heads. It is coming out its ears. But we were told these poor companies needed this money for expansion purposes and that, anyway, they were going to pass it on to the consumers in lower prices.
[DOT] (7:50 p.m.)
It is hard, because of the complexity of the situation, to give comparative prices of Canadian passenger cars and those of comparably equipped United States cars, but some attempts have been made. The minister himself made one in the Toronto Globe and Mail on October 14, 1965, when he said that the gap remaining between Canadian and U.S. prices, after the adjustments made in the price of 1966 cars in Canada, was about $150. This was done by taking a high volume model and comparing it with the U.S. counterpart. If you take smaller models it goes down to $100. If you take a model like the
23033-302J
DEBATES	4765
Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement Oldsmobile Delta it is $600, but anyway there is a substantial difference between the two.
Have the manufacturers passed these savings on to the buyer? My suggestion is that they have not, that they have engaged in a lovely piece of window dressing, in a fantastic financial double shuffle to try to convince the public that they are passing on these savings. If you take the $50 million that has in effect been handed to the companies and spread it over the 580,000 cars involved, you realize the average saving per car is about $86 to the companies. With the release of their 1966 model price lists last fall there was a great fanfare and the big three, General Motors, Ford and Chrysler, claimed reductions. I think General Motors said a reduction of $73, Ford claimed $62, and Chrysler did not provide a figure; but they all did it in the same way.
They compared the cost of 1966 models with the cost of 1965 models equipped with a safety package now included as standard equipment, and they said, "Because we are including this safety package and not increasing the price, the consumer is actually getting a very substantial reduction in price." But, Mr. Speaker, when they were examined on this in the United States they were forced to admit that producing all these safety features on an assembly line basis cost about $22.
This cost would be a little bit higher in Canada. We would accept the figure of perhaps $30 as the cost to the companies of producing this safety package on a production line basis as distinct from special gadgets. The companies reduced their prices by $3 or $4. They added in $23 worth of safety features, and it must be remembered that the average saving per car to the companies was $86. If you take off the little extras they have thrown in as safety features, then the car companies pocketed $50 on every car.
For example, the net effect of this to General Motors, which produces 300,000 cars a year, was that it pocketed $15 million of the Canadian taxpayers' money. It did not pass this money on. It kept it and stuck it in its profits. Its profits were so low that it needed this extra money. In 1965 General Motors had a profit of only $2.1 billion. Chrysler stroked along on a profit of $233 million. General Motors net profit in Canada averages around $59 million, which is second only to the Bell Telephone Company. The poor auto companies really had a rough time.
Mar 5. 1966

Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement
This is one of our complaints, that the government is not assuming any responsibility or giving any leadership in the field of prices. To us it is imperative that it do so. It is pretty clear that normal growth will not be big enough to absorb the expanded output that the government has set for the motor industry, and unless car prices are reduced so that Canadian manufacturers can get into the United States market there will be further dislocation. We want the government to take some action to protect the consumer, to free the consumer and remove the wall of protection that has been built around this multimillion dollar industry.
If the companies are not prepared to reduce prices then there is a remedy, namely reduce the tariff that individuals pay. If Ford of Canada does not want to make cars available at a reasonable price, then people can drive down to Buffalo to buy new cars and have a real good week end on the money they save. People in Vancouver can go down to some other American city and buy their cars. This would be the quickest and the most effective way to force these autocratic car manufacturing companies into giving greater consideration to the Canadian consumer.
The third criticism we want to make deals with the transitional assistance. This was an arrangement called TAB, transitional assistance benefits, to compensate workers who were put out of work as a result of dislocations arising out of the auto pact. I can remember being in the house and listening to the then minister of labour and the Minister of Industry telling us what a magnificent plan this was going to be, and how the generous motor companies would rush in to make their payments to the government so that the workers would be eligible for assistance.
We asked the government if it did not think it a little unusual to have an arrangement whereby the motor companies had to participate voluntarily in return for the $50 million handout, and we were told no, that there would not be any difficulties, that General Motors, Ford and Chrysler were just waiting for the legislation to be passed so that they could run down to Ottawa and give the government a cheque for their contribution. Well, as a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, none of them has made any contribution.
Out of 1,500 workers dislocated, not a dozen have received any help under the TAB plan. Because the companies did not voluntarily contribute, their workers are not eligible for the benefits. As a result, when out of

work, the workers have been forced to rely on the benefits provided by their collective agreement.
In its usual cheapskate fashion the government has forced the workers to carry the burden of a change in tariff policy, a tariff policy designed to protect and help the whole country and the economy generally. But the government has not assumed its responsibility. It has left it up to the workers. The collective agreements were designed to cover seasonal lay-offs. They were never intended to cover this tariff adjustment, and in the usual cheapskate way that this government does everything, it has let the workers carry the burden.
At the time it was introduced I asked who was paying the tab. Now the tab is being paid by the Canadian auto workers. The payment by the companies should be made mandatory. Subsection 5 of the regulations which provide for this sort of voluntary participation should be deleted because the workers are being rooked over this deal, and are being unfairly and improperly treated.
We would hope that some decision would be made by the government. I am not going into the whole problem, that our benefits are worse than the Americans are able to attain. Their benefits and wages are considerably superior to ours. This is something we have discussed with the minister on other occasions but he has indicated a blind eye, and so there is not much point in trying to do anything about it now.
The third objection has already been covered by the previous speaker, dealing with the problem of the car parts manufacturers. The 11 per cent sales tax on production machinery results in these people having higher production costs than their American competitors. In a free flow market I do not know how they are expected to overcome that difficulty. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is really curious. This took brains, for Canada is one of the few countries in the world that has been able cleverly to discriminate against its own domestic manufacturers. We should be proud of ourselves for dreaming up this arrangement. We would hope the government would give consideration to removing this tax. This matter has been raised on many occasions, but again I think we got the blind eye on it, although I am not quite sure.
[DOT] (8:00 p.m.)
Mr. Speaker, my time is running out and in conclusion I should like to make a couple of observations concerning certain features of
May 5, 1966	COMMONS
the agreement which worry us. I know it will be approved. In fact I think the minister would have to commit suicide if by some miracle we did not approve it. What would he do, if by any strange chance we turned down an agreement which has been in effect for 15 months. This agreement confirms, once and for all, the complete domination of our automotive industry by United States subsidiaries. A large United States owned auto producer has a tremendous advantage in this kind of nationalized market which you are bringing about. If ever there was any doubt about it, it now is settled for all time that our industry is completely dominated by the United States subsidiaries in this field.
Second, the pact is one sided, mostly in favour of Canada, and perhaps we should congratulate the minister on good horse trading in that regard. In any event, it is dependent on the benevolent good will of the United States auto companies. This is the first time, in my knowledge, where a Canadian government policy is subject to the whims and good will of American private business. It will be interesting to watch 1968, when this comes up again, because by that time the integration will be so complete that there never will be any opportunity to reverse it; that may be inevitable, but at least it is established.
Third, this constitutes a disturbing integration of our facilities with those of the United States. It makes us, therefore, highly vulnerable to United States decisions. This too may be inevitable, but it now is pretty obvious that from here on in the decisions we can make in one of the greatest industries we have are not our own to make. They will be very vulnerable in respect of decisions from Washington or Detroit. Indeed, from now on when Washington hiccups Ottawa will tremble in the automobile business.
Fourth, this represents a strange paradox in government thinking-a subsidy of many millions of dollars and a tax on building materials for the houses our people have to provide. There is something wrong in this approach. Maybe we will sort it out before the debate is over.
Fifth, there has been disturbing talk, not from the minister but by some of the responsible backbenchers, of an extension of this type of development into other areas. We have heard of tires, forest products, and an extension of this whole plan to other sectors of the economy. I hope this is not so, and I hope the government will go very carefully.
DEBATES	4767
Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement
The automobile industry is unique; there is nothing like it in North America. We have a few large foreign owned firms producing the same products on both sides of the border. To extend this would continue the integration of Canada with the United States and, just as important, it would create great harm for Canadian firms operating in an industry which is not United States owned, because they would be at a fantastic disadvantage, one which they could not overcome.
When speaking of integration with the United States, most of us feel this government is committed, in that they have accepted the view that we have passed the point of no return and that it will be a lot easier in the long run to integrate smoothly with the United States economy. I think the continen-talists have taken over in this government, notwithstanding the window dressing, and that they really have accepted the fact that it is too late and we cannot overcome this American ownership.
Those are the problems in this agreement. We realize we cannot stop it nor, perhaps, would we. These are the disturbing aspects of it about which I would hope the minister would try to set our minds at ease before we rubberstamp it.
May I say one further word. The minister is interested in auto safety. We hear in the press that he is preparing a voluntary code of auto safety to be issued shortly. I should like to suggest to him that if he really is serious about auto safety, he should remenber his experience with the voluntary participation of the companies under this legislation, and if their participation in auto safety is as good as it has been under this, it is useless to be designing and issuing the code.
Briefly those are our suggestions, and they will be enlarged upon by other members of my party as the debate proceeds.


Mr. H. C. Harley (Halton):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to participate briefly in the debate on the auto agreement because in my constituency of Halton is one of the largest auto manufacturers, the Ford Motor Company of Canada. If we look back to the minister's statement on the introduction of this trade agreement, we will see that the statement said it was a program designed to achieve a substantial expansion in production and employment, and to promote improved competitive efficiency in this important sector of Canadian manufacturing.
4768	COMMONS
Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement
I think everyone in this house will agree that the automobile manufacturing industry is one of the backbones of Canadian industry. This pact will give the Canadian automobile industry free access to the huge United States, or really the huge North American market. What we really are hoping to accomplish in this agreement are three things primarily: first of all, increased production and a larger share of the North American market; second, increased employment in Canada; third, to improve competitive efficiency as reflected in the cost of automobiles to the automobile buyer.
I think, because the program has been in effect since January 1965, we now at this time can decide whether this to date has been a successful program. Under the first heading, increased production, we have, or have plans for, 69 new plants, and 136 plants which are planning expansions. The value of the capital investment in Canada in respect of these new plants to be constructed is $400 million approximately, and for those which will expand their facilities an investment in Canada of capital of more than $335 million.
In the Toronto-Hamilton area, which is relatively well within the reach of my constituency, we have 25 new plants, and 38 which are expanding their facilities, a total of 63 plants with a capital investment of something in the neighbourhood of $75 million. As was mentioned earlier, there is no question but that the production of commercial vehicles in Canada has been rising steadily. As an example, in 1965 our production was up approximately 28 per cent from 1964. Reference already has been made to export and import of cars. Car parts and accessories, both exports and imports, are up. I think it is encouraging to all of us to know that the rate of increase of exports is greater than the rate of increase of imports. We certainly hope those two lines would meet.
[DOT] (8:10 p.m.)
The second factor, increased employment, has truly come about. There were approximately 57,000 people employed in the automobile industries in Canada in 1963; there were 66,000 in 1964 and 77,000 in 1965. I am pleased that approximately 1,700 additional workers have been employed in the automobile industry in the Toronto and Hamilton area of my riding, and that in the entire industry, as the minister mentioned earlier, there are something in the neighbourhood of 10,000 new jobs which have been
[Mr. Harley.l
DEBATES	May 5, 1966
created, with a potential addition of 7,000 in the foreseeable future.
Several members have already made reference to the comparative costs of automobiles. We have been pleased to note in the last car price list for 1966 models that there has been a narrowing of the gap between the United States and Canadian prices. We expect and hope that this trend will continue until there is equality in these prices.
It would appear that as a result of the conditions laid down at the time of the introduction of this automobile agreement we have been very successful. The things we hoped would be accomplished by this agreement appear to have been partially accomplished and I am sure that this trend will continue. Let me illustrate this success by reference to certain things which have happened in my riding.
In 1964 the construction of a $25 million truck plant commenced. Recently it was officially opened. An additional shift has been instituted at that plant and at this time 400 trucks per day, through a two-shift program, are being produced. It is interesting to note that this truck plant is designed to produce as many trucks per year as were sold in 1965 by the entire Canadian industry.
This year the Ford Motor Company announced another $13 million program to modify and re-equip a passenger car assembly plant in the Oakville area. As we are all aware, other changes are taking place at Windsor and Talbotville, to which reference will be made by other speakers. These facts reflect the boom which is taking place in this area, with attendant improvements to all sectors of the economy.
The hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales) referred to the closure of the purchasing department of the Ford Motor Company at Oakville. I should like to elaborate on that reference and point out that a portion of the purchasing department has remained in Oakville, while part of its operations have moved to Windsor and part to Dearborn, Michigan. It is my understanding this change was contemplated long before the automotive agreement came into effect. While the signing of the agreement may have advanced this move, it was one that was due to take place in any event. As a member of parliament for that area I received only one telephone call in protest of this change. To my knowledge the employees transferred were given equal or better job opportunities. The
May 5. 1966

company did not force these employees to move, but allowed them to remain in Canada at Oakville, if they so desired.
I feel very strongly that this automobile agreement has been advantageous to Canada. Unlike the hon. member who just resumed his seat, I feel the government should consider implementation of similar agreements in respect of other industries, provided safeguards are included to protect Canadian industry. I feel that if the program is successful in one area it should be successful in other areas. I am strongly in favour of this agreement because I think it has been of advantage to the Canadian industry and Canada in general.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, my colleague the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales) has put on record the views of the members of this party, and it is not my desire to repeat them. However, there are one or two additional points I should like to bring to the minister's attention.
The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) suggested a few minutes ago that the government has taken what is popularly termed as the continentalists' view, and that it was its ultimate intention to extend this type of agreement to other industries operating in the two countries. In this regard I should like to refer to a speech by the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) to the Liberal association, as reported in the Daily Sentinel-Review of Woodstock, Ontario, on Saturday, April 30. This article in part states:
Speaking at the annual meeting of the Oxford Liberal association, Mr. Laing said that to achieve this end, Canada would continue to strive for lower tariffs and would trade with any country in the world in all but strategic items.
That is a very interesting statement. The article begins by stating:
Arthur Laing, federal minister of northern affairs and natural resources, yesterday said that the ultimate goal of Liberalism in Canada is free trade.
That may be the government's policy, but I think it is something that should be watched carefully by everyone, particularly by the opposition parties in this house.
I do not think many members of this house oppose this auto parts treaty as such, but as was pointed out by the hon. member for Danforth, the automobile industry in North America is a very unique operation, probably not duplicated anywhere else in the world. For that reason, special considerations and regulations must be applied. It is to be hoped

had a succession of ministers visiting us trying to explain what a great thing the auto parts treaty is for this country. First of all the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) visited us last year and read a very interesting prepared speech, although he did not seem prepared at that time to answer any questions on it. Recently the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) visited us and told us what a great thing the automotive parts treaty is. The Minister of Industry himself was in my area during the last election explaining briefly what a good thing the treaty is. The former minister of mines and technical surveys was down there too. We have had a succession of cabinet members, some of them fairly senior, visiting the area and trying to explain to the people who will be put out of work because the plant was being put out of commission that, after all, this treaty was a great thing for Canada. So obviously, Mr. Speaker, this has been a matter of some concern and worry to the government.
[DOT] (8:30 p.m.)
There are a number of other items which I could mention at this time, but these have been covered by other members, the member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales) and the member for Danforth (Mr. Scott), and I see no point in repetition. However, there is one thing I would like to say to the minister, and I hope he can see his way clear to agree to this. It is this, that the minister himself pointed out in his remarks, when the resolution was presented, that the government is of course very interested, as is everybody else, in the effects of this treaty on Canada and on Canadian industry.
While it is true that a number of representations have been made to the government pointing out the difficulties which a number of firms are encountering in this regard, I would hope that the minister would see fit to refer this treaty to the Committee on Industry, Research and Energy Development, because I believe that is the committee that would be concerned. In this way an opportunity could be given to a number of manufacturers who have been perhaps adversely affected by the treaty, and they could give evidence as to the way they are having difficulties. This would be very helpful to the minister and his officials when the treaty is reviewed in a year or two from now, as the minister indicated earlier it would be.
The automotive parts industry and related industries in this country from which
DEBATES	4771
Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement parts are ordered would then have a feeling of participation in the government handling of this matter. I can see no disadvantage from the government's point of view in permitting this treaty to be considered by such a committee, so that witnesses from the auto parts industry as well as others can be called. Indeed the committee should have power to call any witness who could be helpful. Some of the complaints which have been registered may not be legitimate, and I believe that all members in this house are interested in getting to the bottom of this matter and getting all the facts.
As the member for Wellington South and others, pointed out, this is perhaps one of the most important treaties or international arrangements that Canada has ever entered into. This agreement has long-range economic effects on Canada and I can see no harm in its being referred to a committee which could hear representations. This is something which we are all interested in. It has gone on for 15 months and another month or so would make little difference. I believe everyone would be greatly benefited by an opportunity to hear evidence.
I would very much hope that the minister would give consideration to referring this treaty to a committee. In conclusion I have but one other brief observation. It was pointed out by the minister in his early remarks that one of the hopes of the treaty was that Canadian auto parts manufacturers would have an opportunity to compete in the United States market-not only in the United States market but in the continental market as a whole. I believe that this is a most commendable idea. However, as I mentioned briefly a few moments ago, and I would like to reiterate it at this point, this is simply not working out. The large automobile companies, and again I mention particularly the Chrysler Corporation and the Ford Motor Company, have large numbers of wholly owned subsidiaries in the United States. I have been informed that when very efficient Canadian auto parts manufacturers-and I refer to the Ingersoll Machine and Tool Company, for one-have requested an opportunity to tender on some of the auto parts for these large companies, they were simply told: You cannot even tender on these contracts; we have our wholly owned subsidiaries in the United States, so why should we allow any other firm to offer tenders because we will get them from our wholly owned subsidiaries.
May 5, 1966

Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement
I am sure this is something the minister and the officials did not envisage at the time the treaty was signed. They may well have had assurances from these automobile companies that this would not take place. However, this is what has taken place. These companies have been told that they cannot even have an opportunity to bid or tender on these contracts for auto parts, even though I have been assured that they are quite competitive with any American firm or any other Canadian firm. They have not been given this opportunity because these two large companies particularly are only buying parts from their wholly owned subsidiary companies on the other side of the line. Matters such as this should be brought to the attention of the minister and the government, which I believe would be very helpful indeed to all of us.
In conclusion I would request and hope that the minister could see his way clear to send this matter to a committee for consideration. I hope perhaps he may say something in this regard this evening.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, the minister will be pleased to know, or at least less apprehensive to know, that I fully support the automotive pact with the United States; in fact I believe it could be expanded. I am going to make some recommendations or suggestions on the auto proposal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How do you spell auto?


Steven Otto: It can be called an Otto proposal under which this agreement can be enlarged. I believe it is no mystery to the minister and to all of us, that every country in the world wants to export manufactured goods; no country in the world wants to export raw materials. We also know that it is not possible for every country to export more manufactured goods than they import. If the hon. gentleman from Danforth was very worried about the word "continentalist", I am not at all worried about this as long as it means that each individual in each country can get a product produced most efficiently regardless of where it is produced, and as long as there is an equitable balance of trade.
This agreement could be interpreted as the first break in the old line of thinking where each country wanted to export more than it imported. I believe this agreement in reality wants to set an equitable basis; in other words it says: We shall export an amount equal to that we import. Now let us break this down. After all, this is free trade. The

Liberals have always been proponents of free trade. We want to break down the tariff. On the other hand we want it done in such a way that we in Canada can take advantage of our productive capacity.
What is this agreement in essence? I am sure the minister will agree with me when I say it means this, that in the automotive trade we have recognized that the salary scale and skills required are just about equal throughout the trade. We want to recognize the fact that in the United States, for example, automatic transmissions can be manufactured more efficiently than they can for the Canadian market. In other words, by the time you set up equipment and set up an assembly line, it is cheaper if you can manufacture 10 million items rather than one million.
In Canada we may be able to manufacture car bumpers more cheaply and efficiently, because plating requires electric power and we have the raw materials, the chrome, nickel and so on. Let us presume the skills required, the wages paid, and so on, in manufacturing those bumpers were the same as those in manufacturing transmissions. Would it not be feasible to allow United States companies to export to Canada $1 million worth of transmissions, provided we exported to the United States $1 million worth of car bumpers, or headlights, or anything which we manufacture better and more efficiently? That is the essence of this agreement and it is really the essence of free trade.
[DOT] (8:40 p.m.)
However, if the manufacturers of transmissions used, let us say, $1 million worth of labour at $3 an hour and the bumper manufacturers used $1 million worth of labour at $1 an hour, the trade would not be equitable. The purpose of this agreement and its very content, as the minister explained, is much more equitable, because in the car industry-and this is probably why it was left in the car industry-the wage scale is almost identical.
Let us suppose the United States manufacturers say to us: We will export to Canada $1 million worth of transmissions, but we do not want anything else except $1 worth of farm machinery. What is wrong with that? The skills required in the manufacturing of farm machinery and the wage scales are identical to those in the automotive trade. I say that this would also be acceptable.
May 5, 19S6

To go a step further, supposing a United States manufacturer says: "I will export into Canada tariff-free $1 million worth of transmissions and will import from Canada $1 million worth of furniture"-or carved wood, which Canadians can produce much more efficiently, and where the scale of wages and the skills required are also identical, or possibly even higher. There is nothing wrong with that at all. In other words, we have already established the principle of a balance of trade, not in dollar volume but in manpower, man-hours requiring identical skills and more or less the same wages.
You can understand, Mr. Speaker, that it would be possible under the present system of balance of trade for Canada to export to the United States $5 billion worth of gas reserves, oil, electric power, fresh water resources, and many other items of natural resources which may not require the employment of very many people. At the same time, does this mean that we can import into Canada sewing machines, radios, television sets, cars and so on? No. But that is the basis on which we have worked up till now-a balance of trade based on dollar volume, which is fallacious and is not really a balance of trade. That is where we find ourselves in difficulty. What we have been doing is hypothecating our natural resources in exchange for manufactured goods. But this agreement puts a new emphasis on a balance of trade in man-hours and skills rather than on dollar volume.
There is some talk about extending this agreement to, or making a new agreement with, the timber and lumber business. We can also do it in the plastics business, the chemicals industry and the services industry. We might find ourselves with 1,000 agreements with United States manufacturers.
In other words, I am saying we must formulate now, general policies which include the essence of the automotive trade agreement and put the trade agreement on a wide, general basis. There has been since 1959 a movement toward a export-import parity program. I have been a manufacturer, an exporter and an importer. I can see the difficulty in all these enterprises. The export-import parity program which I have promoted for many years is more general than the automotive trade agreement but is on exactly the same lines-to balance our imports and exports according to man-hours, skills and salary schedules rather than dollar volume.
Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement
Some economists have said for years that it really does not matter whether we sell $20 million worth of gas reserves and import $20 million worth of radios and television sets; it is the same thing. Their argument is that $20 million received for gas reserves would be spent in Canada on the purchase of consumer goods, and so on. That is not so, first of all because $15 million of that $20 million automatically goes to the United States because the United States owns 75 per cent of the gas reserve companies. This leaves $5 million, out of which comes profit and promotion, with little remaining. So that the argument the economists put forward, that it does not really matter as long as money is exchanged for something, really does not hold water.
Although we are talking about the automotive trade agreement-and the exact program could be extended to other agreements-I should like to put forward the proposition that, by and large, tariffs are really a punitive measure. That is to say, they penalize an importer for importing goods and do not give any incentive to an exporter.
For example, let us say I am a manufacturer of air conditioning parts, as I have been, and let us suppose that the tariff regulations were changed and the essence of this agreement was enlarged. If I exported $1,000 worth of air conditioning equipment to the United States or elsewhere, and supposing, Mr. Speaker, I then received a permit to import $1,000 worth of goods of the same category-say, sewing machines or radios, which are in the same category as air conditioners-free of tariff. In other words, I have exported $1,000 worth of man hours in the production of a certain category of goods and I now have the right to import goods of like nature free of tariff. That is not a punitive measure at all.
Let us suppose I do not want to import anything, but was allowed to put this import permit on the market and somebody gave me $200, which is 20 per cent of the $1,000. I can reduce my costs in this way because really I receive $1,200 for the exports, and the person importing other goods has had to pay the $200 difference. But he has not paid it to the government as a punitive measure; he has paid it to the exporter. In this way an importer pays an incentive to the exporter.
[DOT] (8:50 p.m.)
We could also have the different categories related to each other. Let us suppose that I did not have a permit for goods in category
May 5, 1966

Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement "C", but there was available $5,000 worth of goods in category "A", such as farm products, for example, which were still relatively balanced with the different products in category "C" and the amount of money paid to produce them, the skills required, and the wage schedule involved.
We have to get away from the punitive measure of tariffs and enlarge this automotive agreement, not industry for industry but on general principle. If my proposal were followed, you would really have no tariff at all; instead you would have an incentive. Or, the tariff which would normally be paid to the government would be paid to the exporter as a further incentive, and in time all this would balance itself out. No one in GATT or anyone else would blame us. We do not want to take advantage of anyone. We only want to make the same kind of things as others, and we want to export and import products, not in dollar value, but in terms of manhours and skills. We want to be equitable with others; we do not want to take advantage of anybody. The only way we can ensure a proper use of our natural resources is to produce those things that our training, and resources and abilities fit us for, and to import those things which can be produced better elswhere.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I believe that this agreement is the first step. It is a good step. I have no doubt that in time there will be other measures such as this one, in connection with other industries. However, we cannot have 1,000 or 10,000 agreements for different industries. We must have one general authority. We must maintain the principle that the Liberal government has always followed, of striving toward free trade, but equitable free trade. The only way that this can be done is to try to plan our imports and exports, not in terms of dollar value, not in terms of natural resources in exchange for manufactured products, but in terms of man-hours and the skills which are necessary to produce these things.
I entirely favour this agreement. I know that the reaction to it will be good, so far as Canada is concerned. I think that the idea behind this measure can be enlarged to include other industries, so that in time we shall have a general policy in connection with a new concept in trade balance.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking about this agreement


not as a member whose constituency is affected in so far as employment therein is concerned, but because I want to take a look at this particular automobile agreement from a long range point of view.
I must say that I find it very regrettable that there has been this delay of almost 15 months in bringing the agreement before parliament. I need not repeat what was said by the hon. member for Wellington South and by the hon. member for Danforth with regard to the great secrecy under which this agreement was signed. It was said that the minister did not want to disclose information about it because negotiations were going on. At one time it was anticipated that this agreement might be considered by parliament last fall. Of course our calculations were put out by having an unnecessary election, and this measure was one of the casualties of that ill-fated sortie.
Now, 15 months after its inception, the government is asking this house to rubber-stamp the agreement. This is what is thoroughly repugnant to me. We are asked to rubberstamp this agreement, with the plea that if this house would have turned it down, scores of industrialists and thousands of workers would have been prejudiced, because they relied on the steps taken under the agreement which were taken prior to ratification by parliament. This is a form of not-so-subtle blackmail on this house. The house is being blackjacked to accept this agreement. As a principle, I find that to be wrong, regardless of the terms of the agreement, whether they be good, bad or indifferent.
What I object to thoroughly is the timing of the government, and the delay in bringing this agreement before parliament. It was not necessary to delay it. This should have been considered last June. However, other things crept in that were not necessary.
Having said that, I do not want to go over points made by other hon. members in the house respecting labour dislocation, respecting the cross-purposes that the government is working at by the maintenance of sales tax on production machinery, and by the maintenance of import duties on that machinery. In fact, in so far as buying the machinery is concerned, we are paying more for it as a result of the altered position of the dollar, for which the government is not responsible. But this is what our manufacturers are facing. When we say that we are going to have some sort of rapprochement or parity of costs and of prices for automobiles in this country, we
May 5, 1966	COMMONS
are frankly deluding ourselves. This will be so until Canadian manufacturers can be in the position of their United States counterparts who do not have to pay the silly 11 per cent sales tax on production machinery, or the import duty on machinery.
Next we are going to hear about the parity of wages as between American and Canadian automobile workers, regardless of whether production per man hour is going to be equivalent on both sides of the border. That makes no difference to those advocating this parity, who just look at the dollar sign, and who do not look at what is done to earn that dollar. If this parity begins in the automobile industry, and this is expected, the next step will be to bring it into the steel industry and to related industries, one after the other.
Where do we go from there, so far as Canadian industrial production is concerned?
I would suggest, by introducing the measure under consideration, that we, as Canadians, have embarked on a very dangerous toboggan slide, and we may be in a position where we have to go along for the ride, to the bottom of the slope, unable to control our course.
These are some of the questions that have to be examined. They have not been discussed in the house. They have not been exposed by the minister. He has not spoken about this question of parity wages. He has not spoken about the suggestions being put forward by the hon. member for Coast-Capilano (Mr. Davis) and by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Harley).
Similar types of agreements might be contemplated to be entered into in other industries. I should like to hear from the Minister of Industry about some of these kites that his colleagues are flying. I do not agree with the minister's thinking. I have some grave reservations as to this agreement because of the penury of information. The minister quoted statistics. He gave, in percentages, increases of exports and increases of imports. If my memory serves me correctly, the financial pages of the newspapers within the last fortnight have indicated that the increases of imports on a dollar basis exceed the increases of exports on a dollar basis.
[DOT] (9:00 p.m.)
The position is no better. As a matter of fact, it is worse, from the position of the balance of payments. Where has been the gain? After all, this auto agreement was designed to deal specifically with the evergrowing deficit on international account. The
DEBATES	4775
Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement minister may shake his head but there are many people who will disagree with him. It would be a valid reason. Remember, we are facing a deficit which amounts to roughly $600 million on the automobile account each year. It would be well worth striving for, to reduce a deficit of these proportions. If the present agreement has the result of reducing the deficit on the commodity account with the United States, let us give three cheers. That would be a point in its favour. But so far this has not been the case. The gap has widened. What will it be next year? Will the gap be wider still?
The minister spoke about increases in production but these increases are not attributable to the agreement-not all of them, by any means. The Canadian public has itself been responsible for a good deal of the increase in sales, whether the increase is measured in units of 100,000 vehicles, or in percentages or in dollars. The Canadian public has bought more vehicles. It is true that somewhere along the line we may have shared in an increase in the consumption in the United States. But let us not seek to give the impression that all this increase has suddenly come about because an auto agreement was made. To do so would, in the best possible light, amount to innocent misrepresentation and in another light it could amount to deliberate misrepresentation of the facts. As I say, I am not satisfied with the information we have been given with regard to this agreement. Neither is anyone else in this house.
I ask a further question. What is the value of this automotive agreement to those regions in Canada where there are no parts manufacturers or assembly plants and where the work force is not directly affected? Ministers went around the country last fall, receiving appropriate publicity-pieces were put in various newspapers by inspired writers-all announcing with great fanfare that the public would see a reduction in prices as a result of this pact. There was to be a substantial narrowing of the gap between the prices of a particular model in Canada and in the United States. We all know what happened last fall when the price increases were announced. The manufacturers suggested they were price reductions.
I believe it was the Chrysler Corporation which made the first announcement of a price increase. It did not meet with the approval of the United States administration and serious growling came out of Washington. The next company to do the same thing-I believe it
May 5, 1966

Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement was Ford-followed a different approach using the soft sell. They indicated that a number of formerly optional so-called safety features were being added and that the price was therefore being advanced slightly.
As it turned out, the increase in price substantially exceeded the increase in the cost of those particular features. On all those cars the company was picking up an extra amount between $25 and $50. The next step was a parallel announcement in Canada-that there was a reduction in price. But the movement in both countries was in the same direction. There was no narrowing of the gap. It was a movement in the same lockstep on both sides of the border. The minister may shake his head, but there are many people who will disagree with him. I believe I have in my office material which demonstrates my contention with reference to particular vehicles, models and so forth.


An hon. Member:: Bring it down.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I will, because I intend to suggest that we should look more closely into such questions as this. I am not disposed to believe a highly paid publicity agent who tells me: We have reduced our prices. I want to see evidence of these reductions. I therefore suggest to the minister that in view of the importance of this subject we should send this whole matter for further consideration to the standing Committee on Industry Research and Energy Development or, if deemed preferable, to the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
I do not wish to be obstreperous. If this is a good agreement for the benefit of Canada, if it is to be the first of similar steps we have to consider with regard to other industries, let us have a hard look at it and see whether mistakes have been made. Let us hear from all sides-the auto manufacturers, the auto parts people and the labour unions involved. After all, the hon. member for Danforth made some strong criticisms about the inaction of the automobile companies with regard to TAB. Why has there not been more action? This is what we would like to know.
I make this plea straight to the minister. If, within a month, we have this agreement before the house, back from the committee, we will be in a far better position to reach conclusions as to its value. I should like to be convinced that this was a good action. So far, we do not have enough information to reach such a conclusion. It is not just by sitting

over there mummy-like or like wise old owls or Buddhas that the government will convince us or the country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Which is which?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am not referring to any particular minister. This is just the attitude of the government. It is not only members representing half a dozen or more constituencies in Ontario who have to be satisfied as to the value of this agreement. The whole of Canada is concerned. After all, this agreement, by reason of customs forgiveness, is costing us about $50 million a year. This is what has been indicated to us. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Benson) can shake his head. He should read some of the speeches his colleague and others have made in this regard.
[DOT] (9:10 p.m.)
This was given to us as the annual cost. It was to be an annual cost of $50 million in customs duties, and the benefits accruing to the major automobile manufacturers would total $50 million. If that is not the case then the ministers must clear this up in the eyes of the press. We have seen it mentioned editorially time and time again. We have seen it reported in news columns. If that is the wrong conclusion, then it should be corrected.
There is one way to get it cleared up, and this is before a committee where we can hear the appropriate testimony and where the ministers and officials can be examined. I now move, seconded by the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. Webb):
That all the words after the word "that" in line 4 of the resolution be deleted and that there be substituted therefor the following:
the said agreement be referred to the standing Committee on Industry, Research and Energy Development for consideration, examination of oral and written testimony with respect thereto and report to this house prior to further consideraion of the said agreement.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. I have examined this amendment to the resolution with great interest and I would like to refer hon. members to citation 202(6) of Beauchesne which says:
It is not an amendment to a motion to move that the question go to a committee.
I declare that this amendment is not receivable. Shall the resolution carry?


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No, wait a minute please.
May 5, 1966

The Acling Speaker (Mr. Rinfret): The hon. member for Waterloo South.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I intend to speak but briefly. I intend to speak on behalf of a riding that is highly industrialized, the riding of Waterloo South, which I have the honour to represent, a riding that to a considerable extent has benefited from the auto agreement. However, despite the fact that this benefit has taken place and that increased job opportunities have occurred in the riding, considerable concern is felt by everyone that we may have taken a step which, in the long run, may work to our disadvantage. Perhaps we have sold out for a mess of pottage. The step the government has taken may be of an irreparable nature.
What creates the greatest concern is the apparent conclusion the government has arrived at, the conclusion that continentalism is inevitable and, because it is inevitable, we should work out an arrangement that will make it even more inevitable.
The method the government chose to bring this measure into effect is also cause for concern, in the sense that it did not permit a debate in advance of the decision it made-a debate in the House of Commons among the elected representatives of the people. Such a debate would have provided an opportunity for a national diologue on this whole problem: In other words, do we want continentalism or are there some other choices open to us? The government does not appear to have considered the other choices that might have been available in this particular matter.
Admittedly the automobile industry was badly in need of rationalization and, as my colleague from Danforth (Mr. Scott) pointed out, the multiplicity of models being manufactured in Canada really made a mockery of any attempt to get an efficient industry operating in this country. Perhaps Canadians did not need all those models of automobiles. Perhaps we could have taken the step that has been taken by countries like Sweden, Germany, France and England, and developed a national automobile of our own. We could have achieved rationalization in that manner. We could have eliminated some of the worst features of splintering that exists in the industry, and could have been very efficient in the production of a national automobile.
With such a national automobile we could have embarked on world trade, as did the
DEBATES	4777
Conada-U.S. Automotive Agreement nations I have mentioned. They did not discover it necessary to go into continentalism and integrate their industry with the industry of another nation in order to survive. I do not know what the answer might have been, but at least the representatives of the Canadian people in this parliament would have had an opportunity for that kind of debate and for the exploration of these ideas.
As we look at the effects of the agreement now, I think we can say that it has provided employment opportunities. I do not think we can say it has done very much for the Canadian consumer, although there is a possibility that even that may happen in the future. But if we look at what it has done to the quality and the nature of our industry, I think we have to be extremely concerned.
Speaking on the adjournment debate one night I indicated that we in Canada were possibly going to be the new hewers of wood and drawers of water in a technological age, that the skilled work, the scientific work that is involved in the automobile industry would no longer take place in Canada, that opportunities for work of that quality would no longer be available to Canadians, that the nature of this agreement permitted the automobile companies to do tool and die work in the United States, to do their research in the United States, and then to send their products here for us to run assembly plants.
I know there is some benefit we receive from this sort of thing, but in the long run it may not be a benefit; it may be to our great disadvantage and we may find ourselves inexorably bound to continentalism and to a position from which we cannot retreat.
[DOT] (9:20 p.m.)
Even if some time in the future we consider it in the national interest to have something indigenous to our country, that also may have been lost. The people we may require, the skills that will be needed, and the techniques that are important at the top will not be available to us. We all are fearful that some of the statements, which are made in the United States by people who perhaps do not understand how deep is the feeling among Canadians-if I may use the expression-to be masters of our own house, may become a reality. I should like to quote from some of those statements which appeared in the Financial Post. It is reported that one manufacturer said:
To give up a big part of the profits from a Canadian operation to Canadians-who gain through
May 5. 1966

Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement
employment-is not my idea of the smart way to operate a foreign subsidiary.
He went on to say:
What are Canadians crying about? If the money was available in Canada to develop resources and industry, U.S. interests would not be there in such numbers and to such a high degree of ownership.
I really fail to believe the money for a national industry was not available for Canada. What I really am inclined to believe is that the will on the part of a government to ensure that we would have a national industry was not present and not meaningful. I am not attempting to be critical of the present Minister of Industry. I think his plan, within the framework of the philosophy which exists on the government side of this house, probably was the best plan that could have been devised, within certain limitations.
I should like, however, to go back to the initial consideration that was made. I have sufficient faith in the present minister and the people who advise him that, had the directive to the minister been "let us create an indigenous industry in this country, let us rationalize within ourselves rather than internationally" he could have accomplished that particular objective.
It is a great regret to me, as it must be to many Canadians, that this was not done. However, I am reasonably certain that this resolution will carry and that we will have to live with this pact for a long time. There are some things that the minister should consider doing immediately if he is to be as logical about the attendant difficulties as he was about continentalism. I have received letters from some of the industries in my riding which have pointed out, as have other members speaking tonight, the inability of one department of the government to communicate with another department of the government in order at least to give Canadian industry the opportunity to take full advantage of this particular pact.
I think we must untie the hands of our industry. We have said to them: Compete. I do not quarrel with that. I think our industry has to compete, and perhaps more so than it has in previous times; but if we tell them they have to compete, let us untie their hands and at least give them an equal opportunity.
I have a letter from an industrialist who starts off by saying "We are determined to compete". I think Canadian manufacturers deserve a great deal of credit. Faced with this kind of a revolutionary approach, they have

indicated they intend to do everything possible to ensure that they are competitive in this kind of market. He goes on to say:
The vinyl and vinyl coated fabric industry is presently being asked to compete on a continental basis in the area designated by the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement.
We are determined to compete on this basis and I know I do not have to outline to you the effect of the 11 per cent sales tax and a 22J per cent duty on machinery and equipment, most of which is specialized and most of which is made either in the United States or the United Kingdom.
This whole matter has considerable immediacy as the international agreement covers dollars and cents and once the American companies have set their pattern to achieve the goals indicated, it will be very hard to change this pattern.
It is incumbent on the government regarding industry-and in this one in particular where you get into modified or relatively free trade-to see that the tariff which inhibits these industries from getting their machinery at competitive costs, and the sales tax which acts to their disadvantage in these matters, is removed. I think it is the very least the government can do. I am not calling for a blanket removal of tariffs or the sales tax; but in this kind of industry, where obviously they are going to have to fight for their lives, I think the government has an obligation to ensure they have the opportunity to do that without being at a disadvantage.
If the government requires revenue, it makes a great deal more sense to give our Canadian companies the opportunity to be competitive and to make a profit, and to take some of that profit afterwards. If we do not permit them to be competitive in the first place, there will be no profit from which we can derive taxation. So, from this point of view, it is my consideration that the government should act immediately in this area.
I should like to read into the record another letter from an industry in my riding:
The Minister of Industry has urged automotive parts plants to expand their facilities to meet the new demands to be made on Canadian industry by the Canada-United States automotive agreement. This we have done.
In 1964, we increased our manufacturing facilities by enlarging our building at a cost in excess of $100,000.00-sales tax (of course) was paid and is included at approximately $7,500.00.
This is a disadvantage which his United States competitor did not have. He makes these comments about the Minister of Finance, by way of justifiable criticism:
The Minister of Finance has stated that businesses should defer the acquisition of machinery and equipment. The policies of the two ministers cannot be reconciled.
May 5. 1966	COMMONS
Some of the policies of the minister and the former minister cannot be reconciled, judging from this morning's paper.
The one urges expansion and the other advocates the deferment of expansion.
I hope if the minister replies tonight that he will have something to say in this regard and will indicate which minister has made the better judgment in this case.
The parts manufacturing industry is in a unique position due to the Canada-United States automotive agreement and it would be disastrous to defer expansion at this time.
[DOT] (9:30 p.m.)
He points out that planning in private industry is very important, and that perhaps our government might learn something from private industry in this regard, and not bring in budgets on an almost year-to-year basis without an indication as to what the future holds. He points out that jobs for the 1968 automotive model year will be placed in 1966, and that he cannot wait for the minister to make a decision next year because he as a manufacturer has to make his decision this year. Production will commence in the summer of 1967 and facilities for this production must be available by that date. Should we not obtain jobs for the 1968 model, it is probable that no jobs would be available until 1970 or 1971.
These are very real dangers and concerns of the people who are being asked to compete in Canada, and I think it is incumbent upon the minister to provide them with answers if he wants them to be in a position to compete, as he says he does.
The writer goes on to state:
If we are to successfully compete with automotive parts manufacturers in the United States, we must be competitive price-wise, and must have the necessary equipment available to do the job.
The word "price-wise" lends authenticity to this document. I do not think anyone in this party would use that word. He then states:
This equipment must be ordered immediately for delivery in 1966 and 1967 and the retention of the sales tax is a most inequitable burden in our fight to compete successfully with the United States.
The minister has indicated that the sales tax may be removed next year, and that he has adopted the present policy because he wants to take a little heat off the economy. He is not only going to take heat off the economy if he continues to apply this policy to the automotive industry, he is going to make it stone cold.
DEBATES	4779
Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement
I have often wondered whether we in Canada sometimes do not bargain hard enough. It is my impression that we act like lambs bargaining with lions, and I think we all know what happens to lambs that lie down with lions. They do not come out of such an association very well. To use a mixed metaphor, they usually get sheared. I do not think the government really realizes its power and authority. I am sometimes concerned because the minister does not assert his authority sufficiently.
I was impressed by the minister's statement at the time he tabled the correspondence between him and the automotive industry. I am not aware of what he said to the companies, but apparently the companies replied in the negative to his requests. The minister should be congratulated for at least making an attempt to persuade the companies to this way of thinking, but perhaps he should not have accepted their answers quite so readily.
I should like to quote from a letter addressed to the Minister of Industry dated January 13 on the letterhead of General Motors of Canada, Limited, which states in part:
It is our opinion that the elimination of the profit on sales of vehicles and parts produced in Canada by General Motors of Canada and affiliated Canadian companies to affiliated General Motors companies in the United States and other countries is also discriminatory and should be given added consideration.
I presume that means no.
Will the minister indicate why he made these requests of these companies and whether they were only part of the requests he intended to make?
It is my impression that these companies also replied in the negative in respect of the exclusion of depreciation on non-Canadian machinery and equipment, but I do not understand what that means. I hope the minister will have something to say in this regard, and will explain why his requests to the companies were turned down.
It seems to be a common impression in Canada that we are absolutely dependent on the United States, and in a terrible bargaining position for that reason. Apparently we dare not do anything that might offend United States companies, which can turn to their government for assistance. It was very enlightening to me to read an article which appeared under a Canadian Press heading at about the time the United States House of Representatives was holding hearings in respect of this Canada-U.S. agreement. The
May 5, 1966

Canada-V.S. Automotive Agreement news clipping I have in my hand states in part:
Fears of go-it-alone Canadian alternatives-harmful to the U.S.-were cited as primary reasons for approval by major speakers from both Democratic and Republican parties.
The United States gains substantial benefits from trade with Canada, just as we gain from trade with the United States. I do not think we should be reluctant in pressing our demands when negotiating agreements with our great neighbour to the south. I do not think we should hide our light under a bushel, or act like lambs in our negotiations.
In concluding I should like to express concern about the ultimate implications of government policies in this field, and to join with my colleague, the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) in his hope that no further continentalism of this type will take place in future negotiations. I hope there will be no more back door entries of this kind, but rather that such agreements will be placed before this House of Commons for a full and complete airing, so that the final results will represent the true desires of Canadians.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, my participation in this debate will be very brief. We on this side of the house are aware that there are a tremendous number of complaints being made about this agreement, not only about the effects of it, but also about the way in which it was negotiated and put before this house. We believe assurances are required that any future action of this type by the minister or the government will be placed before parliament before it is taken.
[DOT] (9:40 p.m.)
We feel that our responsibility to Canada and the industry is such that we must, under the circumstances, be able to hear and understand all the complaints that are brought forward. We know there is some advantage in this agreement. We also know there is in it some great disadvantage in regard to the smaller types of manufacturing plants, and therefore to many Canadian municipalities and people. This has been made very evident in the course of the debate.
Inasmuch as the agreement is in effect, and has been for this protracted period of time, without the possibility of discussion in parliament, so as to provide a safeguard for the future which was not provided in the method used to implement the agreement, I

believe this entire matter should be sent to the standing committee for consideration as has already been suggested. But as an alternative to this suggestion, it is my pleasure now to move, seconded by the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot (Mr. Ricard):
That after the word "same" in line 4 there he added the following:
"provided that the said agreement may not be renewed in its present or in an amended form without the prior consent of parliament."


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering whether Your Honour would be prepared to hear argument on this amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. I should very honestly tell hon. members that I had anticipated, as I assume I should, this type of amendment and have given the matter serious thought during the day. I have very serious doubts whether this amendment is receivable or not; but I would be very grateful to hon. members if they would help the Chair in reaching a decision in the matter.


Mr. Lamberi:: I realize, Mr. Speaker, that the question of whether a resolution may be amended is a fairly thorny one, outside of course the obvious six months hoist or something of that nature. But that is not the purpose of this amendment. Earlier this evening I sought to move an amendment to send the agreement to a committee of the house for consideration. Mr. Speaker's deputy at the time ruled it out of order and referred to a citation in Beauchesne on which I must reserve opinion because I want to see the citation's references. Sometimes I must regretfully conclude that some of the outright authorities so indicated are on some other proposition, and not all these references can be taken at their absolute face value.
Be that as it may, Your Honour's deputy made that ruling with regard to sending the agreement to a committee. However, the purpose of this amendment is merely to impose a proviso, which is within the power of parliament, in regard to a resolution. The resolution asks for the approval of parliament, and parliament is entitled, I would submit to Your Honour, to impose a condition upon its approval. This is all the amendment seeks to do. It does not seek to introduce any new subject matter which goes beyond the resolution. All it says is that if the house accepts the original motion, it will approve the agreement, but that such agreement cannot be renewed in its present or in an amended form
May 5, 1966	COMMONS
without the prior consent of parliament. That is all the amendment does. It does not introduce any new subject matter.
It is certainly not a vague amendment; and even vagueness cannot disqualify an amendment. So I would put it to Your Honour that the purport of the amendment is entirely within the power of this house to approve. Since we are being asked for our consent, we certainly can impose a natural condition that a certain agreement be not renewed without our prior consideration. Therefore I submit to Your Honour that this is the type of amendment that is quite acceptable at this stage because it refers to a resolution which we are not to see in any other form.
This is not a resolution preceding a bill. This resolution is the finality of the matter. I would find it an extremely strange proposition if it were to be held that this type of resolution, which is not followed by a bill, could not be amended in the form proposed by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler). Otherwise everything can be done by way of resolution and the hands of the house are tied absolutely; it becomes a rubber stamp. With the greatest respect I would point out to Your Honour that this is not the case and should not be the case.
[DOT] (9:50 p.m.)
This is a matter which is different from the ordinary type of resolution that we see before a money bill. We have also on occasions amended resolutions to set up committees and what have you. Therefore, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment is quite in order.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I could argue perhaps in a tentative way as the hon. member for Edmonton West has been doing. The hon. member was obviously not feeling very sure of his ground and perhaps I am not too sure of mine. However it did seem to me, sir, that if this proposition is to have any validity at all, it is a separate proposition and would therefore require notice. It does not in any sense amend what the house is being asked to approve. It purports to bind the government and perhaps a future parliament, although I do not see how it can do that. In fact, I think it could be better argued that it really has no meaning at all. We all know that under the strict interpretation of the constitution these agreements are ratified by the Crown and they do not in fact require
DEBATES	4781
Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement -through it is a constitutional practice-to ask for approval of the house.
If what has become a constitutional practice is followed, the agreement would not be ratified by any future government without the consent of the house, if it came forward again. If the ordinary constitutional practice which we now have is followed, any agreement of this sort is brought by the government to both houses before there is ratification. So this is simply asserting something which is a constitutional practice in any event.


Eric Alfred Winkler: May I ask the minister a question?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Certainly.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Indeed that argument may be fair enough, but if the government had acted in good faith initially we would not be here discussing the proposition 15 months later to rubberstamp it. Surely in the constitutional sense to which the minister is making reference, we have the right to have these assurances built in tonight, by the determination of the house for the future. We want to control parliaments, and we want to assure the future parliaments that the good faith of the government does exist.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I am not arguing the question of good faith or the lack of good faith because it seems to be totally irrelevant to the point of order. The point is whether this is in order according to our rules.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, I suggest to hon. members that I believe I am in a position to express an opinion now. However, I see that other members want to contribute to the discussion and I shall be pleased to hear from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I confess that I would very much like to hear the results of your research. The only trouble is if I hear those results, then I might not have a chance to speak. We could then be in a situation where a ruling cannot be discussed. Therefore, may I inquire whether Your Honour has taken a look at citation 201 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, the first sentence of which reads as follows:
The object of an amendment may be to effect such an alteration in a question as will obtain the support of those who, without such alteration.
Mar 5, 1966

Canada-U.S. Automotive Agreement
must either vote against it or abstain from voting thereon, or to present to the house an alternative proposition either wholly or partially opposed to the original question.
I cannot quite tell from your smile, Mr. Speaker, what you are thinking. At any rate, it seems to me that this amendment does come within those terms; it proposes an alteration in the question which would make it possible for some to support the main motion who might otherwise feel that they cannot do so.
There are, of course, other conditions that amendments must meet. I realize that it is not good enough to read a citation such as this and say this amendment falls within those terms and therefore it must be satisfactory. However, I have tried to look at the various requirements that relate to amendments. One, of course, is that an amendment must be relevant to the question which is before the house. With respect to the law of relevancy on an amendment, I am quoting from the second paragraph of citation 203(1):
The law on the relevancy of amendments is that if they are on the same subject-matter with the original motion, they are admissible, but not when foreign thereto.
It does seem to me that this amendment is clearly in the same field. It has to do with whether or not the house wishes to approve of the agreement that has been signed between the two governments.
Another requirement, of course, is that an amendment put together with a main motion must result in a complete question that is intelligible with itself. I have read for my own purposes the original motion moved by the Minister of Industry which suggests that the house and parliament do approve of this agreement. Then in my own mind I add the words, "provided that the said agreement may not be renewed in its present or in an amended form without the prior consent of parliament.'' It seems to me that there is no difficulty on that score. This produces a proposition which is intelligible and consistent with itself.
The Minister of Transport raised the question as to whether we have the right to amend the agreement. I believe this is the substance of what he said. I see he is shaking his head, so I assume he must have said something else. In any event, I am under the impression his suggestion was that we do not have the right to amend an agreement, 
whether or not that agreement is an executive act.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I did not make that suggestion at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Let me make my comments as to what I think the minister said, and then Hansard can sort it out. I would just like to make the point that this amendment does not alter the agreement in any respect. It merely seeks to add a provision with respect to it, by means of an amendment. The house is being asked to give its approval. It seems to me that it is logical for the house to say that we are prepared to give that approval on certain conditions and up to a certain point. As I understand it, without this kind of limitation being imposed by parliament, the government could renew the agreement in its present form or in some amended form without coming back to parliament, and certainly without coming back before it would make such a change. It does seem to me that parliament can modify or qualify what it does, and if we are prepared to give approval, I believe that we in common sense should have the right to qualify that approval.
Now, it may be, Mr. Speaker, that you have gone over all these citations which I have drawn to your attention, and you may have some others which are on the other side. I am quite prepared to admit this. I suppose one which Your Honour will probably fall back on is that this is a motion of such substantial difference that it requires notice. It seems to me that that is hardly the case-that what is on the order paper is a notice of approval, and that all we are suggesting is that the approval have a certain deadline in it so far as the date is concerned. I suggest that if you go back to the citation which I read in the first place, namely citation 201, that this is a case of effecting such an alteration in the question as will make it possible for those who do not find it feasible to support it in its present form, to support it in its amended form. I hope Your Honour will give consideration to these points, perhaps overnight.
[DOT] (10:00 p.m.)


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Speaker, may I have a moment to bring to Your Honour's attention-


Some hon. Members:: Ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I can tell hon. members I am prepared to render a judgment now or to express an opinion. If they wait
May 5. 1966	COMMONS
until tomorrow my decision might be more lengthy, but it would not be different from what I am going to say now.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: The only thing, Mr. Speaker, is that if Your Honour makes a ruling it may bring forward the resolution for further discussion. I suggest it is ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Well, I will render my judgment tomorrow, if that is what the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) wants.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Basing themselves on Your Honour's ruling, members of the house may have to decide what course of action they should take, and I should not like to have that precipitated at four minutes after ten.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I rise once again to bring before the members of this house the question of the placing of fill illegally in Lake Ontario in contravention of the Navigable Waters Protection Act, and evidently with the implicit agreement of some members of the government. I rise tonight in particular because of the reaction to this in the town of New Toronto, a municipality with at least 10,000 population which has received a letter from the Department of Public Works pointing out the municipality had not received a permit to extend two public parks into Lake Ontario. One of these parks is the centennial project of the town of New Toronto.
The New Toronto Advertiser of a week ago today has an eight-column streamer "Rap New Toronto Park Fill". Then there is a three-column heading: "Developers can, why can't we? Councillors answer government warning". The article reads as follows
New Toronto councillors were all but incredulous Monday when they received a letter from the federal Department of Public Works pointing out the town had no permission from the department to dump fill in the lake at two park sites.
The letter from district engineer R. P. Henderson said a complaint had been received from the Lake-front Owners' Association questioning the legality
DEBATES	4783
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion of the town dumping at Rotary park, at the foot of 10th street and Prince of Wales park, at the foot of Second street. The latter is the town's centennial project.
Councillors took umbrage to the letter because they felt the municipality should not come under fire for dumping fill in the lake, while private developers did so unhindered.
Mr. Henderson said his office had no record of the department granting approval to New Toronto to dump fill in the lake.
I might add that they also have no record of permission having been granted to Long Branch developers, Millgate Developments.
Lakefront Owners' Association president Douglas Martin said the association laid the complaint as a matter of course. "The law is there that permission must be obtained from the Department of Public Works before dumping fill in the lake and it must be upheld", he said.
The lakefront owners were responsible for stalling the Millgate twin 18-storey apartment building project which was to be built on a filled water lot. This battle has yet to be settled.
According to the Navigable Waters Protection Act, any work which has not been approved by the Minister of Public Works may be removed at the expense of the offender.
Councillor Gordon Baycroft motioned a letter be sent to Mr. Henderson informing him that the matter would be thoroughly discussed at a committee of the whole meeting and a full report would be forwarded to him at that time.
Meanwhile, council is wondering why the finger is being pointed directly at them when so many other cases are evident along the lakeshore.
Mayor Don Russell questioned if authority had even been given to fill operations at Exhibition park and at the Westerly Purification Plant on 23rd street where extensive public works projects have been carried out.
Councillor Harry Brown mentioned the area behind the West Point Motel, the Chicken Palace and the Millgate water lot in Long Branch as areas which should also be investigated.
I point out that on Tuesday of this week the Toronto Daily Star on the front page of the third section ran an eight inch deep cut across three columns to point out that Metro Toronto is filling in 600 acres of lake Ontario. I can assure you that no permit has been granted for that plan whatsoever. The statement on the front page of the Star says:
They've now accumulated a quarter million cubic yards of dirt and next year they'll start dumping it in the lake.
Two years and 6,000,000 tons of fill later, they'll have created 100 acres of new land between Mimico creek and the Humber river.
By 1985, Metro's two-year-old waterfront advisory committee hopes to push the new shore line up to 2,000 feet into the present lake . . .
Absolutely no permission has been granted for this fill to be dumped into lake Ontario,
May 5. 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion which is being done despite the provisions of the Navigable Waters Protection Act. It is two years ago last March, which is 26 months ago, when I first began to ask cabinet if it would make this a matter of reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. I asked for clarification for the Minister of Public Works as to what is the meaning of "patented waterlots".
Mrs. LeBourdais wrote a small paperback book on the Truscott case and sent the whole cabinet into a tizzy. Perhaps we in the ridings of York-Humber and York West should get a paperback writer to set out the facts of this illegal fill being dumped into lake Ontario between the Humber river and Etobicoke creek. Possibly if we pile up record sales of the book dealing with this illegal fill we may get the matter before the Supreme Court. Mrs. LeBourdais even got the cabinet to put up the money for the lawyer who will take the Truscott appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada.
We, in the ridings of York-Humber and York West ask for a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. We do not want an explanation by the Minister of Public Works, who has said that "I should explain where the responsibility of this lies." We have not accepted his explanation. We want an explanation by the Supreme Court as to what is meant by a patented waterlot, and what the rights of the proprietors holding them are. We do not want some interpretation by the Minister of Public Works.
The last minister said that this was not a hazard to navigation. Then he ordered navigation lights to be put on this spit of mud in lake Ontario to protect navigation. But it was not a hazard, because he said so.
You will be interested to know that last week the owners of this spit of mud sticking 470 feet into lake Ontario had bulldozers on the property, and were putting in an electric cable, and were putting up two lights which were much more powerful than those they had last year. If this is not a hazard to navigation why are the owners of this spit of mud putting up these lights?
When you have to put up navigation lights, obviously it is a hazard. We should like to have a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada so that we may know exactly what are the rights of owners of patented water-lots. We ask that this be done, because the

bill affects the right of residents of York-Humber and York West. Must we have something like the LeBourdais book before we can get some action by the cabinet on this situation?
Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (Minister of Public
Works): Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made reference to the town of New Toronto which is concerned with building a park on the shore of lake Ontario. No complaints have been received that the town is proceeding with this work, or that it will interfere with navigation on a navigable water.
When we found out that fill was being dumped into lake Ontario we immediately sent a man down to find out precisely what was being done. We also gave to the town information relating to the Navigable Waters Protection Act with respect to the type of permit required, and that sort of thing. So far as I know, the conduct of the representative who went to investigate at all times was courteous, and I am not aware of any dissatisfaction on the part of the town. We have not in any way stopped the town from putting the fill in.
[DOT] (10:10 p.m.)
This is very much an active matter at the moment. I regret I was not aware until after six o'clock, when the department was closed, that this discussion would be raised tonight. Had I known, I would have found out what messages have passed back and forth today, if any. There may or may not have been any; I did not have an opportunity to check. Had 1 known this matter was to be discussed tonight I would have checked and been able to give full information.
As to the other matter, the suggested reference to the Supreme Court, I indicated on a previous occasion exactly what action we were taking in this field generally. I believe this to be the right course of action. I do not think it is proper to attempt to repeat what I said then, even in an abridged form.



HOUSE OF COMMONS-INQUIRY AS TO HOLDING OF BY-ELECTION IN NICOLET-YAMASKA

Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Speaker officially announced the resignation of Mr. Clement Vincent as member for the constituency of Nicolet-Y amaska.
I should like to put the following question tonight to the Prime Minister or his spokesman: will a by-election be held soon in this riding? It is imperative, in my opinion, that a by-election be held as soon as possible.
May 5, 1966

It is not advisable to deprive constituents of a representative for a period of time. This is an elementary democratic principle.
Second, since we shall soon be celebrating our centennial, and in a year as historic as 1967, it is essential that the voice of all parts of Canada, without exception, be heard throughout the country, for celebrations on such a large scale.
Third, the new electoral map which is to be in force in the next general elections will result, under the proposed draft, in the elimination of the constituency of Nicolet-Yamaska and the absorption of the area by other ridings.
In such circumstances, what candidate could be interested in being elected merely for a few months, say for one year, if the by-election were put off to a later date and then to face another general election shortly after? Such a candidate would be elected to represent for a short time a riding doomed to oblivion. If the election were held within a few months, then a candidate could be interested in being elected from a period of three years.
Fourth, the constituency of Nicolet-Yamaska is French speaking and has always been represented as such in the House of Commons.
In the crucial times our country may have to face in the years to come, French speaking Canadians will need everybody at all times.
It is unfortunate to note that able men from the province of Quebec find provincial politics more attractive than federal politics.
That is an alarming tendency which must be countered, as well as the overbidding by nationalists which will take place during the provincial elections in Quebec. This is a tendency which must be reversed.
Instead of always thundering against the federal government, the leaders of political parties in Quebec should recognize the superiority and the policy of greatness of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), who is making constant efforts to promote racial equality in Canada. They should stop decrying the federal government and recognize its vital importance.
In conclusion, I shall castigate the Leader of the Opposition and the Conservative party for not having retained in their ranks such men as Leon Balcer, Remi Paul and Clement Vincent, through fanaticism and lack of adaptation to the Quebec reality. French Canadians leave the Conservative party; the
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion departure of Clement Vincent was a repudiation of his party.
Mr. Speaker, in closing I say that it is urgent to hold a by-election in Nicolet-Yamaska, because the government, which now has 131 members, would then have 132 and would come a step closer to a majority. I predict we will have a majority government before the end of our term of office and I hope there will not be any general elections before 1970.


Mr.   P.-E. Trudeau@Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, the government easily understands the urgency mentioned by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) to hold a by-election in the riding of Nicolet-Yamaska.
The government would, of course, be tempted to call that election as soon as possible and for the very reasons given by the hon. member.
However, the government must necessarily hesitate to take any hasty action and must act with its usual coolness, in the spirit of fairness which must guide the calling of an election.
The government knows that it will be relatively easy for the electors of the riding of Nicolet-Yamaska to find willing candidates.
We, on this side of the house will be happy to welcome the successful candidate after that election. But, in all fairness, we must realize that on the opposition side, it might not be so easy to find a candidate willing to run.
[DOT] (10:20 p.m.)
The people must be given time to get used to the idea of having to choose a candidate from one of the parties of the opposition. With a view to balancing, on the one hand, a desire to welcome a new member on the government side and, on the other hand, a desire to be fair in allowing the opposition to prepare itself for this eventuality, we must not rush into elections.
But the hon. member and the voters can rest assured that the government is considering the matter with interest, that it intends to call elections as soon as possible and when indicated, that it intends to win them.


Mr. Paul Langlois (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order.


Paul Langlois: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
*4786
May S. 1966

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret): Order. I am sorry, but the hon. member cannot raise a question of privilege at this time.


Mr. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice-Latleche):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I should like to point out that during the speech made by the hon. member for Lot-biniere (Mr. Choquette), there was not a single Progressive Conservative in the house.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Rinfret):: Order. According to the rules, on the adjournment of
the house, a member can debate a question for which he is granted seven minutes then, the minister concerned or the government spokesman is entitled to three minutes to reply. Therefore, a question of privilege cannot be raised, nor any point of order, at this stage.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.23 p.m.

Friday, May 6, 1966