1971-11-03

CONGRATULATIONS TO MEMBER FOR VANCOUVER EAST ON 38 YEARS OF PARLIAMENTARY SERVICE

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege I ask the indulgence of the House for a moment or two in order that I may make reference to one of our highly respected and most distinguished colleagues, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch).
As hon. members are aware, our colleague indicated to his constituents yesterday that he does not intend to be a candidate in the next general election. This is something all of us regret. However, there is a significance attached to his timing which I think we could note. Yesterday the hon. member completed 38 years of parliamentary service; he is today, therefore, beginning his 39th year as the member for Vancouver East in the legislature of British Columbia or the Parliament of Canada. We pay tribute to our friend and we extend to him our very best wishes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: On behalf of all the members of the House I congratulate the hon. member for Vancouver East and wish him well in the years ahead.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. lack Davis (Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table the new pulp and paper effluent regulations as provided for in the Fisheries Act.



AGRICULTURE


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Dairy Commission's rate of holdback from payments to dairy farmers on in-quota deliveries of manufacturing milk is being lowered to ten cents per hundred pounds of milk, or 2.85 cents per pound of butterfat. The previous rates had been 26 cents on April and May deliveries and 20 cents on deliveries starting in June.
The new rate will apply to all in-quota deliveries of manufacturing milk since April 1, 1971. It will be effective on future milk payments and there will be a refund to producers on previous deliveries for the difference between the earlier rates and the revised rate. This refund to producers will amount to 16 cents per hundred pounds of milk, or 4.57 cents per pound butterfat, on all in-quota deliveries to which the earlier 26 cent rate had applied and ten cents per hundred pounds milk, or 2.85 cents per pound butterfat, on previous deliveries at the 20 cent holdback rate.
The amount to be refunded on earlier deliveries and the saving to producers at the lower rate on subsequent deliveries will add about $8.5 million to the income of shippers of manufacturing milk in the 1971-72 dairy year.
The holdback is used by the commission to cover the difference between Canadian support prices and surpluses exported at a lower price. The surplus is, or has been, mainly skim milk powder.
The international and domestic dairy marketing situation has improved significantly this year. Surpluses, including those in Canada, have been reduced substantially and world prices are much firmer. With the heavy producing season now past, the Commission's costs for the year ending next March 31 can now be more closely estimated, thus permitting reduction in the holdback on in-quota milk to the ten cent rate. And, by the way, Mr. Speaker, there is no holdback on in-quota cream at the present time.


Mr. H. A. Moore (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, we are naturally pleased to hear of the reduction in the holdback from payments to dairy farmers on in-quota deliveries of manufacturing milk and also that there is a general firming, internationally and domestically, of the market for dairy products and of prices. Since we now have a short supply rather than a surplus of dairy production in this country, we hope that future dairy policies will be designed to keep producers in business rather than to force so many out, as has been the policy of the government in the past few years. We also hope that some of the inflexibilities in the sales policy of the Dairy Commission will be reviewed in light of a situation that was brought to our attention in the committee on agriculture relating, for example, to Mexican purchases of skim milk powder some time ago.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the previous speaker that we welcome this move to increase the incomes of producers of manufacturing milk. We also hope that the pressure that has been put on producers to cut back and which has actually

November 3, 1971
Milk Quota Payments
caused some producers to go out of business will now ease.
Although this may be a little outside the scope of the minister's responsibilities, I hope the government will also turn its attention to the possibility of distributing milk products and by-products to those people in our country whose incomes are at or below poverty level. In this way some of our productive capacity could be used to see that all people in Canada are well fed. I hope the government's policy does not settle into a pattern of cutting back production for the non-commercial market and ignoring entirely that very considerable sector of society which has not been able to afford all of the protein foods it needs. We have heard reports in recent months that in one of our major cities conditions exist of which Canadians should be ashamed. We cannot justify cutting back production of basic protein foods while such conditions exist.


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy about the announcement the Minister of Agriculture has just made.
The adjustment he has just announced has been made possible as a result of the efforts of the producers concerned who have greatly contributed to the establishment of a dairy policy more profitable for manufactured milk producers.
Also, the international market has improved. Stronger prices have enabled the Canadian Dairy Commission to recommend to the minister to mitigate the penalty imposed upon producers for quite some time, through a reduction of the holdback and a refund of part of the amount held back since April 1,1971.
I am very happy, Mr. Speaker, that the petition signed by 25,000 industrial dairy producers, which I had the honour of introducing in the House on February 18, 1970, is at last having effect. At the time, the producers were much disappointed when they left Ottawa, but they subsequently realized that they could anticipate the improvement the hon. minister has just announced.
I am also glad that I brought forward in the House on February 19, 1970, a motion to discuss dairy policy. At that time, there was little hope, there did not seem to be enough interest in the problem. However it was subsequently realized that dairy policy was improving from month to month and was having genuine results.
I therefore congratulate manufacturing milk producers who looked after their business. It proves that if they are alert and we as members of Parliament take our responsibilities, it is possible to provide a fairer policy for the farmers. We should say it out loud as we do when we criticize the government.
I wish to commend the important work performed by the Canadian Dairy Commission, which should be better known not only to hon. members but also to manufacturing milk producers.
In conclusion, I add that we shall have to be careful in the future not to disorganize our industry and be consequently obliged to import dairy products. We will have to keep a close eye on the situation so as to avoid the opposite extreme.
That is what I wanted to say after the minister's statement which I consider good news.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
['No, the age for enrolment of officers in the Combat Arms for the Primary Reserve is between 18 and 25 years of age; however, in special circumstances, Mobile Command may authorize enrolment of an applicant up to 29 years of age. An ex-officer of the Canadian Forces may be considered regardless of age provided he would have five years remaining prior to reaching compulsory retirement age in the Primary Reserve.']
Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister Responsible ior the Canadian Wheat Board):: Part 1: In October, 1970, the Government's Prairie Grains Policy Proposals stressed the aggressive development of new grain markets as one of the prime areas requiring new and intensive attention by the grain industry and government. In this context, consideration has, of course, been given by the government to the feed grain mission reports of the Canada Grains Council which were published in March, 1971. To assist in giving new emphasis in this area, the government is making available substantial amounts from a fund which will eventually have up to $10 million annually for the support of specific market development projects undertaken in co-operation with the Canadian Wheat Board and industry. Funds can be used for projects to enlarge and assist in maintaining existing domestic and export markets for food and feed and also on activities for developing new products and uses for our grain. The market development approach includes provision for supporting Canadian industry investment in grain transportation, storage, handling and processing (milling, crushing, feed grinding, baking) facilities abroad.
The Canadian Wheat Board appointed in July, 1970, a Committee of internationally recognized grain marketing specialists to evaluate Canada's system of selling grain under changing world conditions and to report back to the Board. The Board has made a careful study of the Committee's recommendations and action has been taken with regard to a number of the recommendations. The Board is very much aware that to develop and maintain a systematic approach to selling Canadian grain, improvements and modifications must continously be made to our existing selling system to adapt the system to the product, the customer and changes in the market situation. This is illustrated by the record 172 million bushels of Canadian barley exported in 1970-71. A concentrated market development effort must be maintained in feed grain markets. In this respect, the development of an integrated feed
(Mr. Gleave.]
November 3, 1971

grain marketing program is in progress at both the Governmental and Canadian Wheat Board level.
Developing our product and services to a point where buyers have a strong preference for them is not easy and cannot be done overnight. A long term plan is being adopted and will be pursued with persistence and adequate resources. However, since Canadian resources are not unlimited, the first and immediate priority in our overall plan must be given to our major feed grain markets and the designing of market programs specifically tailored for each. In the short term, feed grain import markets of highly developed countries, in which all classes of livestock are fed on a variety of coarse grain rations, depending on the area in question, must receive priority attention. Feed grain import markets in some developing countries, particularly those in which livestock is fed on corn and sorghum-based rations, must initially form part of our long range program, where the thrust will be primarily on educating feeders to develop a preference for Canadian feed grains.
Part 2: Reports of the Canada Grains Council are received by the Canadian Wheat Board as they are by many other agencies in the grain trade. They are of course reviewed and considered in the light of all the marketing knowledge gained directly by the Board through its own extensive efforts and from a variety of other sources. It must be remembered that the same Canada Grain Council Mission reports which draw attention to certain possible export markets for feed grains in Central and South America and the Caribbean, also indicate that the quantities involved were relatively small. It must also be indicate that the quantities involved were relatively small. It must also be remembered that sources of supply in close proximity to these markets were able to satisfy these markets at prices reflecting the geographic advantage of the supplier. It is recognized that there is a need to constantly review and improve barley varieties, our grading system and our promotional efforts. However, the fact that Canada was the world's largest exporter of barley in 1970-71, is an indication that the characteristics of Canadian barley are well known and appreciated in major world barley markets.



Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What purchases of capital equipment were made for Air Canada from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the fiscal years 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-71?
2.	What were the individual and total amounts of these purchases?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Management of Air Canada advises as follows: 1 and 2. Pursuant to the annual Canadian National Railways Financing and Guarantee Acts the Minister of Finance upon application of Air Canada approved by the Minister of Transport, may with the approval of the Governor in Council make loans to Air Canada out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund during specifically designated periods of time for the purpose of enabling Air Canada to discharge obligations that have become due and payable during said periods. As such
Questions
borrowings are combined with the Corporations self generated funds to meet expenditures included in its approved capital budgets it is not possible to determine what portions of the loans are used for specific items of equipment. Page 20 of the Air Canada Annual Report for 1970 gives a statement of the source and application of funds. Similar statements may be found on Page 18 of the 1969 Annual Report and Page 19 of the 1968 Annual Report.


CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD-RETIREMENT AGE OF EMPLOYEES
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre): 1.	At what age does the Canadian Wheat Board retire its employees?
2.	Is there any difference in the retirement age for men and women and, if so, what is the retirement age in each case?
3.	Is there a stated reason for any such difference and, if so, what is it?
4.	Is consideration being given to establishing one retirement age for all Canadian Wheat Board employees?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Age 65 for males. Age 60 for females.
2.	Answered by 1 above.
3.	No stated reason. Plan instituted in 1948 at a time when such distinction was common in many retirement plans.
4.	Yes.


CNR-STATUS OF EMPLOYEES IN P.E.I. AS A RESULT OF ESTABLISHMENT OF SERVOCENTRE, CHARLOTTETOWN
Mr. Macquarrie: 1.	How many CNR employees have lost or will lose their employment with the CNR in Prince Edward Island as a result of the pending establishment of the Charlottetown Servocentre of the Canadian National Railways?
2.	How many of the former employees have been assigned positions in Prince Edward Island?
3.	What is the employment status of other employees?


Gérard Duquet: The Management of Canadian National Railways advises as follows: 1. The setting up of the Servocentre has resulted in the creation of fifteen new jobs in Prince Edward Island. At the same time however CN has applied for permission to remove agents from seventeen stations which become redundant with the setting up of the Servocentre.
2.	Of the fifteen being created, seven are being or will be filled from the ranks of agents on the Island. The other jobs are claimed by members of another union. All jobs in the new Servocentre are being filled by employees already on the Island.
3.	All employees affected by the closure of agencies will be able to use their seniority to bid for other jobs in the Maritime and Chaleur Areas. An analysis of attrition and manpower requirements for remaining agencies in the Atlantic Region indicates that no agent with more than six

November 3, 1971
Questions
years service or older than 26 will have to seek employment outside his particular line of work in the company. Only one agent in the stations affected falls into this category. The company has a manpower planning program to ensure that every effort is made to ensure that any agents who cannot find employment in their own line of work as a result of closures are given opportunities to fill other jobs in the company for which they are qualified. For example a number of the supervisory and management positions opening up as a result of the setting up of Servocentres have been filled by former agents.


GRAIN-COST OF MOBILE DISPLAY UNIT ILLUSTRATING GOVERNMENT POLICY
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What was the cost of the mobile display unit illustrating government policy in the grains industry, which covered the western fair circuit?
2.	What was the total amount allocated to this project?
3.	How many people were employed in this project and what were their salaries?
4.	What was the total amount allocated for radio, newspaper, television and other display aids spent to date on this programme?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: 1. The cost of the mobile display unit was $23,548.46.
2.	$40,000.
3.	Two people were employed. Their salaries totaled $4,921.80.
4.	The total amount allocated and spent on radio, newspapers, television and display aids with regard to the mobile display unit was $5,106.


SCIENTIFIC AND TECHNOLOGICAL AGREEMENTS
Mr. MacLean: 1.	With what countries has Canada scientific and technological agreements similar to those signed with West Germany, Belgium and the USSR?
2.	Are similar agreements being negotiated with any other countries at the present time?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. None.
2. No.


WHEAT-BASIS FOR REFUSAL TO MAKE PAYMENTS UNDER TEMPORARY WHEAT RESERVES ACT
Mr. Burton: What is the authority or basis on which the government acted in not making certain payments to the Canadian Wheat Board under the terms of the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act since August 1, 1970?


Mr. I. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the government has made payments to the Canadian Wheat Board in accordance with the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act.


WATERLOO-OXFORD HIGH SCHOOL GLEE CLUB PARTICIPATION IN 1971 FESTIVAL, GERMANY
[Stage Direction]
Question, No. 1,792-Mr. Nesbitt:
1. Did the Waterloo-Oxford High School Glee Club request financial assistance from any federal department or agency in 
order to take part in the Festival competition in Germany during the summer of 1971 and, if so, was any such financial assistance given to this Organization?
2.	Were arrangements made for this Organization to perform at the Canadian Air Force Base in the Black Forest and, if so, what were the details of the arrangements?
3.	Was the scheduled performance at the Air Base cancelled and, if so, for what reason?
4.	Was a letter sent to the group by the Minister of Citizenship (Mr. Stanbury) congratulating the group and indicating how pleased the government was to lend financial support to their tour of Germany?
5.	Are arrangements being made to provide any financial support to this group?
James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of Secretary of State and the Department of National Defence as follows: 1. (a) The Waterloo-Oxford High School Glee Club did request financial assistance from the Citizenship Development Branch of the Secretary of State, (b) No.
2.	No.
3.	Not applicable.
4.	Yes, since the group received financial assistance from the Trans-Canada German Alliance which had received a grant from the Citizenship Development Branch of the Secretary of State to cover a portion of the transportation costs involved for groups participating, in this organization's German programs.
5.	No.


HEALTH AND WELFARE-FEDERAL EXPENDITURES FOR HEALTH SCIENCES TEACHING FACILITIES
Mr. Orlikow: In the past year, what were the federal expenditures on the planning, building and equipping of health sciences teaching facilities for each of the following (a) Hospital Construction Grants (b) National Health Grants (c) General Public Health Grants (d) National Research Council (e) Medical Research Council (f) Health Resources Fund (g) others?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of National Health and Welfare and National Research Council as follows: (a) Nil; (b) nil; (c) nil; (d) nil; (e) nil; (f) 37,500,000; (g) nil.


PROJECTS APPROVED BY OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM
Mr. Yewchuk: How many projects which have been approved by the Opportunities for Youth Program (a) have terminated with the return of students to their studies (b) will be continued next summer (c) will continue on a permanent yearly basis?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: 1. (a) All
projects which have been approved by the Opportunities for Youth Programme have terminated as of September 30, 1971; (b) If projects wish to continue under Opportunities for Youth, they would need to reapply next summer, if the program is continued; (c) Since Opportunities for Youth is strictly a summer programme, projects cannot
November 3, 1971

continue on a permanent yearly basis. However, some projects have fulfilled a real need in the communities in which they were situated and the communities have felt that the services provided would really be missed. Therefore, attempts are being made by Opportunities for Youth to encourage other departments to fund projects which fall under their area of concern.


MANPOWER TRAINING COURSES
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	How many people took Manpower Training courses between August 1,1970 and September 1, 1971?
2.	How many of these were unemployed when the courses began?


Otto Emil Lang: 1. Between August 1, 1970 and September 1, 1971, 352,216 adults received training under the Canada Manpower Training Program. Of these 102,968 were enrolled in part-time courses or training-in-industry programs.
2. Of the remaining 249,248 between 50 and 55 per cent (124,600-137,000) may have been unemployed at the time of referral. (Estimates based on prior year's pattern. Actual figures not yet available.)


REPRESENTATIONS RELATIVE TO FOOD PRICE WARS
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): What meetings, if any, took place between the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and representatives of the major food chains relative to food price wars over the past year and when and where did these meetings take place?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: None.


INCREASED AMERICAN TARIFFS-DISCUSSIONS REGARDING POTATO MARKETS
Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): What discussions, if any, have taken place between the Minister of Agriculture and representatives of the Canadian Horticultural Council regarding potato markets support in face of increased American tariffs?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: The Minister of Agriculture met with representatives of the Canadian Horticultural Council on September 27, 1971 to discuss the effects of the United States surtax on potatoes and other horticultural crops.


MARITIME COMMAND-CHRISTENING AND COMMISSIONING CEREMONIES FOR THE &quot;IROQUOIS&quot; AND THE&quot;HURON&quot;
Mr. Forrestall: Has the government and the Department of National Defence or the Department of Supply and Services given consideration to having the current tribal leaders perform the christening and commissioning ceremonies for the two remaining DDH-280 destroyers, the Iroquois and the Huron and, if not, for what reason?
Questions


Mr. lack Cullen (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Traditionally, sponsors who perform the christening and commissioning ceremonies for naval ships, are the wives of principals in government or industry involved in the building and operation of the ships in question. Insofar as Iroquois and Huron are concerned the same principle will apply; however, consideration is being given to inviting the tribal leaders to be present at the ceremonies.


NATIONAL DEFENCE PUBLICATION &quot;DEFENCE QUARTERLY&quot;
Mr. Forrestall: With respect to the recent publication entitled "Defence Quarterly", a publication designed to provide a forum for the free expression of opinion with respect to defence matters, and edited by Mr. John Gellner, has the Minister of National Defence authorized the Chief of Defence Staff to indicate to serving forces personnel their right to contribute to this form of opinion without prejudice and, if not, for what reason?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Q.R. & O. Article 19.36 deals with disclosure of Information or Opinion by members of the Canadian Forces. The Chief of the Defence Staff has made it known that he encourages members of the Forces to contribute articles on various aspects of their profession to the Defence Quarterly and other military journals, within the guidelines laid down by the Queen's Regulations.


CANADIAN FORCES RESERVES-AGE FOR ENROLMENT OF OFFICERS
Mr. Robinson: Will the proposed age limit of thirty-five for commissioning in the primary reserve component of the Canadian Forces apply to the arms as well as the services?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: No, the age for enrolment of officers in the Combat Arms for the Primary Reserve is between 18 and 25 years of age; however, in special circumstances, Mobile Command may authorize enrolment of an applicant up to 29 years of age. An ex-officer of the Canadian Forces may be considered regardless of age provided he would have five years remaining prior to reaching compulsory retirement age in the Primary Reserve.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Yewchuk: 1.	During the past five years, which Indian organizations (a) received (b) were refused funds from the government for purposes of office and administrative costs?
2.	Which Indian organizations closed their offices, within the past year, because of insufficient funds for office and administrative costs?
Return tabled.

November 3, 1971
Motions for Papers


OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-CANCELLATION OF PROJECTS
Mr. Coates: 1.	How many projects of the Opportunities for Youth Program that were initially approved were cancelled by the government?
2.	In each instance (a) what was the project (b) what was the financial obligation of the government (c) what proportion of the funds were used (d) how many persons were involved in the project (e) what was the reason for cancellation (f) has any action been taken by the government for recovery of the funds expended?
3.	(a) How many projects were abandoned by the initiators (b) what was the project in each instance (c) how many persons were involved (d) how much money was involved (e) how much was used (f) has any action been taken to recover the monies used?
Return tabled.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, before dealing with notices of motions may I comment on one. The hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Skoberg) asked last week for some information concerning notice of motion No. 75 standing in his name. I understand the hon. member has received a good many of the reports referred to in this motion and I hope we will be able shortly to provide him with the balance.
Notice of motion for the production of papers No. 245 is acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the conditions mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House that notice of motion No. 245 be deemed to have been adopted?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



MATERIAL SENT TO RAPESEED PRODUCERS CONCERNING DESTRUCTION OF MOTHS AND ARMY WORMS

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 245-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all research and educational material sent to rapeseed producers and the Governments of the Prairie Provinces concerning the method and timing to destroy the moth and/or the army worm.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, may I ask that the remaining notices of motions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining notices of motions stand?


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have your indulgence for a moment to raise a question with regard to notice of motion No. 247, which admittedly is dated September 9 and is not of great vintage but relates to the import of goods into Canada in a certain part of northern British Columbia contrary to the customs regulations. There is urgency because the people of the community concerned are attempting to develop a brief for presentation to the government and this information is most necessary in the preparation of that brief. Would the parliamentary secretary look at the matter from that point of view to see whether or not a response can be given next week?


James Alexander Jerome: I would be only too glad to do that, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining motions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. In light of the statement made by the Minister of Transport to the recent meeting of the Nova Scotia Liberal Association to the effect that DREE areas need stronger goals to guide their development, and in light of similar criticisms by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, the Atlantic Development Council, the Atlantic Provinces Economic Council and the Canadian Council on Rural Development, is the minister now prepared to act on the advice of these agencies and announce more coherent development policies and goals for DREE in the immediate future?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I read a statement by the administrator of the city of Saint John, New Brunswick, praising the department and saying it is the best thing that has happened to the maritimes since confederation.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if he is now prepared to answer my question, which is very important, because apparently he does not share the views of the Minister of Transport.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



PRESENCE IN SPEAKER'S GALLERY OF PRESIDENT OF SOCIALIST FEDERAL REPUBLIC OF YUGOSLAVIA

Mr. Speaker:: I should like to draw the attention of hon. members to the presence in the Speaker's gallery of a
(Mr. Yewchuk.]
November 3, 1971

very distinguished official guest of Canada, the President of the Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, His Excellency, Josip Broz Tito.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: President Tito, as hon. members know, is making his first official visit to Canada. On behalf of all members of this House may I say, Sir, that we welcome you and the members of your party most cordially to our nation's Parliament. We trust that your visit with us and the discussions that you will have here on topics of mutual interest will further enhance the already friendly relations between our two countries. We sincerely hope, Mr. President, that your stay in Ottawa and in the other cities that you will soon be visiting, will be both enjoyable and fruitful, and that you will take back with you impressions and memories of the respect and good will, and of the most cordial welcome of all Canadians.

May I add, Mr. President, that we have a grateful recollection of the hospitality you showed a delegation of Canadian parliamentarians on a visit to Yugoslavia in the spring of 1970. My colleagues are eager to greet in Canada a delegation of Yugoslav parliamentarians.
Again, Mr. President, on behalf of the House of Commons, I cordially welcome you and your wife to Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in view of the very proper interruption I wonder whether I might repeat the question since I did not get an answer to it. I should like to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion whether, in light of the statement made by the Minister of Transport to the annual meeting of the Nova Scotia Liberal Association to the effect that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think it is necessary for the hon. member to repeat the whole question. Even if he received no answer, I am sure the minister heard the question. The hon. member might invite the minister to reply, but it should not be necessary for him to repeat the question in all its details.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I then ask the minister whether he shares the view of the Minister of Transport to the effect that DREE areas need stronger goals to guide their development, similar views having been expressed by all agencies which are charged by Parliament with giving the minister advice?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, like the Minister of Transport, I feel that still more funds should be available for regional
Inquiries of the Ministry
development, even if, during the past two years, we have tripled our expenditures, mainly in the Maritimes.


James Aloysius McGrath: May I try to ask the minister another question. In view of the criticisms coming from all sides to the effect that the minister's department is too heavily involved in infrastructure expenditures, is it his intention to review the expenditures of his department to see if this is so?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Premier of New Brunswick, the hon. Richard Hatfield, made a proposal to me with regard to the renewal of the agreement, and 40 per cent of the funds provided for infrastructure were included in that proposal.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is obviously debate and I would hope we would not pursue the discussion on this basis. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East on a supplementary question.



DEVELOPMENT OF INFRASTRUCTURE FOR CREATION OF MAJOR MARKETING CENTRE IN HALIFAX-DARTMOUTH AREA

Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: This is not a point of debate, Mr. Speaker, but legitimate questioning. I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It also arises out of his colleague's statement during the weekend in Halifax. Can the minister say whether or not, in light of the unusual delay in getting on with the infrastructure development for what the minister described as the necessity of developing a major marketing complex in the Atlantic provinces, he is now prepared to heed the advice of his colleague and overcome the difficulties that seem to be standing in the way of the development of the infrastructure for the creation of a major marketing centre in the Halifax-Dartmouth area?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I regret, but not one of the governments of the Atlantic provinces has claimed that we were spending too much on infrastructure. On the contrary, they all asked that we spend more.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East for a last supplementary question on this point and return to the subject in a short while after we have had the first round of questions.


J. Michael Forrestall: My question to the minister is whether or not his department, he himself and the government recognize the principle enunciated by his colleague that the Atlantic area needs a major marketing centre, and is he prepared to accept that principle and do something about it?

November 3, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, we are bringing considerable attention to this problem.



INCOME TAX


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: In
the absence of the Minister of Finance may I direct my question to his parliamentary secretary who has shown himself very knowledgeable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: But without any heart.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: My question arises out of the announcement by the Minister of Finance yesterday that part of the provincial income tax levied by the provinces is to be raised with the consent of the federal government from 30 per cent to 30.5 per cent. Since this is an incremental tax rather than an abatement, may I ask the parliamentary secretary how many millions of dollars this will add to the total tax burden being paid by personal income taxpayers?


Mr. P. M. Mahoney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest, with respect to the hon. member, that the question he has asked seeks statistical information and I wonder whether in those terms it is acceptable. If the parliamentary secretary could reply briefly without referring to statistical information the question might be allowed.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member misunderstands the significance of the 30.5 figure. That is the ceiling of provincial taxes that the federal government would permit if its revenue guarantee is to be effective to the provinces. What levy the provinces themselves establish, what percentage of federal tax they establish as their provincial tax, is a matter that is entirely within the discretion of their own legislatures. This is merely a ceiling after which, if they exceed that figure, the federal government would not offer the revenue guarantee.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I recognize that this increase is within the area which the federal government is allowing and that there are additional amounts over which the federal government has no control. However, in view of the fact this half of one per cent increase will not reduce the amount which the federal government will be collecting and is not a tax abatement, what additional burden will be added to the personal income taxpayers of this country? May I point out that the government surely must have made an estimate of this before it made this offer to the provinces.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: That figure of course could not be given until we know what the ten provincial legislatures determine what their provincial tax rates will be.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Could he say whether negotiations are going on between the federal and Quebec governments, concerning the establishment of a mining exploration program in northwestern Quebec, under the ARDA program and, in the affirmative, can we expect that an agreement will soon be reached?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I can inquire so as to be able to give the latest news on this subject to the hon. member, and I could perhaps give him an answer tomorrow or Friday.



EVALUATIONS OF PROGRAMS IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES-INTRODUCTION OF NEW PLAN

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion a supplementary question. The eighth annual review of the Economic Council of Canada made a specific recommendation that his department should undertake program evaluations of all its programs in Quebec and specifically in the Atlantic region. Have these evaluations been carried out and, if so, when will they be made public?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think that those programs are constantly reviewed. We do not intend to present a general report to the House, but since those programs have been in effect for a few years, it would undoubtedly be interesting to report to the House in order that a general debate may be held on the matter.


John Howard Lundrigan: In view of the fact there has been no appreciable change in the unemployment rate in the Atlantic area compared with the rest of the country-in fact, it has gone up-is the government prepared to accept the recommendation of the Atlantic Development Council that there be instituted a new plan or a new development strategy for regional development in the Atlantic region?


Jean Marchand: I cannot answer that question, Mr. Speaker, for the simple reason that the hon. member's premises are wrong and that the unemployment rate in the Maritimes in comparison with the total rate has declined since the establishment of the department.
November 3, 1971


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This, of course, is debate. The hon. member for Egmont has been seeking the floor on a supplementary and the Chair will recognize him and then the hon. member for Edmonton West.


James Aloysius McGrath: The minister should resign. Let somebody else get on with the job.


Mr. Maclnnis:: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond rises on a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: My point of order arises from the fact that the Chair fails to draw to the attention of members of the cabinet, on occasions when they express opinions instead of giving answers to questions, that they are out of order. It is time the government was prevented from expressing opinions that are not in accordance with the facts.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has just done this on behalf of the Chair and I am grateful to him. The hon. member for Edmonton West.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have raised some very serious questions which the minister, in his characteristic way, refused to answer. More specifically I would like to know, and I think the House is entitled to know, which policy prevails within the Department of Regional Economic Expansion. Is it the policy expounded in Halifax last week by the Minister of Transport, which appears to be a departure, or is it the policy persistently followed in this House by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member knows that this is a debate. It has nothing to do with a point of order. The Chair has already recognized the hon. member for Edmonton West.
He *	*



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In light of the very numerous and strong representations made by the provincial Ministers of Finance regarding fundamental points in the dominion-provincial financial accords which end on March 31, 1972 with respect to changes in the stabilization formula, the equalization formula, and the tax credit system, would the Prime Minister tell the House if consideration is being given to extending both the agenda and the time of the first ministers' conference two weeks hence to take in these matters, or will these subjects be carried forward to some future conference on
Inquiries of the Ministry
the eve of the renewing of these agreements in March next year?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the plan would be for the Ministers of Finance and provincial treasurers to report to the first ministers' conference, and at that conference we would attempt to reach a solution acceptable to everyone. If we found we did not have enough time in the three days set aside for the first ministers' conference, then it might be necessary to have a further meeting of Ministers of Finance, say in December. We have not planned such a further meeting because we are hopeful progress will be made at the first ministers' conference. But the eventualities may cause one.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In light of the very fundamental nature of these representations which go to the heart of the federal-provincial financial accords, would the Prime Minister agree that a conference of first ministers would be necessary at the earliest possible moment in order to take up these matters so that we can get a sensible agreement in March, or are we to be faced with a fait accompli?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would certainly agree with that. That is why we are going to be discussing those subjects, based on the reports from the finance ministers, when we meet 13 days from now.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday the Prime Minister, in answer to a question from me, said he would pass it on to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will the minister express to the government of South Africa the concern of the Canadian people at the sentence of five years' imprisonment imposed on the Anglican Dean of Johannesburg for activities that amounted to political opposition to the system of apartheid, for which the United Nations and this country have frequently expressed their abhorrence?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I share the abhorrence of the hon. member, as I am sure do all members of the House, to apartheid in South Africa. However, I should point out to the hon. member that the very reverend gentleman is now free on bail awaiting the result of an appeal against his sentence, and I do not think it would be quite proper at this time for me to express a view such as that which he has asked me to express. I can assure him, however, that the views expressed by the Canadian government in general are exactly the same as his own. The sooner apartheid ends in South Africa the better the world will be.


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, a supplementary question.

November 3, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us why the Dean of the Anglican Church in Johannesburg was condemned and why the reasons my hon. colleague gave are totally contrary to the facts submitted before the court in Johannesburg?


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Sainte-Marie wishes to put a supplementary to the previous question.


FINANCE
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one put by my colleague to the Right Honourable Prime Minister about the tax basis sharing between the provinces.
Does the Right Honourable Prime Minister intend to amend the tax basis sharing arrangement during the present session or are these measures contemplated for the next session only?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the present arrangements will expire next spring. However, it is anticipated that new arrangements will be entered into between the provinces and the federal government before the expiration date. The government will report to the House in due course.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
I would like to ask the Prime Minister for further details. Is his answer to be construed as to mean that the provinces simply cannot hope that the tax basis sharing will be changed before 1972 or 1973?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, since the present agreements will only come to an end in several months hence, we are certainly not contemplating the unilateral termination of those agreements before they run out.


RECONSIDERATION OF CANCELLATION OF RESEARCH GRANT TO NATIONAL CANCER INSTITUTE
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxlord):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the minister's loudly and frequently announced concern about cancer and its relationship to tobacco, will he reconsider his decision to cut off federal grants for cancer research through the National Cancer Institute?


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Hon. lohn C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, for many years we have supported the institute of which the hon. member speaks and we are
(Mr. Rondeau.]
prepared to discuss their budget with them again. I would advise, though, that much federal money goes into cancer research of one kind or another, most of it through the Medical Research Council.


DISCUSSIONS WITH TOBACCO INDUSTRY ON TERMINATION DATE FOR CIGARETTE ADVERTISING
Mr. Barry Mather (Surrey-White Rock):: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister indicate the status and, hopefully, the progress of the talks which I understand are going on between representatives of his department and the tobacco industry in regard to the termination date for all cigarette advertising?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, there are technical discussions going on almost continuously between the department and the tobacco interests, but as far as the termination date is concerned we know nothing more than what the tobacco manufacturers themselves have said. They have publicly announced that, in terms of broadcasting, their termination date is the end of this year.


Barry Mather: Is it not a fact that the meetings that are taking place are seeking to establish a target date for the termination of all cigarette advertising?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary is in the form of argument.


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE ANNOUNCEMENT OF AGENDA FOR MEETING OF FIRST MINISTERS
Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Considering that the prime ministers are going to meet in a few days' time, I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the program of that meeting has been decided upon, and whether it will be made public before the opening of the conference. Also, in view of the concern expressed by some provinces about implementation of the new tax system, will this issue be discussed with the prime ministers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I followed the usual procedure of submitting to provincial premiers, two or three weeks ago, a draft program based on the issues that the provinces and ourselves feel should be discussed. Again according to established procedure, the first thing that the conference will do will be to agree to that program or amend it-and only then will the program be made public.
However, as I said earlier when I answered a question from a member of the Social Credit party, I think, and another one from the Progressive Conservative member for Sainte-Marie (Mr. Valade), it is the intention of the government to discuss the tax sharing arrangements if the provinces so wish.
November 3, 1971


SHORTAGE OF CANADIAN-TRAINED MEDICAL DOCTORS AND PERSONNEL-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON GOVERNMENT PROPOSALS
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Recognizing the great fear and anxiety in the hearts of the Canadian people over the acute shortage of doctors and the great uncertainty of any action being taken to prevent further deterioration, would the minister be prepared to make a statement in the House in the very near future outlining proposals to combat the shortage of doctors and Canadian-trained medical personnel?


John Carr Munro: I have made many statements on the very meritorious actions, I think, taken by the government in this area. I am sure the hon. member has copies of those statements.


Philip Bernard Rynard: The other day the minister stated certain facts regarding what he was doing. Many members of the House have asked me what is really going on behind the scenes. I am only asking him to make a statement to the House on what the proposals are.


An hon. Member:: What do you have to hide?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, to answer the hon. member, in reply to his question last week, I indicated our view of the matter and what is being done about it.




Mr. Robert Borrie (Prince George-Peace River):: My
question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the great public concern about the dangers of radioactivity along with other effects from the United States atom bomb test at Amchitka, would the minister advise what steps are being taken by the government to monitor radioactive fallout?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that this question was asked and answered yesterday. If there was some aspect of the matter that was overlooked, the minister might be allowed to reply briefly.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, we have sent a research aircraft up to Alaska where I understand it will be accorded the same privileges as United States research aircraft in monitoring the blast later this week.


AMCHITKA NUCLEAR TEST-DECLARATION BY UNITED STATES OF 50-MILE CONTROL ZONE
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secre-
Inquiries of the Ministry
tary of State for External Affairs. I gave his parliamentary secretary notice of the question, although it was short notice. Has the United States unilaterally declared a control zone in the vicinity of the Amchitka nuclear test which would alter the established three-mile limit and, if so, what is its radius and does such control zone have the effect of inhibiting the usual right of innocent passage on the high seas?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the United States has proclaimed a control zone in which there may be danger some 50 miles around the island of Amchitka. It has also restricted the right of innocent passage even within the three-mile territorial seas of the United States. This, I understand, is the factual situation, Mr. Speaker. Whether it does contravene the established law of the seas I do not know but my offhand opinion is that it does.


AMCHITKA NUCLEAR TEST-SIGNING BY PRIME MINISTER OF MEMBERS' PROTEST TELEGRAM
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister. Since the Prime Minister has frequently suggested to the House that the best way for us as members to express our opposition to the test at Amchitka is through some form of united action, can he inform the House whether his signature will be among those of the other members of the House on the telegram going to the United States protesting this test?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I should point out that the best form of collective action by this House is the resolution adopted by the House. I remind the hon. member that the resolution was introduced by the government and therefore it had our support and my personal support. I was present at the time of the vote, which I regret to say is not true of the leaders of the other parties.


PROPOSED ATMOSPHERE NUCLEAR TESTS BY FRANCE- CANADIAN GOVERNMENT PROTEST
Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the announcement that atmosphere nuclear tests will be conducted by France, is the government going to protest formally and immediately against these tests?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
. Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I should inform the hon. gentleman that the resolution to which the Prime Minister has referred was presented to the French foreign ministry as soon as it was approved by this House. It expressed our general view about nuclear tests and if the French government does intend to proceed with a test we shall make our views known at that time.


Gerald William Baldwin: Before or after?

November 3, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


SUGGESTED ESTABLISHMENT OF 50-MILE CONTROL ZONE OFF EAST COAST OF CANADA TO CONSERVE FISHERY RESOURCES
James Aloysius McGrath: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the action of the United States in establishing a 50-mile so-called control zone, is the minister prepared to take similar action and establish a 50-mile control zone off the east coast of Canada to protect our continental shelf and conserve our fisheries?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think we have taken greater and more effective action than any other country in the world in extending-


Some hon. Members:: Where?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are a number of hon. members seeking an opportunity to ask questions. Perhaps we might allow the hon. member for Skeena one last supplementary on this important matter and then continue with the next subject.


AMCHITKA NUCLEAR TEST-GOVERNMENT ACTION AT UNITED NATIONS
Frank Howard: I have a supplementary for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Inasmuch as the minister agrees it is more important to stop the bomb than it is to monitor the potential danger after the blast, what action has he or the government taken with regard to keeping this matter alive at the United Nations, either in the General Assembly or the Security Council, and what support have we from other member nations of that body?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think it is fair to say that Canada has taken the lead of all countries in protesting the Amchitka test.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: We have made our views known in the United Nations and to the United States government. I am very happy to see that Canadians generally are supporting the Canadian government in the views it has expressed. I only hope the advice will be taken that support is not expressed in ways that are counter-productive.


Frank Howard: A supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate we should go on to another subject. If there is time at the end of the question period we will return to the hon. member who might have a supplementary.


ATOMIC ENERGY
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Could he tell the House whether he had talks or an exchange of letters with the Premier of Quebec about the building of a heavy water plant at Montmagny?


Jean Marchand: Mo, Mr. Speaker.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker.
Can the minister tell us whether he has had discussions or any contacts with a company or corporation planning to build a heavy water plant in Montmagny and to this end soliciting a grant from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?


Jean Marchand: No, Mr. Speaker.


NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can the minister inform the House when we may expect the long anticipated announcement about the exact location of a third national park in Nova Scotia and, specifically, whether this announcement may be timed to coincide with the upcoming Nova Scotia by-elections?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have two objections to the question asked. I have an objection to the question and to the supplementary. In a general way I suggest to hon. members that I doubt whether it is in order to ask questions about national parks. I know these are very important and questions are asked every day. I think that often these questions ought normally to be asked in writing rather than during the question period. If there is urgency, they can be considered at the time of adjournment. In the case of the hon. member, if it is a matter of urgency the question can be considered when we hear the questions which have been delayed for the adjournment period.


WELFARE
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: My
question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister advise the House what progress is being made in consultation with the provinces with regard
November 3, 1971

to pilot projects for a guaranteed annual income and what provinces have expressed interest in participating?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, to date the provinces that have expressed interest and I believe are taking action in mounting projects are Ontario and Manitoba.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: I have a question for the Postmaster General. I wish to welcome him back to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Where were you?


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying to ask this question for the past three weeks and I have not been able to catch the Postmaster General in the House. In view of the large number of parcels lost by theft from post offices and post office boxes across Canada during the last Christmas season, especially parcels addressed to senior citizens, old age pensioners and others,-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: -for which no compensation was paid because the parcels were not insured, will the minister consider at this time-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask the question because he will again miss the Postmaster General.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am glad you support me. Will the minister consider at this time making a statement to the Canadian public impressing upon them the desirability of insuring all valuable parcels so that this will not occur again? Do it! Advertise it!


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, first of all, the hon. member's lecture on attendance is unwarranted as I believe myself to be one of those with the best attendance record here.
I was in the House yesterday and I could also have wondered about his attendance. Last week I attended the Postmasters Conference in Regina and that is perhaps one of the only days I was not in the House.
Regarding the hon. member's question, I did not quite understand it and he might perhaps repeat it.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I consider this to be a very important matter. About six or seven months ago I asked the Postmaster General to look into some serious thefts in the Ottawa area in the constituency of the Minister of Justice which he could not look into-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Inquiries of the Ministry


Steve Eugene Paproski: I asked him to look into the matter, Sir. On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I appreciate that the hon. member may want to reiterate the question he has asked.
I am sure that all hon. members, including the minister, appreciate that the matter is serious. Perhaps the minister might be allowed to reply or indicate whether a reply will be given later. There is not much point in raising the matter again on a point of order because we will be running short of time very soon.


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, I do not know yet whether I am being asked a question or if a suggestion is being made to me. If the hon. member suggests that I use every means available so that there will not be so many thefts at Christmas, I will answer that, every day, we try to take all necessary measures to ensure delivery of all parcels.
As for next Christmas, we have advised all postmasters to make doubly sure, when they hire additional staff for delivery of parcels, that these people are honest.


Mr. Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Minister of Justice is rising on a question of privilege.


John Napier Turner: I just want to assure the House that I was doing very well with the Postmaster General until the hon. member got into it.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which has been aired in the House on several occasions. I draw Your Honour's attention to the fact there is a qualification attached to all questions asked in the House, namely, that they must be urgent and national in nature. I say that the urgency of questions has been completely destroyed by the roster system imposed on the House by the Prime Minister. It rules out the element of urgency. We must either change the rules applied to questions or the cabinet of this country must be responsible to every member of this House and be present to answer questions.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Some hon. Members:: Where is your leader?


Mr. Bell:: Assiniboia. You will find out on Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the right hon. member for Prince Albert. He will be recognized in a moment.


An hon. Member:: Here is your real leader.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond seeks the floor on a further point of order or question of privilege.

November 3, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Donald MacInnis: The Prime Minister is asking where my leader is. He is in the west, serving the nation by eliminating the possibility of this government strengthening itself by electing another member.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: That is hardly a question of privilege. I think that at this point we should give the right hon. member for Prince Albert a chance to ask his question because we have come to the end of the question period.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Dieienbaker:: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Well, I would not want to bring up anything that would be provocative.


POSSIBLE RE-INTRODUCTION OF STABILIZATION BILL-RELATIONSHIP TO BY-ELECTION IN ASSINIBOIA
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether or not, following November 8, there will be introduced in the House a stabilization bill to take the place of the one which was withdrawn, and containing amendments such as were asked for by various farm organizations in western Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is certainly an interesting question coming from an important member of the official opposition party. We are glad to see that some hon. members opposite are at last converted to the stabilization formula. We hope they will convey the message to other members of the party and to their leader. Perhaps we can then discuss this matter and bring it up again in a future session.


John George Diefenbaker: That has become the stock answer, Mr. Speaker; I knew that would be the answer. It leads me to ask the Prime Minister whether or not the Minister of Manpower, speaking in Avonlea, Saskatchewan-a copy of his speech was made available to all of us-undertook that if Jim Hooker is elected-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The hook comes a little later.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: -if Jim Hooker is elected he will get that stabilization bill into and through the House of Commons. Does this mean, if he was speaking as a member of the government, that the Prime Minister has given up all hope of that result in Assiniboia?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have reached the end of the question period but I think we might allow the hon.

member for Winnipeg North Centre to ask a last question before we turn to the orders of the day.


PENSIONS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport? On September 8 and October 8 I asked the minister questions regarding the position of retired employees of the Canadian Pacific Railway and Canadian National Railways and he promised to make further representations to those two companies. Has he anything further to report at this time?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I made representations as I had undertaken to do. I regret to advise the hon. member that within the last few days I have received a letter from Canadian Pacific indicating that they are not prepared at this time to make any further changes in their pension program. Having received this reply, I know of no other course of action left open to me.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has the minister received any reply from the Canadian National with respect to the matter I drew to his attention on October 8?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: No, Mr. Speaker. To the best of my knowledge I have not received a reply from Canadian National on that matter.
I wonder if I might answer a question posed to me yesterday by the right hon. member for Prince Albert.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have pointed out to hon. members that the question period expired three or four minutes ago. The minister could, of course, reply with the consent of the House. Is this agreed?


Mr. McCleave:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, one of my hon. friends had a supplementary to ask in connection with the last question. I think that should be allowed before the minister is permitted to answer a question asked yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: In that case the Chair will call orders of the day.


Mr. Carter:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. For two days I have been trying to put a question to the Minister of Transport on a matter which affects the livelihood of a large number of people.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have made a note of this and I undertake to the hon. member to give him priority tomorrow. I hope the minister will be here to answer his question. Of course, with the consent of the House the hon. member could ask his question now.


An hon. Member:: No.
November 3, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: Again, there is not unanimous consent. I apologize to the hon. member and I undertake to give him priority tomorrow. Orders of the day.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I decided not to raise this point of order until the end of the question period because I did not wish to take up the time of the House during that period.
On October 7 I placed the following question on the order paper:
1.	Was an application for summer employment by Mr. Ian Hayes of Vancouver made to the Public Service of Canada on or about March 15,1971?
2.	In response to this application was any reply ever sent to Mr. Hayes by the Public Service Commission of Canada?
3.	If so, on what date was the reply sent?
4.	What was the purpose of the reply?
Last Monday, the day before yesterday, I received the following reply. I will read the reply. The question appeared somewhat changed and altered compared with the question I placed on the order paper.
1.	Was an application for summer employment by Mr. Ian Hayes of Vancouver made to the Public Service Commission on or about March 15,1971?
Here is one of the changes:
2.	In response to this application, was any reply ever sent to Mr. Hayes by the Public Service Commission and, if so, on what date was the reply sent?
3.	What was the purport of the reply?
My first point of order, Mr. Speaker, is that the whole tenor, the whole meaning, of the question I placed on the order paper was changed when it appeared on the return. Now I come to the reply, which is as follows:
Answered by the Hon. Gerard Pelletier, Secretary of State of Canada.
I am informed by the Public Service Commission as follows:
1.	Yes.
2.	Yes. June 1971.
3.	He was advised that it appeared unlikely that he would be offered employment.
Mr. Speaker, I have in my hand a letter sent to Mr. Ian Hayes and dated August 31, 1971. The letter reads as follows:
Dear Mr. Hayes,
Your application submitted to the Public Service Commission of Canada for summer employment has been reviewed.
Your interest in our program has been appreciated, but it now appears unlikely that you will be offered employment.
My second point of order is this: I very properly object to receiving completely wrong information in reply to written questions, and I hope the Secretary of State will carefully check into this matter with the Public Service Commission in an attempt to prevent unfortunate incidents such as this taking place in the future whereby the House is misled and minsinformed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There is a slight procedural difficulty. Orders of the day have been called. However,
Economic Relations with United States
perhaps with the consent of the House the hon. member for Peace River might speak. I appreciate that he is rising on a point of order concerning the business for this afternoon.


Gerald William Baldwin: The point of order is that there has been a discussion with regard to the length of the speeches and, while no firm agreement has been reached, the general understanding is that the first speaker from each party might speak for 30 minutes and that thereafter speeches should be limited to 15 minutes. On our side these limits will be strictly adhered to. This is the suggestion I make to the House with the hope that hon. members will accept it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we agree to the times suggested, and we wholeheartedly support the proposition that no one ask for overtime.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed and so ordered?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough) moved:: That this House, noting the continuing deterioration of communication on the basis of common interest and mutual respect between the government of Canada and the government of the United States, condemns the government for failing to employ and improve firm and constructive economic and political relations with the United States, and, at the same time, for failing to develop a new economic policy which would strengthen our economic independence and fully employ our growing and highly-skilled human resources.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the last time I led off an opposition day to debate matters dealing with the external relations of Canada was May 28, less than half a year ago. That debate was brought on by feelings of discomfort and anxiety on account of the government's actions, and more particularly and painfully by the injudicious utterances of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the Soviet Union. Some of the same elements of concern are among the motivations for this motion and debate.
During the five months since, there have been some vast and at times perilous changes. Today the conduct of our foreign policy, especially our relationships with the United States, is far from being an intellectual exercise or a philosophic exchange. There are problems in the economic field that are of enormous gravity and very serious portent. Canada is not a great power, nor a super power. We are not, however, among the least nations in the world; not large enough to be feared, we are not so small as to be despised. We are not neophytes in diplomacy. We are a charter member of the United Nations, as we were a
9298

November 3, 1971
Economic Relations with United States
charter member of the League, and in large measure this country was the creator of the modern Commonwealth of Nations.
We have been activists in multitudinous international bodies and we do have a concern for the wider world. But for a host of reasons, some voluntary and some involuntary, our relations with the United States are the most vital, the most absorbing and of greatest concern and interest to all Canadian citizens. Indeed, it might be said that 90 per cent of our foreign policy concerns our relations with the United States and the conduct of those relations. If we have today reached the stage where Canada-United States relations are in confusion, disarray or in jeopardy, we are, Sir, at a very grave situation.
It is, I fear, painfully apparent that we are at such an unwelcome and potentially hurtful phase. Any government that presides over the deterioration of Canada-United States relations bears a fearful and awful responsibility before the Canadian people, because the fallout of such deterioration could penetrate and injure every nook and cranny of our economic structure. Let us, therefore, not minimize the seriousness and the gravity of the matter placed before us by this motion today.
I would be less than candid if I suggested that the government of Canada was solely responsible for the unhappy situation now prevailing. But I would be myopic and irresponsible in my role as a parliamentarian if I did not try to analyse the contributions that have been made, willingly or unwillingly, wittingly or perhaps unwittingly, by the government of this country to the decline in our once close relationship with our southern neighbour.
Nor should any of us, regardless of party, pretend that there has not been a decline, that communications are as they used to be or as they should be. It would be naive, regrettably naive, perhaps dangerously nalVe, to suggest that all is well. So it is the purpose of this debate to examine the conduct of Canadian foreign policy in relationship to the United States to see wherein errors and miscalculations have been made, and hopefully to find avenues for more useful, practical exploration and operation.
In the last few months there have been developments in the- broader world in which Canada has played a part and some to which we have been merely a witness. There have been momentous and interesting developments. There have been alterations, at least, in the postures of the great powers, and there has been a great change in the complexion and composition of the United Nations. Sometimes, perhaps in response to some of these larger moves and developments, the government of Canada has adopted postures, has taken positions, or has followed courses of action which have been unhelpful to its essential association with the United States.
I think, Sir, at a time of such great sensitivity as this, and on a matter of such fundamental importance, that we must all be especially alert, particularly careful in our utterances, in our evaluations, in our judgments and in our appreciations. Diplomacy, like domestic politics, is anything but a static thing. It is not bound and shackled by the narrow confines or the brittle rigidities of the past. Changes, new developments, new emphases and new priorities emerge and must be tested and evaluated. I am

unsympathetic-and here I speak euphemistically-with those who would seek to bind us forever in the pessimistic and rigid postures of the cold war. The tough doctrines of the Dulles era doubtless played their part and served their purposes, and we may indeed owe much of our present existence to their efficacy. But they may not serve us well in today's realities. President Truman in his time was one of the world's greatest statesmen, but these times are not his times.
I welcome the opening out of relations and the broadening of contacts between the United States and the People's Republic of China, and between the United States and the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. I believe that President Nixon has shown statesmanship and realism in his decisions to move into a new era of closer contact and, perhaps-who knows?-closer understandings between his country and the vast nation ruled by the men at Peking. I hope that his visit to that country will be useful and valuable. I think that efforts to scale the great walls of separation and misunderstanding are all to the good.
I was particularly happy that the leader of my party was one of the first western statesmen to visit China in the new era of acceptance by that country of people and leaders from our part of the world. While at the time I expressed criticism of the utterances of the Prime Minister of Canada in the Soviet Union-and I still regard those utterances as unwise, unhelpful and improper-I nevertheless believe that contacts between our two countries and visits by the people of our two countries should be encouraged, and hopefully will be productive of a degree of common good. We would all welcome that.
The recent weeks have been interesting. We have seen a renaissance of summitry. This is not to be scorned, it is to be welcomed. Indeed, we almost see before us in the world a sort of mobile or perambulatory Congress of Vienna as statesmen from all over the world make visits, though none of us believe, as we would not believe about earlier activities, that all is altruism and that the old norms of realpolitick have been discarded as the leaders of the great powers move about on the world's stage and engage in competition for acceptance. The only danger, as I see it, in summitry is when summitry is accompanied by naivete, and some of us are old enough to remember the tragic and inane example of this when that pathetic figure, Neville Chamberlain, was for an unhappy and tragic space of time one of the leaders of the western world. In his complete acceptance of what he was told, he apparently lost the capacity to evaluate what he should have seen.
In the current summitry among the great power leaders, I believe we can count upon a general and useful realism. While advances may be made in understanding, while gains may be achieved in accommodation, there will be no forgetfulness of such hard realities as Hungary, Czechoslovakia, the Berlin wall, naval penetration in the Mediterranean, Tibet, Korea, or the Bay of Pigs and many other crude emanations of power politics on the international scene. Indeed, it is well that among great powers today there is a degree of realism. In that realism there may be for some of us much less powerful, much less important, a not inconsiderable hope, if not an option of security.
November 3, 1971

I will not soon forget the opportunity of being at the United Nations in 1963 when two world powers brought us to the very razor edge of a lethal confrontation, but finally they looked at matters and at one another squarely and found a course of action that just in time moved us all away from the abyss. But it is not to these factors and areas over which we do not have control that I want to direct our attention today. We must look at our own conduct of Canadian foreign policies and ask if any new ingredients have been added recently which have brought new concern to our own people, or surprise, mystification and anxiety to many of our friends abroad.
In the Ottawa Citizen of October 28 I read a Canadian Press report which stated:
One senior Liberal MP said "there is nothing wrong with developing closer ties with Russia. In advancing the process of this friendship Mr. Trudeau went to Russia and made a gratuitous insult about an American military threat to Canada, and then Premier Kosygin comes here and criticizes American economic policy. Is that any way to make new friendships."
Another member of Parliament, the very distinguished member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Blair), who has had extensive experience at the United Nations and other international bodies, wrote in his weekly column:
-we must not permit ourselves to be used by the Soviet or any other government for the purpose of breaking up ancient friendships and important alliances. We should not become a backboard channel for attacks on the United States. We should be careful in making new friends, that we do not offend our old friends.
When these matters to which members of the opposing party refer are brought up, we should be concerned, they should be concerned, and I commend them for being concerned, because it is our right and duty to do some serious thinking and make a careful analysis of such matters.
The leader of my party is not one who is given to extreme or inflammatory statements, but I believe he spoke for the great majority of Canadians when he said a couple of days ago:
-it is perfectly legitimate . . . for Canada to improve its relations with the Soviet Union. It is inappropriate, it is stupid for Canadian spokesmen to use a Soviet platform, or to encourage Soviet leaders to use a Canadian platform to attack the United States.
The leader of my party was in China a matter of months ago, and he was in the Soviet Union prior to that. I am sure he spoke there with his usual candour and forthrightness, as well as his moderation. I am sure he displayed the friendliness which has always characterized him, but it is notable that in these discussions he did not find it necessary in establishing entree with the leaders of the Soviet Union and the People's Republic of China to denigrate, denounce or even to snipe at the United States. I am indeed confident that he made a worthy contribution toward better understanding between that country and the countries he was visiting. We are all supposed to be in favour of that.
If the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) can do it, I would suggest that others less restrained and less moderate might, in the words of Patrick Henry, profit by his example. No one suggests that this country need or should react with supine acceptance to every diplomatic lead of the United States. This has never been necessary before. I had the honour of supporting a government a few years ago which found itself capable and competent of disagree-
Economic Relations with United States
ing vigorously and forcefully with the United States when Canadian interests were endangered.


An hon. Member:: It was fighting with them all the time.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: It is too bad I cannot reciprocate. I do not believe in making my speeches from the posture that the hon. gentleman is displaying, so I cannot do so. If he is enjoying himself, he can go right ahead.


Gerald William Baldwin: We would have more intelligent heckling if you did so.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I do not believe the Canadian delegation at the United Nations should have voted for the United States resolution regarding China because the United States proposed it. I think it should have voted for it because the expulsion of Formosa or Taiwan was a cruel act, and one for which the government of Canada had no mandate from the people. If I were not limited to 30 minutes I could produce chapter and verse right up to the eve of polling on that matter in 1968.
I will not take the time to refer to many of these statements made at the United Nations, in this chamber and in other chambers as well as to the Canadian people to indicate, when the appropriate time came, the callous and cruel abandonment by this government of its own position in reference to the universality of U.N. membership. In the process, we indulged in cold compression upon any possible effort in the foreseeable future by the Formosan people to work out for themselves a new degree of selfdetermination and eventual recognition by and admission to that world body. If the people across the way are proud of that, let them say so, but I do not think it is anything of which Canada should be proud.
Nor do I find that my high regard for the United States as a great neighbour and as a great nation prevents me or should prevent any other Canadian from deploring and decrying its president's decision to go ahead, against so much social and scientific opinion in his own country and others, with the Amchitka test. This has been discussed before. I am no more enthusiastic about his doing it than I am about the French doing it or the other two powers who tell us after they have done it, that is the Chinese and the Soviet Union.
A good neighbour policy does not require acquiescence from a smaller neighbour. Solidarity does not require eternal and constant uniformity of opinion on every given issue, but realism dictates that no government in Canada should recklessly engage upon a rampage of anti-Americanism without being prepared to face some painful consequences. Not that the United States will or should indulge in retaliation for our seeming recalcitrance, but because our relations are so close, our ties so intimate, our interdependence so great we require a special relationship. We require a continuing capacity to speak in a special way to retain that special relationship. It is the loss of this- good understanding that worries me today and which worries the people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I care not how often the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) goes to Moscow, to Peking, to Belgrade, to
24372-29*

November 3, 1971
Economic Relations with United States
Samarkand or to the Coral Reefs, but I wonder why he does not go to Washington. I wonder why, in this crucial time, the Ottawa-Washington hotline has gone dead, has grown cold. I wonder why when I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) about a measure or about an opinion which is important, and which should be conveyed to the United States, I receive a reply through indirect discourse that the United States knows our position, that they hear our speeches at the United Nations and know our opinions. However, when we ask if that opinion was conveyed to Washington we do not get the answer "yes"; that is the problem.
With all due deference to Mackenzie King, indirect discourse is not the way to do it. On this matter of Amchitka which troubles us today we have reached the stage where there is one man and one man alone in this country who can make contact with the one man in the United States who has the decision. The Congress of the United States has very clearly and definitely laid the matter at the doorstep of the President. The chief executive of this country is the Prime Minister. He is the man to contact the President even at the eleventh hour. How far are we removed from the days of the good neighbour, the era of Franklin Roosevelt and Mackenzie King, when our leaders spoke freely and regularly on matters concerning our countries. How far are we removed from the spirit of Hyannis Port of which we heard a few years ago. When a phone call cannot and will not be placed, the Canadian people have a right to know why. What has happened? Do we have nothing but indirect discourse for the transmission of opinions? Is that all we have left?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mitchell William Sharp: Resolutions of Parliament.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members will remember there is an order of the House that there cannot be an extension of time, so the hon. member really should be given a chance to complete his remarks without interruption.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I assume I have eight minutes, Mr. Speaker, and will use seven of them. I say to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, if he can hear me through the patter of the seated orators around him, why cannot the once good neighbours converse as they used to converse. I ask why, in a day of very, very serious economic problems and difficulties in the economic relations between the two countries, there is not some form of summitry at the Ottawa-Washington level. That is the question which should be asked and must be answered. We cannot be a Yugoslavia. I read that a great British newspaper believes Mr. Trudeau wants to be a western Tito. He cannot be a General de Gaulle. That may be appealing but that is not for Canada. We cannot for many reasons, hard reasons, such as geography, history, economics and all the rest, forsake our role as an important integrated ally of the United States. All the talk about countervailing forces, and all the talk about enjoyable anti-Americanism, will never remove the hard facts of life which make it necessary for us to deal with the United States from strength, in our own interests, and not leave it all to indirect discourse.
I say to the Prime Minister, let not brittleness, pique, pride or petulance prevent him from contacting the President of the United States on these grave economic issues which are hurting our people. We have had enough economic suffering from the atrocious bungling of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: This country does not need a further economic burden placed upon its people because of the bungling in respect of the relations between the two countries, the United States and Canada. That is the great problem. I say to the Prime Minister, let him not miss an opportunity to speak in friendliness, to speak in frankness and candor, but for heavens sake to speak to the government of the United States. We have had our troubles with the United States. It does not require a genius to point out its errors or to dilate upon its inequities and inequalities, but there is still no substitute for a good working relationship between our two countries.
It is not so long ago that we had the President of the united States in this very Chamber. I refer to President Kennedy who was here a decade ago. How long ago it seems since he was introduced by the present member for Prince Albert, who was then the Prime Minister. The then Prime Minister referred to another New Englander, Robert Frost, and referred to that poet's inscription on the guest book of Hebrew University in Jerusalem in these words, "Something there is that does not love a wall-it is friendship".
In these difficult and trying days there is too much sniping and too little understanding, too much sniping and too little dialoguing, too much grandstanding and too little understanding.
But we all remember, those of us who were here, what the young President said. He spoke about the realities that bound our two countries to a destiny which cannot be dealt with callously or casually. He said:
Geography has made us neighbours. History has made us friends. Economics has made us partners. And necessity has made us allies. Those whom nature hath so joined together let no man put asunder-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I actually hear groans from members in this House.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: From the Moscuvites.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I must say I am not at all ashamed to honour the memory and words of the former President of the United States. I would say that if any constituent or fellow Canadian of mine thought I was jeering at or mocking his words I would be very quick to deny that I had anything to do with such intellectual indecency. I am not reluctant to say that these great words, the aspirations uttered at that time and the admonitions set forth, are eminently worthy of consideration and adoption today. It does not upset me that the House has displayed unusually bad manners on a matter which should commend itself to top priority considerations. If the economic well-being of Canadians, if relations between this country and its most important neighbour, are not important, I wonder how far down the road of irresponsibility we have in fact gone.
(Mr. Macquarrie.]
November 3, 1971


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the motion which has been placed before us by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) provides the House with an excellent opportunity to debate Canada's role in a changing world and to discuss our relations with other countries, particularly with neighbouring countries. The motion has two substantive items of condemnation. The first condemns the government for failing to employ and improve firm and constructive economic and political relations with the United States, and the second condemns the government:
. .. for failing to develop a new economic policy which would strengthen our economic independence and fully employ our growing and highly skilled human resources.
Since I agree with the second criticism and want to disagree with the first, let me deal with the second criticism first.


Mr. Francis:: At least you are being logical.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Let me say first of all that this party supports the statement in the motion which condemns the government for its failure to develop policies which would strengthen our economic independence. In Canada that has become now rather like being in favour of motherhood and apple pie. I thought there was a good deal of contradiction in the speech made by the hon. member for Hillsborough, since in one breath he wants the government to establish better relations and be more quiescent to the United States and in the next talks about strengthening our economic and political independence. I do not know how you do that except by talking frankly and dwelling in a world of reality, not in a world of sentiment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: There is no doubt that in this country today, in the business world, among working people, farmers and the public generally, there is a growing demand that Canada strengthen its economic independence. That does not mean that we Canadians want to live in a state of economic isolation or self-sufficiency. Canada is a trading nation which must trade in order to live, and we know that we cannot live unto ourselves. But trading relationships with other countries do not imply that we have to turn over to the control of foreign corporations and multinational corporations the control and ownerships of the resources and the economic activities of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Pleading for economic independence does not mean that those who do so are anti-American. This accusation has been thrown many times at those of us who have spoken along this line. As a matter of fact, the other day I raised on two occasions the question of Supertest being taken over by British Petroleum Limited. That is not an American company, but is a company 51 per cent of the shares of which are owned by the government of the United Kingdom. It is really almost a Crown corporation. I am not concerned about whether they are American companies, Japanese, Russian, British, French or German companies. I am opposed to any foreign corpo-
Economic Relations with United States
rations having the decision making power that affects the economic destiny or the welfare of the people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: This does not mean either isolationism or a spirit of animosity to other countries. Sweden, Norway, Switzerland and Japan have all passed legislation limiting the amount of foreign ownership in their respective countries. As a matter of fact, Japan, which has probably received more massive inputs of American capital than any other country in the world, two years ago passed some of the most restrictive legislation that can be found on the statute books of any country limiting the amount of foreign ownership which there can be in that land.
There is no doubt that Canada will always have a special relationship with the United States; 70 per cent of our export trade goes to the United States, and we buy from and sell to the United States more than any other country. Because of our proximity, because of the fact that our economies are to a very large extent complementary, this type of trading relationship is bound to continue, but it must continue on the basis of our being masters in our own house and not on the basis of being renters in our own country with the decisions affecting this country being made elsewhere.
I want to say that I do not think any motion of condemnation can be too strong with respect to the failure of the Liberal government to take effective action to stop this steady erosion of Canadian control of our economy. We have now reached the place where in the last three years 200 take-overs annually by foreign companies have further eroded Canadian control of our economy. The Liberal party has been strong on rhetoric but it has been poor on performance. I need not go back over the speeches of Mr. Walter Gordon when he spoke about buying back the Canadian economy, or the Watkins Commission set up by the former prime minister which reported in 1967 but following whose report virtually nothing has been done, or the task given to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) to look into the question of foreign ownership. I understand that he has made a report to the cabinet which I am convinced we will never be allowed to see. Today that report is virtually dead. This government is giving no indication at all that it intends to take any effective action with respect to the continuing acquisition of Canadian corporations by foreign companies.
Let me turn now to the second ground on which the government is being condemned, that is for failing to employ and improve firm and constructive economic and political relations with the United States. I must say that I am surprised at the way in which this criticism is worded. In recent months there has been a not too subtle campaign carried on in this country, through the press, by some public spokesmen and by the representatives of certain right wing groups, accusing the government of cosying up to the communists and turning their back on our good friends in the United States. The government does not need any defence from me, and I have never proposed to set myself up as one of their defenders. But the fact remains that the statement contained in the motion which we have before us, and the speech made by

November 3, 1971
Economic Relations with United States
the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), seem to be giving effect to exactly that type of campaign.
It is being pointed out, for instance, that the Canadian government voted against the U.S. resolution in the United Nations with respect to the Two-China policy. Well, Mr. Speaker, we in this party have been advocating for years that the government ought to recognize the People's Republic of China and, if we recognized the People's Republic of China we could not also recognize the nationalist government as the government of China. There could not be two governments for China. When the hon. member for Hillsborough criticizes that position, may I remind the House that for 20 years the governments of Great Britain and France have recognized the People's Republic of China as being the government of that country, and not the nationalist government of Taiwan.
There has been criticism of those statements which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made in the Soviet Union. They are described as being unuseful and unhelpful. Yet, Mr. Speaker, it seemed to me that the Prime Minister was dealing in the field of reality, in recognizing the difficulties that faced this country both with respect to our relations with the United States and our relations with the Soviet Union.
I am rather intrigued with the new role which the Conservative party is now presuming to play as the champions of the Americans, and holding themselves forth as the party which is best able to establish amicable relations with our friends across the border because Mr. Speaker, many members of this House will recall the elections of 1962 and 1963 when a program of vilification against the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) and his government was carried on by the United States, by U.S. companies in Canada. The right hon. member for Prince Albert even claimed that officials of the American government were exerting some influence in that election.


Steve Eugene Paproski: He knows how to forgive.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I am not criticizing the Conservative party's capacity to forgive. I am questioning their capacity to be any more successful in making friends with the United States now than they were when they were in office. That is what I am questioning.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I want to say that we in this party believe that anything which can be done to open the windows toward the east, anything which can be done to remove the obstacles to better understanding between our country and any other country, irrespective of its ideology, its race, its colour, or its creed, is all to the good.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: And I do not think that friendship with one country necessarily means that we have to be at enmity with another country. The President of the United States has also recognized this. In spite of whatever differences he may have had over the question of Taiwan in the United Nations, he is proposing to visit Peking. He is

proposing to visit Moscow. That is a sensible decision because if we accept the McLuhan concept that the world has now become a global village, then we must make headway in improving the communication of attitudes and ideas between nations in order that there may be better understanding and mutual respect.
The NDP, we have always made clear, is nationalist in its desire to have Canadians control their own political and economic affairs, but it is internationalist in its desire to live in harmony with other nations which have a similar aim. My quarrel with this first criticism in the motion is that in my opinion the Canadian government were not responsible for the deterioration of the economic and political relations with the United States. As a matter of fact, the government have gone a long way to make friendship between the two countries possible.
I need hardly remind the House that as early as May, 1970, Canada unpegged its dollar at considerable cost to our exporters. The dollar went up from 92) cents to over 99 cents, and in the province of British Columbia every one cent increase in the value of the dollar cost the B.C. forest industry $14 million a year. We in this party supported the government when they did that because we thought it was a courageous and necessary action.


An hon. Member:: What did it do to the wheat growers?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It cost them money, too. The Canadian government, both on GATT and on the Kennedy Round, have not only lived up to the agreements but have acted in advance of the agreements with the result that Canada today has the lowest tariffs in its history.
When we talk about the deterioration of relations between Canada and the United States, let us keep in mind some of the things that have happened. It was not Canada's fault that the President of the United States unilaterally, without consultation with anyone, decided to impose a 10 per cent surcharge on imports into the United States, an action which the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) says, if it persists for one year, will mean 90,000 less jobs in Canada. We cannot blame the Canadian government for the fact that the Americans have introduced a buy-American policy, and a 7 per cent tax credit on capital goods which it is estimated will cost Canada at least $100 million a year. We cannot blame the Canadian government for the U.S. Domestic International Sales Corporation, or DISC program. I was glad to see that yesterday it was defeated in a tie vote in a committee of the U.S. Senate, but the Senate is now seeking to revise it and bring it forward again. I hope it does not pass, but it does represent the protectionist forces that are at work in the United States. Those forces are the natural reaction of any Republican administration which, whenever it gets into economic difficulties, retreats into protectionism.
Relations with the United States have been injured not only by those protectionist measures, unilaterally invoked, but there is not any doubt that relations between the United States and many countries have been hurt further by the statements by the President of the United States and some of the leaders in Congress when they threaten to retaliate against the countries which voted against the U.S. resolution on Taiwan. That threat could mean only one thing, namely, that much of the foreign aid was being paid out, not on the basis of human need, but
November 3, 1971

on the basis of having captive votes at the United Nations, which could be counted upon when they were required.
The decision of the President of the United States to go ahead with the Amchitka test despite the protests of the Canadian Parliament, the government of Japan and even the Governor of Alaska, to say nothing of the thousands of conservationists in the United States, has done nothing to improve American relations with the other countries of the world.
Mr. Speaker, I am not saying that there is an end to friendship because certain actions have been taken by the Americans which annoy us and which annoy other countries. One of the tests of friendship is that you can annoy one another, disagree with one another, patch it up and again be friends. This is what we have to do. What I do object to is that the government of Canada is blamed for the deteriorating relations between Canada and the United States, when I think the United States government must accept a major part of the blame.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Heaven knows this government has enough sins on its conscience and has made enough blunders on its own without blaming them for the mistakes which the government of the United States has made.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, where I do criticize this government is for its failure to respond adequately to the protectionist measures introduced by the President of the United States. Those measures were announced on August 15. On November 3, two and a half months later, we still do not know what provisions the United States government is laying down as a condition for removing the 10 per cent surcharge or any of the other protectionist measures that were invoked. The government keeps telling us that they do not know what the Americans want as a quid pro quo. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce says they are waiting for a list of irritants. But everybody else seems to know, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of the Treasury, John Connally, makes speeches in the United States and in London, wherever he goes, saying that the only way the surcharge will be removed is to get certain bilateral talks going with the various trading partners of the United States with a view to reversing the American unfavourable balance of payments. Mr. John Petty, Assistant Secretary of the Treasury, has been laying down what he considers to be the conditions for a removal of the surcharge.
One can probably disregard the conjectures that come from correspondents in Washington, but one cannot disregard the fact that Mr. Petty called a press conference to state on behalf of his Secretary, Mr. Connally, and the American government, that two of the conditions which must be met by Canada were, first, removal of the transitional safeguards in the Canada-U.S. auto pact and, second, an increase in the value of the Canadian dollar. Mr. Connally has gone further and said there are other matters which the Canadian government would have to deal with in order to help the United States balance its international payments.
Economic Relations with United States
The fact is that in recent months the world has entered a new phase in international trade. We are now playing in a different ball game. For the moment at least, the United States has retreated into a citadel of protectionism. Great Britain has just had a vote in the House of Commons approving entry into the European Economic Community. As one prominent business executive said the other day, Canada is in grave danger of being the "odd man out" in the international trade picture.
My quarrel with the government is not that they are responsible for deteriorating relationships between Canada and the United States; my quarrel with the government is that they have said nothing and done nothing to indicate what they propose to do in this very confused and difficult situation. Members of this party, through the leader of our party and through the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) in the debate on the Employment Support Act which was before the House, outlined some of the economic measures that we thought the Canadian government should adopt. They referred to such things as monetary policy and lowering our interest rates which would have an effect on inflow of capital-thereby keeping our dollar from going beyond parity, the need for fiscal measures that would increase effective demand by lowering taxes on low income groups, the proposal that we should use our raw materials, and particularly our energy resources, as bargaining tools for getting access to American and other markets for our processed and manufactured goods.
We are not without weapons in this matter. We do not want to enter into a trade war and retaliation would be sheer nonsense for Canada. But we are not completely defenseless. The OECD has pointed out that Canadians consume more imported goods per capita than any country in the world-$700 per Canadian as compared with $185 in the United States and $150 in Japan. We are a very good market. Despite the fact that we are only one-tenth the size of the United States, we are their best customer and a great market for their goods. We have established the lowest tariffs in Canadian history. We have co-operated in the matter of GATT and the Kennedy Round. Surely, we ought to know what the government is doing in respect of its negotiations with the United States. We are not told by officials or ministers whether any discussions are going on; all we are told is that we are waiting for this list of irritants.
Canada has entered a very difficult phase in her international trading relationships. We are either going to be integrated with the United States in some form of conti-nentalism or we are going to try to establish some type of viable economic relationship with the European Economic Community or we are going to continue to build, if we can, multilateral trading relationships with as many countries as we can, looking particularly to those nations of the Pacific rim. But what is the government's policy? What is it seeking to do? How does it propose to offset the economic dangers and disadvantage that will derive from the protectionist measures taken by the United States? I want to plead with the government to come clean with the Canadian people and to stop taking this attitude, like Mr. Micawber, that if you sit still and do nothing something will turn up.

November 3, 1971
Economic Relations with United States
Therefore, I move, second by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the motion be amended by deleting therefrom all the words from "noting the continuing" to and including the words "at the same time", and by substituting therefor the following words:
"condemns the government for failing to respond adequately
and effectively to the protectionist measures introduced unilaterally by the United States, and".
If the amendment were accepted by the House, the motion would then read:
That this House condemns the Government for failing to respond adequately and effectively to the protectionist measures introduced unilaterally by the United States, and for failing to develop a new economic policy which would strengthen our economic independence and fully employ our growing and highly-skilled human resources.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the motion put by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas). Although the Chair might be ready at first glance to accept this amendment, in all fairness it feels it should at this time invite the comments of hon. members. I think the House is placing itself in a difficult situation because the acceptance of this amendment might open the way to abuses of these motions on future occasions.
This being a debate on an opposition day, identified with one party of this House, in my opinion it would be unjust to that party, for the Chair and the House to allow an amendment that more or less brings in a completely new question or substitutes one question for another. The reason I said at the outset that I might be able to accept this amendment is that it seems to bring a closely related question into the amendment. Although it substitutes another approach to the problem mentioned in the motion which is before the House, it still concerns the relations between the two governments. If hon. members have opinions, I invite them to bring them to the attention of the Chair. I will reserve my decision.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, one finds it difficult to resist Your Honour's suggestion. Hon. members have opinions about almost everything. Certainly, I have an opinion on this particular aspect. I take the same approach as the Chair. I am not only concerned about this particular situation, but about possibilities which may exist in the future. While interpretations in the past have not been quite as rigid with regard to opposition motions as they have been with regard to other motions in the House, this is a new departure in this House in dealing with motions on opposition days.
Let us look at it in this sense. If the motion which Your Honour has to consider stopped at the words "the United States" on line seven of the motion which appears on the order paper, the effect of the amendment would be to get the original motion. It would supplant it with a matter involving a completely new idea, principle and approach. All that would be parallel up to that point would be that both condemn the government. The reasons for condemning the government are totally different. An opposition party moving an amendment might well be deprived of

putting the government in an equivocal position in light of what another party endeavours to supplant for that part of the motion. I am not going to get into the merits. My colleagues will do that later.
Concerning the view which the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) took with regard to the issue, he said quite specifically "I disagree with the first part of the motion and I agree with the second." Under those conditions, Your Honour must have some regard for the rules relating to the right of an hon. member of this House to express an opinion on a motion. You can vote for it, vote against it or endeavour to amend it in a way that is acceptable. However, you cannot, through a motion in the form of an expanded negative, put something entirely different in its place.
Listening to Your Honour carefully, I have the idea that this is a matter of some concern to the Chair as it is to me. It will certainly alter the procedure we will adopt in this House with regard to opposition motions from here on if another party seeking to deal with such a motion can effectively remove the opportunity to consider the basic and fundamental principle expressed in the motion by putting something else in its place. I am not going to argue rigidly on this because we are making up our jurisprudence as we go along without departing too far from some of the rules of the past. I simply ask Your Honour to consider what our position will be if the amendment is accepted. I think this is important in light of our intent. What did we intend to do? What does this amendment seek to put in place of the motion? The amendment is far removed from the motion that there is not that relationship which should exist with regard to an amendment. I leave it at that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not quarrel with the position taken by Your Honour and underlined by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) concerning the abuses which there could be if an amendment to a motion were such that it completely destroyed the original motion or put something in its place that is entirely different from that which had been placed before the House in the first instance. I think it becomes a matter of judgment as to whether or not the amendment we have put forward is guilty of that abuse. I do not think it is, otherwise I would not be associated with it. It is, after all, a matter of judgment.
Although the hon. member for Peace River seemed to come down on the side of thinking that the amendment ought not to be allowed, he certainly did not press the point with the vigour of which I know him to be capable. In other words, it does not bother him as much as it might. He realizes that his party is in a position that if it does not like the alterations we have made it can vote against our amendment and thus get a final vote on his party's motion in the words in which it was placed on the order paper. Recognizing that there is a line beyond which we must not go in presenting amendments, I do press the proposition that when a motion is placed before us which contains two separate ideas we surely have the right not to be forced to vote on those two ideas at one and the same time. Basically, this is what we have sought to avoid, by cutting out of the motion a portion of it with which we
November 3, 1971

find it difficult to agree. I do not mind saying that in the consideration of what we might do at this point we did discuss the possibility of simply moving to cut out the offensive part of the motion before us, leaving in the part with which we agree.
I submit that as long as we are in the same area, it is appropriate for us to suggest something a little different in connection with the subject on which the original motion pronounces. We could not go along with the part in the middle of the motion which talks about the government "failing to employ and improve firm and constructive economic and political relations with the United States". We think there is a problem there about which the House should be concerned, but we believe the issue is stated more effectively in the wording we have put forward asking that the House condemn the government for failing to respond adequately and effectively to the protectionist measures introduced unilaterally by the United States. In other words, it seems to me that the first part of the motion is really by way of preamble, and not particularly important. We thought it would be better if those words were left out. Then, when we come to the first idea proposed, we felt it would be better stated in more forceful terms. As to the final proposition, we agreed with it, so we left it.
All told, I think our amendment avoids the kind of abuse against which Your Honour has warned us. Since the hon. member for Peace River did not rise to the heights he sometimes reaches in this House I suggest Your Honour would be quite justified in putting the amendment.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, as regard the procedure to be adopted to decide on the acceptability of this motion, I would like to underline a few points. I think that Your Honour was justified in advising the House to avoid moving too many amendments to motions submitted by opposition parties.
I believe that the privilege of making use of opposition days enables each party to move motions, and I wonder why someone would attempt to amend a substantive motion submitted on behalf of a party. I think that your advice to the House deserves our earnest consideration. However, I would like to state the reason which may lead to suggesting amendments to certain motions of the opposition. Actually, when the question on the motion before us is put, we will have the opportunity, if the amendment is accepted, to vote on a new amendment.
There is perhaps a way out of this difficulty which would consist in accepting all the motions of the opposition parties on opposition days.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I want to add one thought to our discussion of this matter. The normal manner of amending a motion such as this is to add words by way of supplying more particulars or more precise direction. Virtually all the amendments that are made to motions of this kind are in this form. If this had been done in the case before us, the hon. member would have brought his amendment into the area of rele-
Economic Relations with United States
vancy. However, he has found it necessary to move to delete a major portion of the original motion and substitute something else. This, by admission, results in a completely new approach from the original motion. I think the amendment takes us in a completely different direction from the one suggested in the original motion and that it cannot be said to be directly relevant to the original motion.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, I do not propose to add any lengthy argument to what you have already heard. But, surely, the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka is wrong in suggesting that this is not a legitimate amendment because it does not confine itself to adding certain words. All of us who are experienced in parliamentary matters are familiar with amendments which propose to take out certain words and substitute other words therefor. This is a familiar practice and the limitation which the hon. member suggests is totally out of conformity with this practice.
The other point I have in mind has been made already, but I believe it might be emphasized. I can understand that an amendment in these circumstances would be out of order if it introduced a totally new subject matter into the resolution. However, if it proposes a new method of dealing with the subject matter of the resolution it is, surely, a legitimate amendment. This is precisely the situation here. We are not introducing any new subject matter. We are proposing an alternative way of dealing with the subject matter which has been introduced.


John Edward Broadbent: I should like to add a few brief words to what has been said on this matter, Mr. Speaker. It has already been stated that there are two substantial aspects of the motion introduced by the Conservative party. The first deals with economic or governmental relationships between Canada and the United States. The second deals with our own economic policies. It has been agreed that our amendment coincides with the second half and, indeed, we have changed the wording of the original motion.
The question has been raised whether the first part of the motion has been altered to such a degree as to depart entirely from the substance of the matter. I suggest that this is not the case. The original motion comments upon existing Canada-United States relations. The amendment presented by this party comments upon exactly the same relations between Canada and the United States but offers an alternative interpretation of those relationships and of what should be done about them. Therefore, I am arguing that in terms of the substance of both parts of the original motion, the proposed amendment of the New Democratic Party should be accepted as being procedurally correct.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I thank hon. members for their comments, at the invitation of the Chair, on this difficult point.

First of all I would like to thank the hon. member for Champlain (M. Matte) who to a certain extent repeated what I said regarding the danger for this House to accept
9306

November 3, 1971
Economic Relations with United States
such an amendment. It is the point I had raised at the outset when I reserved my decision. In my opinion it was important for an hon. member to insist on that point and show the danger of making the rules of this House flexible to the point where they lose their importance.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said in his argument that although he saw some difficulty, since he blamed the motion itself for touching two subject matters, he seemed to expect from the hon. member for Peace River a silent acceptance of the amendment. I must tell the hon. member that the Chair cannot make a judgment on the mere fact that one party would find it possible at some time or another to vote for or against the amendment or to approve completely or more strongly disapprove of the amendment. I think the question in front of us is more important than that. The reason the Chair has made this point is that it felt this might be a good opportunity for us to establish some kind of guidelines to help opposition parties in further debates and in the preparation of their motions on opposition days as well as in the preparation of amendments.
I still feel that the rule of relevancy, whether in a debate on an opposition day or any other kind of debate, is the basic rule of debate in the democratic process of this House, although it is more difficult to apply that rule when a motion before the House covers two different matters, or matters which though related could be treated separately or debated separately. However, I think the point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is very well taken. At the same time, he said that the acceptance of this amendment is a matter of judgment. Again I say that that judgment cannot be based on the kind of point made by the hon. member for Peace River.
The Chair has listened to the views that were expressed and has again read the motion put by the hon. member for Hillsborough, but I must say that the position of the Chair has been one of hesitation. At first when the motion was put to me, it was my intention to warn the House of the kind of difficulty in which it was putting itself by presenting such an amendment, and there were some guidelines that I wanted to offer hon. members either for the preparation of amendments or for motions put on such occasions.
While the procedural debate went on I made a further study of what was basically in the motion and in the amendment and became more and more convinced that it would be very difficult for me at this time to accept the amendment in its present form. Taking into account the fact that this debate will go on for two days, I feel that I should invite the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre or any other member from his party, in order to protect the House and its procedure, to take a later opportunity of presenting a modified amendment. Alternatively, he may want to accept the proposition that has been put by the hon. member for Peace River to eliminate the words after "United States" and have the amendment begin after those words. In that case, it would be my feeling that he would leave in the motion of the official opposition the first proposition, which I think is the crux of what the representative of that party wanted to bring to the attention of this House.
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel).]
If the hon. member for Peace River does not accept the suggestion made by the Chair at this time I have no alternative but to refuse the amendment.


Gerald William Baldwin: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not accept it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, you seem to have made two suggestions and we are prepared to follow either one of them. The simplest suggestion, of course, is that the amendment be not accepted and that our next speaker try again, bearing in mind the points made by the Chair. On the other hand, considering your other suggestion, if it were acceptable to the Chair that the amendment delete only those words in the middle of the motion, namely "for failing to employ and improve firm and constructive economic and political relations with the United States" and substitute the words "for failing to respond adequately and effectively to the protectionist measures introduced unilaterally by the United States", my colleague for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands would be prepared to alter the amendment accordingly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: This is not the suggestion that the Chair had in mind, nor the suggestion which was made by the hon. member for Peace River. I think the best solution would be for the hon. member and his party to look at the question again and that their next speaker bring in a motion that would meet the rules and requirements of the procedures of the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thank you, Sir, that is what we will do.


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, we now have the opportunity of considering a motion allowing us to determine where we stand in the relationships that exist between the government of Canada and that of the United States. It is important that we may immediately bring to light certain facts regarding those relationships because it would be a sad day if we were to wake up one morning and realize that they have aggravated to the point of creating a disruptive or disastrous situation.
Mr. Speaker, the whole Canadian nation is aware of the fact that the relationships between the Canadian government and the United States are not so good. They have been better in the past. This is due to several factors, and may I be permitted to single out a few of them. First, despite its relatively small population compared with the United States, Canada is of course always at a disadvantage if one looks at this population differential, and of course it is very difficult to set up a policy in the present system. May I say in passing that if we had a system different from the one we now have those problems could not exist or would be much smaller in any case.
Because of this situation, we find it difficult to gain a degree of economic independence. We must, despite our efforts to reach economic independence, continue to abide by most of the decisions taken by American high finance. It is therefore not easy, in the light of such a factor, to improve our relations if we aim at reducing more and more the American share in our economy.
November 3, 1971

Some others factors should be taken into account. For years, even if no action was taken in this direction, our leaders and particularly the Canadian people, have been most anxious to be more and more independent from the United States from an economic standpoint. Certainly all our governments have more or less wanted this.
The head of our present government is well known, particularly in the United States, for his anti-Americanism.
That does not contribute to create a favourable climate, all the more so since the head of this government seems to be trying to implement certain theories he has always had. He seems to be trying at all costs to eliminate American domination-and on this I agree with him-but nevertheless some specific facts should be considered.
From the orientation which is given at the top, the government seems to be trying to reduce the American hold on Canada by shifting this hold to other countries.
Let's get our facts straight here. Of course we should diversify our foreign trade. With our present system the more we have clients, the more we have trade relations with as many nations as possible, the more it is beneficial to our economy.
Still, if we should give some other orientation to our economy, simply in order to shield it from American influence, without giving enough thought to establishing new relations with other countries, the relations between our two countries would deteriorate even more.
No wonder, having in mind such factors, that the President of the United States, when deciding to impose the famous surcharge on imports, would not at all consider the consequences of his move on the economic and political climate in Canada.
No wonder, since the people in the United States know very well that the stand taken by Canada's Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is definitely pro-Canadian.
Mr. Speaker, no doubt anti-Americanism antagonizes our neighbour to the South; this is a fact. However, our geographical, political and economic situation being what it is, we must, as the motion says, consider other essential factors such as our mutual interests.
Mr. Speaker, we can say all we want about economic domination, financial take-over and even undue political influence on the part of the American people, but there is a fact that we cannot ignore: they are our neighbours and, consequently, the mutual interests of both countries have to be preserved.
Moreover, we must not for any consideration whatever aggravate good relations but rather always respect neighbours who are ready to help us, to stretch out a hand and who are always courteous.
Mr. Speaker, that does not mean-and I strongly insist on this-that we should not do anything to secure our economic independence. I do not mean that at all when I talk about the need to preserve our common interests and ensure mutual respect between our two nations.
The fact remains that, as indicated in the motion, and while showing a firm and constructive attitude, there are surely means of improving our relations with our neighbours without bullying or insulting them. There is not only the possibility of considering that there are means;
Economic Relations with United States
we have no choice, we must take them since it has to do with our neighbours.
Under the economic system we tolerate or have to put up with-no matter what term we use-we can be sure that we need the United States and who ever would claim to make the economy totally independent in the present system would make a great mistake, Mr. Speaker.
Therefore, I believe the government is illogical. Without changing the basic part of the system, which is causing those difficulties, it is still striving to widen the financial and economic gap between Americans and Canadians. It is impossible, since we have a system which accepts and tolerates the absurd.
No one worries about the physical capabilities for production of the country. This is not the question asked. Rather, one asks: can we produce more profitably? That is a stupid principle and, as long as that question is being asked, we shall unfortunately have to purchase American or other foreign goods. Why? Because a country of 23 million inhabitants, a country with fewer workers, with less human potential, cannot compete with American or other foreign industries. It is impossible! And yet, that is what the present system favours.
We have always held, and we still do, that we could effect a change. A sound economy must rest on other principles than those that will inevitably lead us to economic and financial failure.
If we were to apply this principle in Canada, even to a limited extent, we should first ask ourselves what our requirements are. Second, we should wonder what are our possibilities of producing what we require.
Once these two questions have been asked, we would realize that when nothing more than capital is involved and there is no permission to be obtained from financial interests, this is neither a problem nor a mystery but a very simple thing. If we are physically capable of achieving production, let us make it financially feasible.
If we had such a system, we would never maintain bad relations with other countries since we would not be interested in producing for nothing or purchasing from other sources what we could produce in this country.
To do so, we only have to apply a basic mathematic rule, that is to give to the people the necessary purchasing power to consume national production.
Mr. Speaker, the more abundant and satisfactory our goods, the more we will increase the standard of living of each Canadian. Thus, whatever may happen in the United States or in Europe, we will be wearing clothes and shoes made by us. It matters little if President Nixon decides to let go of one if all the foodstuff we need is available.
Moreover, when we will only have to trade our surplus products for a few lemons, oranges or bananas, there will be no more problem. I still wonder by virtue of what idiotic principles we will buy carrots in the United States, under the pretext that they are less expensive. It must be pointed out that this is not true, and in any event, the principle is not sound. If we can grow them here, let us do so. Would there be then a problem of labour? The motion concludes by saying, and I quote:
-a new economic policy which would strengthen our economic
24372-30}

November 3, 1971
Economic Relations with United States
independence and fully employ our growing and highly-skilled human resources.
I agree. The intention of the mover of the motion may not be the same as my own, but I know that to apply that motion, one only has to tell Canadians to produce what they need. Then, the labour problem would automatically be solved. Then our problems with the U.S. are settled for, if China and Russia buy millions of bushels of wheat from us, it is probably not to help us get rid of our surplus production but because they need it.
It is very difficult to create artificial needs in foreign countries to get rid of our production. This is what allows us to see, how disastrous and stupid it is to base an economy on trade relations with countries other than those with which we normally trade. That is the problem. Last summer the U.S. simply decided to protect their producers by imposing an import surtax. In an economic system such as the one advocated by the Social Credit, this would not have damaged our economy at all. In addition to the evidence of certain facts like the strained relations now existing under the present system between the United States and Canada-no matter what the prime minister may say-we have to admit that we are closely related to the American policy. We are bound by their rulings and the only way we can free ourselves from their economic influence-since all other pressures from that country are due to their economic stronghold over Canada is to apply the formula under which we produce ourselves all we need and to ask ourselves but one question: Is it physically possible? If so, we only have to make it financially workable.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this debate for two reasons. First, it brings to light an effort being mounted by the Official Opposition to convince the Canadian people that the Canadian government is anti-American. Second, it gives the Official Opposition an opportunity to state what it would do in response to the economic measures of the Nixon administration. After listening to the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) I suggest to him that he did not make a very strong case of anti-Americanism against this government nor did he make a very strong case on even the narrow issue of communications. I like listening to the hon. member for Hillsborough. I find his speeches charming, and I admire his wit. There is not always as much substance as wit, but I suppose that is true of most speeches. But there were many occasions when I listened to him today when I applauded.


An hon. Member:: Let us have a little substance.


Mitchell William Sharp: The sentiments that he expressed were sentiments with which we could all agree, namely the importance of good relations with the United States and that no government should embark upon anti-Americanism, and so on. These were sentiments that we could applaud heartily. Indeed, I think the applause from this side of the House sometimes exceeded the applause from those behind him.
However that may be, in my opinion the trouble is that the hon. gentleman is not quite convinced about his own
(Mr. Matte.]
case. Indeed, he is not quite sure what this motion means, and of course we are very puzzled, too. Perhaps I may attempt to paraphrase the motion which I tried to read a number of times. Perhaps with the amendment it will not be necessary to read all of it, but in any event, taking the motion as presented, it condemns the government for failing to be closer to the United States, and at the same time it condemns it for not being more independent. Perhaps that is possible for the opposition but for the government it just does not make any sense, and I think the hon. gentleman should have clarified his intention which is not at all clear in the motion.
Indeed, I thought the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) dealt very effectively with the hypocrisy of the motion of the Official Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: The real problem I suspect is that the Official Opposition has not resolved its own internal problems. I think of its attitude toward China, and I listened to the spokesmen on the other side and, if I may say so, I do not really know who speaks for the Official Opposition on this question. I listened to the hon. member for Hillsborough, and I have listened to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather). I am not quite sure whom I should believe. Sometimes I would like to know who does speak for the Progressive Conservative party with regard to its policy toward China.


Mr. Chretien:: They have no policy on anything.


Donald MacInnis: rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to draw your attention to the fact that the minister does not know the rules of the House when referring to the Official Opposition, and he should learn how to do it.


Mr. Perrault:: That is not an official point of order, either.


Donald MacInnis: I would very much appreciate a ruling as to whether the minister may continue to refer to the Official Opposition in the manner in which he did.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker-


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I asked for a ruling from the Chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It would be difficult for the Chair to make a ruling on something that he did not hear. The Chair was speaking to the Deputy Speaker. If the hon. member wishes to make a specific charge and tell the House what cannot be accepted under the rules, I will try to make a ruling.


Donald MacInnis: The minister should know that under the rules he must not refer to any political party in this House. He referred to members on this side of the House in their capacity as members of the Official Opposition or of the opposition parties, but he may not put name tags on members on this side and he may not express opinions in this House; that has been ruled upon several times. I think it is time that the minister was told some of the rules which he should observe. If the Chair has not been listening, it might be better to send for Mr. Speaker.
November 3, 1971


Mitchell William Sharp: If I may continue, if it would satisfy the hon. member, may I make two statements.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair has been asked to make a ruling. Although I feel that the hon. member is a little aggressive toward the Chair, I will try to make a ruling. I think that it has been the practice-perhaps not the best practice but an accepted practice in the House-to refer to opposition members in other ways than as members of the Official Opposition.
I have heard many times from both sides of the House identification of members as members of their parties. This is not the proper procedure which is to identify members by the name of their riding. I think that the point of order was taken too far. At this time, I can only take the opportunity to invite hon. members who take the floor to follow the basic rule of the House to identify hon. members by their constituency and not by name or by any other means.


Donald MacInnis: I have one further point of order, Mr. Speaker, and I will make it simple for the Chair. The minister, in his last few remarks, referred to the China situation and to members of the Official Opposition who spoke on this matter. I draw your attention to the motion before us and I ask you, Mr. Speaker, to bring the minister back to the motion before the House. We are not discussing the China policy at this time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The hon. member is asking me to rule on the procedural acceptability of some of the remarks of the minister. I do not feel that the point of order is valid. If he so desires, he may raise another point of order regarding relevancy, but the point of order which he put forward in my view relates mainly to the language used by the minister and the Chair cannot comment further on the remarks of the minister. This is a question of debate and, although the minister's remarks might not have been relevant to the motion before the House, the Chair will follow what the minister has to say from now on.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the reason I was referring to China was that I had been invited to do so by the hon. member for Hillsborough who, I was assuming, spoke both for the Official Opposition and as a member of the Progressive Conservative party.


Donald MacInnis: Would the minister permit a question?


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Donald MacInnis: The minister surrendered the floor to me to permit a question. Now that he is dealing with China, would he also deal with the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) when he spoke in Russia about the American military threat?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Perhaps the Chair should take the opportunity to intervene and to bring the attention of hon. members to the motion before the House. Questions as well as speeches should be relevant to the motion.


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. member for Hillsborough had been outlining in his speech the attitude that he took toward the question of the membership of China in the United
Economic Relations with United States
Nations as a point at issue between Canada and the United States. I do not agree with his point of view, and I suggest that some members of the official opposition and of his party do not agree with him, either. So, I suggest that this is a question upon which the official opposition should make up its mind before it brings a motion such as this before the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: The attitude of the Official Opposition even toward Amchitka seems to me to be ambivalent. It is remarkable that there was only one member of this House present at that time who voted against the resolution of the House of Commons upon the Amchitka test, and it was a member of the Official Opposition who spoke about it and indicated that that was the position he would take. I suggest that this kind of issue should be resolved within the opposition before they accuse the government of not having a firm policy toward the United States.
I will bring forward another of these issues at stake between Canada and the United States, namely, the auto pact. What has been the position of the Official Opposition on the auto pact? They condemned it. That was their initial position. But now, after the benefits of the automobile agreement have become manifest, they are very anxious that the government should protect the interests of Canada. I suggest once again that the Official Opposition should make up their minds how they want to deal with the United States, and with the issues which are under discussion between our two countries. Indeed, I suggest in general that the attitude of the Official Opposition towards the United States is ambivalent. The attitude of this government towards the United States is not ambivalent. We have taken clear positions and we intend to continue to do so. We think that is the way to maintain good relationships with our friend to the south.
When I think back to the rapid deterioration that took place in relationships between Canada and the United States between the years 1957 and 1963, when a government led by the official opposition was in office, my view and I think it is one that history will confirm, is that the problem arose out of the lack of a firm policy on the part of the government of that day. It was the confusion in the minds of the Americans about Canadian government policy that led to that very serious deterioration in relationships that the hon. member for Hillsborough, in his selective reading of history, omitted to mention. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the main problem we have here, to quote the words of the resolution put forward by the hon. member for Hillsborough, is that the official opposition fails to see that there is no reason why a distinct Canadian policy should be detrimental to the "common interest" we share with the United States, or detract from the "mutual respect" that the two countries share.
We have our own interests, but we are aware of and are taking into account the interests of others. Our interests compete. Competition produces some friction and it generates heat. But the degree of friction is a function of the complexity of our contacts. We do not have many problems in our relationships with Mongolia. That is because we have very few contacts with Mongolia. The problems

November 3, 1971
Economic Relations with United States
that concern us here in our relationships with the United States stem from the many points of contact. That conflict is healthy and it is positive, as long as it is contained and managed.
This resolution speaks about a "continuing deterioration of communication." When he put those words down the hon. member must have had his tongue in his cheek. When I look at the whole complex of mechanisms that have been established between Canada and the United States over the years, and that have been increased since this administration took office, I wonder how the hon. gentleman could have felt justified in putting those words on paper.
You know, Mr. Speaker, I can understand the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) who thinks that the introduction of those words is only going to interfere with a sensible debate on these matters, so he moved that those words should be omitted. I suggest to the hon. gentleman that we would have had a better debate if those words had been omitted because they fail to take into account the tremendous development of relationships between our two countries. I will just mention a few of them. I will first take some of the older, established ones.
There is the Permanent Joint Board on Defence.


J. Michael Forrestall: How often has it met in the last five years?


Mitchell William Sharp: It has met frequently, and it is meeting very soon. They share information and resolve problems about the joint defence of North America. Two countries whose relationships are bad are not going to be talking about their joint defence. Countries that have a continuing deterioration in communications and whose relationships are bad are certainly not going to be talking about common defence problems.
The International Joint Commission which was established to regulate disputes over boundary waters is to be the chosen instrument to carry out an agreement between Canada and the United States to achieve, maintain and monitor water quality standards in the Great Lakes, the first agreement of this magnitude between any two countries in the world, and under negotiation right now despite the Official Opposition's doubts of the effectiveness of our. communications.
So important indeed and so far reaching are our relationships that our two countries established a joint ministerial committee many years ago, when Mr. Pearson occupied my present portfolio under Prime Minister St. Laurent. This committee has met frequently during this administration. It last met in November, 1970. Preparations are under way for another meeting of the committee soon. U.S.-Canadian relationships are not static. They have been changing to meet the changing circumstances that are now emerging, and profound changes are taking place in power relationships.
There is the emergence of China as a member of the Security Council, and probably as the leader of the Third World. Just this morning I had the opportunity of having private conversations with the Foreign Minister of Yugoslavia, and we were speculating about the result of the entry of the People's Republic of China into the United

Nations. What a profound change this is going to make in the debates in that assembly, and in the configuration of the power complex.
Then, we must look at the signs of detente, the tumbling down of the old barriers. There is the Berlin Agreement, a four power agreement that is now being negotiated between the two Germanies. There are the first tentative approaches towards a mutually balanced forces reduction in Central Europe, with Manlio Brosio going as an explorer from the NATO countries to talk with the Soviet Union to find out if the Soviet Union is serious. A European security conference is now being planned.
Then, we must look at the trading patterns, the emergence of the Common Market not just as a group of six but as a group of ten that will account for 45 per cent of world trade. We must look also at the U.S. balance of payments problems. It is against this background that the recent Canadian moves and the recent Canadian activities should be seen.
It is childish and, I suggest, very immature to suggest that the tentative and the positive Canadian moves towards better and more rewarding relationships with China, the Soviet Union and other communist nations are an act of defiance towards the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: After all, the United States is moving in the same direction. The other day in answer to a question I said that we are not looking for credit but perhaps we have helped to break down some of the walls that stood in the way of better relationships between the United States, the Soviet Union, and China. And it is childish and immature to suggest that we expect that better relations with China and the Soviet Union will equal, or offset, or replace our close alliance and friendship with the United States.
This is a central fact of our life. We are here situated on the same North American continent. Our destiny and our geography have made it clear that it is in the interests of the Canadian people for us to have good relationships with the people and the government of the United States. Surely, that does not have to be defended as a proposition. That is not new. But there are changes going on. This is one of the reasons Canada decided to exchange diplomats with the People's Republic of China and in due course, and logically to support the occupancy of the China seat in the United Nations by that government. It was not long after we had taken that position and achieved this exchange of diplomats that the President of the United States said he was going to Peking. That was met with applause in the United States. Any suggestion that in taking these initiatives toward China we are acting contrary to the policies of the United States seems to me to be quite confounded by the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: When the hon. gentleman criticizes Canada, by implication, for having diplomatic relations with the People's Republic of China at the expense of the Republic of China government, is he suggesting that we should
November 3, 1971

have waited until the United States inevitably takes the same step and we follow it meekly? Is that his policy?


An hon. Member:: Sure.


Mitchell William Sharp: It is not mine.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: The hon. gentleman seemed to suggest that somehow we had stood out in the United Nations as the one country that had flown in the face of American public opinion and voted in favour of the Albanian resolution. He knows very well, though he omitted to mention it as he made a selective reading of other matters, that Canada voted alongside all the NATO countries except the United States. We voted with over two-thirds of the full membership of the United Nations. Now, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that we are acting in a thoroughly logical, responsible and reasonable way. I do think, however, that perhaps we deserve a little bit of credit for having led the procession. It was our action in the establishment of diplomatic relations with Peking that caused many countries to think again about whether they wanted the People's Republic of China or the Republic of China government in the United Nations and they came out in our favour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Francis Andrew Brewin: It was so good it should have been done years before.


Mitchell William Sharp: That could be. We are cultivating relations on a broader front in this world because I believe that is in the Canadian interest; I believe it is in the world interest and I believe it is in the interest of world peace. I believe we are in a position from time to time, even though we are not a very big country, to take useful initiatives and in recent years I think we have done this. I make no apology for it and I certainly do not think it should be termed anti-American, not at all. I think that the United States is rather pleased that Canada was in a position to take some of these initiatives for which they had not quite prepared their own people.
On the question of the Nixon economic measures, Mr. Speaker, I need hardly say that these were not directed against Canada. I have seen some rather silly statements-I must say they were not made in this debate and I hope they will not be-to the effect that somehow the economic measures taken by the United States are directed against us because the United States is not happy with our policy.


Donald MacInnis: Who made them?


Mitchell William Sharp: Obviously, this is not so but these are the sort of statements that have been made.


Donald MacInnis: By whom?


Mitchell William Sharp: I should like to take this occasion to say that these are obviously a lot-


Donald MacInnis: Who were they made by?


Mitchell William Sharp: Various people.


Donald MacInnis: Name them.
Economic Relations with United States


Mitchell William Sharp: I think that obviously-


Donald MacInnis: Why bring it up if you are not prepared to name names? Why bring it up?


An hon. Member:: Oh, sit down.


Donald MacInnis: It is just a question of guts, that's all.


Mr. Gibson:: You are not impressing anyone.


Mitchell William Sharp: I met with my Mexican colleagues the other day. We were exchanging views about the American economic policies and I told them that it had been suggested that we did not get an exemption from these measures because the United States was not happy with us and that some sort of retaliation was involved. I mentioned that I expected they were very much affected as well. They replied that they were but they did not think they had done anything to deserve the kind of measures taken against them by the United States. I said, "We are in the fortunate position of having a balance of payment surplus, while you are in balance of payment difficulties." If the United States had wanted to have a selective policy they would have left Mexico out. In effect, these measures were applied by the United States on a universal basis and were not directed particularly against us or anyone.
There are some other issues, Mr. Speaker, upon which the United States and Canada differ. I would draw your attention, for instance, to the Arctic legislation and the law of the sea. I would remind the House that the government acted with the full support of this House. Indeed, as I recall, it was one of those few occasions when this House acted unanimously.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Give us something to be unanimous about.


Mitchell William Sharp: In regard to Amchitka, I have spoken already about the almost unanimous views expressed in this House. I do not think it is a matter on which the opposition can criticize the government for defending Canadian interests or for expressing its opposition, both on the grounds of the dangers to the environment and the need for a complete test ban.


Donald MacInnis: You are speaking of October 4,1 take it.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, in conclusion-


Donald MacInnis: Let's deal with October 4.


Mitchell William Sharp: -I should like to return to a fundamental principle of relationships between nations. Profound disagreements-and there are some between Canada and the United States, let us not gloss them over-need not endanger nor even impair close and harmonious relations. In the whole course of events since August 15, which was referred to specifically by my hon. friend, communications between the governments have been as forthright and free as ever and probably more voluminous than at any period in living memory. Contact and communication at the ministerial level and between officials have been constant. I have had many conversations with Secretary Rogers on these subjects. The hon. member for Hillsborough said that I have not been in direct and personal contact with Secretary Rogers-I think that is what he

November 3, 1971
Economic Relations with United States
said-but I have made representations on Amchitka, on the economic policies and other issues between us, personally and at length. They have also been made at the official level, and I can think of no more direct form of contact between any two governments than between the foreign ministers.
It is very exceptional in the modern world to find direct communication between heads of government. This should occur only in the most exceptional circumstances and if no other form of communication is possible. In this particular case, we have the machinery for letting the President of the United States and the government of the United States know fully the views of Canada on all the subjects that are under discussion. As you know, the Prime Minister is not reluctant to make his views known. I am certainly very happy to see that the official opposition has as much confidence as I have in the Prime Minister of Canada and know that when he speaks the world listens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: To come to the question of the relations between the President of the United States and the Prime Minister, the hon. member for Hillsborough omitted to mention the fact that the first contact the Prime Minister of Canada had with any head of government after he took office was with the President of the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: These other visits that are now taking place after we established close and very good relations at the top level, will be useful. They are useful but I do not think, for example, that the Prime Minister would be justified in going to the President and saying, "What I tell you about the Amchitka test is more important than what the members of the House of Commons say."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: I would not advise him in that direction. He has a proper regard for Parliament, even if the Official Opposition does not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Muir:: That is the biggest joke you have told this afternoon.


Mitchell William Sharp: I can only cite the recent actions of the opposition. They consider the Prime Minister more important than Parliament. He does not and I do not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: The relationship between Canada and the U.S. has always been complex and dynamic. Periods of relative calm generally precede periods of stress. A harmonious U.S.-Canadian relationship remains a paramount factor in Canadian foreign policy as practiced by this government. This is because so many of the things we would like to achieve in the external environment, such as disarmament, new moves toward freer trade, a meaningful response to the more troubling challenges of modern society, will continue to depend on the influence and commitment which the U.S. is prepared to bring into play.
We have every reason to have that very close contact with the United States because we are intimately bound up with the future of that country. When we look outward from North America to the Soviet Union, China and the rest of the world, our perceptions, initiatives and responses do not differ materially from those of the United States.
Nothing, in the opinion of this government, of this House, of the people of Canada, can equal in importance continued good relations with the United States founded on shared hopes, mutual respect and a common heritage of freedom. Nothing is today inhibiting the volume, variety, frankness and frequency of contact between our two governments at ministerial and official levels and between our two peoples at any level anyone may like to mention.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I propose to deal with that part of the motion that has to do with the failure to develop a new economic policy which will strengthen our economic objectives.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Fairweather:: The opposition has placed this motion before the House as a serious attempt to throw some light on a problem which, whether the minister likes it or not, is causing Canadians some concern. To espouse the cause of Canadian nationalism,-which is the historical position of the party that I have the honour to be part of, does not prevent the fostering of good relations with the United States. To seek to control our natural resources is not to deny them to others who need them, but upon Canadian terms. To want to pursue an independent foreign policy does not exclude sharing many of the aspirations of the United States as she continues to carry a large part of the leadership of the world. I suggest that none of these concepts is mutually exclusive.
I am reminded, if anybody cares at this hour of the day, of a poem that is in danger of becoming a cliche. Because some cliches are acceptable, we all use them. I am reminded of Robert Frost's poem called "The Mending Wall". Interestingly enough, it is the theme of the only speech made in this country outside Parliament by the assassinated President of the United States. I quote:
... The gaps I mean,
No one has seen them made or heard them made,
But at spring mending-time we find them there.
I let my neighbour know beyond the hill;
And on a day we meet and walk the line And set the wall between us once again.
We keep the wall between us as we go To each the boulders that have fallen to each.
. .. Good fences make good neighbours.
Surely, the point that Frost makes is that the job of keeping the fence in good repair is a joint undertaking. Each side has an obligation. Each side must work at it. Each neighbour has an obligation at spring mending time. The speech of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene), the off-hand remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during his visit to the Soviet
(Mr. Sharp.]
November 3, 1971

Union, the events of Premier Kosygin's visit, the NATO review, whether one thinks of them as being good or bad really does not matter. In my opinion, they are peripheral to the main issue. The main issue is that in an anxious search for an independent posture, the government has neglected the nurturing of a sound relationship with the United States based upon the interests and aspirations of both our countries.
I do not accuse the government of anti-Americanism. Rather, I accuse it of denying neglect. Our interests and those of the United States require that we trade together. Yet the Prime Minister has still to formulate an economic strategy which will enable us to plan a healthy trading relationship with the United States. Our interests, and those of the United States, call for a relationship which will permit Canadians to have a greater share in the economic decisions which will affect our future. The Prime Minister has failed to provide any leadership which will restore Canadian confidence in our independence in this aspect of our national life. For us, Canadian economic independence and Canadian economic development are inseparable. They are simply the ordering of our economic thrust so that the optimal development of the Canadian and United States economies are mutually beneficial. I have often reflected on the curious aspect of our life, particularly because of the cold climate, that Canadians spend such an inordinate amount of time examining their own navels. Self examination is a preoccupation in this country. Such a pastime may satisfy a deeply felt national psyche, but it is no substitute for national purpose and policy.
There are several attributes of economic independence which I think should be discussed in this debate and in their place. These are ownership, control, costs and benefits of foreign investment in Canada, the phenomenon of the multi-national corporation and the key sector approach to an economic policy. The major issue of the debate on foreign investment is the possible frustration of national trading or commercial policies by the extra-territorial application of the law of the government of the country from whence that investment originates. This is a real issue and I suspect it would be recognized as such by both the foreign country involved and, despite public statements to the contrary, by the officers of the company involved. Policy decisions to deal with the problem would not be resisted by foreign governments. This has been discussed many times, particularly with our American friends.
Because there is a potential for extraterritorial application to Canadian subsidiaries of the laws or regulatory practices of the country of the parent company, there is need for a policy decision by the government of Canada. It is not the foreign capital that is the culprit, but in the case of the United States, it is mainly concerned with the application of that country's anti-trust legislation and legislation dealing with trading with the enemy, whatever that nebulous and mysterious word might mean. It is here that fence-mending should take place.
After all few would deny the validity of a policy which ensures that the operations of any enterprise in Canada, regardless of ownership, are responsive and accountable only to Canadian laws. Because Canada is not now nearly so dependent upon foreign capital, we have room to
Economic Relations with United States
manoeuver. In recent years we have produced a surplus in our balance of payments on current account which demonstrates a capability on balance to export capital or to retire obligations abroad. This situation will change if, as, and when Canada enters a new phase of economic growth. We are in the midst of a breathing space because of relatively subdued activity. The reason for this lull is, partly, lack of confidence in the present government. The balance of transactions will shift toward a deficit matched by an inflow of capital in one form or another.
I propose that, rather than turn inward in developing policies toward foreign capital, Canada should take the initiative in the international community to establish acceptable rules within which foreign capital will have to operate. Such an initiative would have as its purpose changes in other countries' laws to facilitate desirable international investment. The key to such general policy would be reciprocal treatment of Canadian capital seeking to participate in the economics of other countries.
The provinces must be consulted closely on any new economic policy. There must be much more effort and emphasis placed upon co-ordination of effort. We heard recently, I think it was at the conference of finance ministers, a call for an expose by the government of the whole philosophy of the Gray report. The once-trumpeted Gray report, which seems to have been shelved or to have been lost somewhere in the flow charts of the cabinet committee system, cannot have much relevance unless there is close consultation with the provinces. I have sought publication of the statistical data which supports the Gray report recommendations, but the government has not yet complied with what I thought was a reasonable request. Secrecy and lack of candour frustrate public discussion and debate.
Canada requires a new national economic policy is designed to: Insist on the processing of more national resources and minerals in Canada; drastically increase the amount of research and development carried on in Canada by companies based here; make attractive the switching of savings to equity investment; promulgate an explicit policy on resource development; exploit Canada's bargaining power when others need our natural resources; co-ordinate these goals with the provinces, which have concurrent constitutional responsibilities in several of these policy areas.
I have often been struck by the fact that when the Minister of Finance tries to cool the economy down a little through fiscal and economic measures, the next thing we know we read stories in the financial pages of our newspapers about visits to New York by representatives of the provinces and the great municipalities in order to get investment capital. I must say this is not altogether the fault of the federal government but there is, in fact, very little co-ordination between the two levels in connection with these very sensitive questions of fiscal and economic direction.
Dependence upon external sources of capital for financing in periods of heavy investment activity has been characteristic of Canadian development. The main source of that capital used, for good historical reasons, to be Britain. However, during the first part of the inter-war period,

November 3, 1971
Economic Relations with United States
the United States became the principal source of external capital, and by 1926 the portion of Canada's international debt owned in that country exceeded that owned in Britain. With some interruption during the 1930's, United States investment in Canada continued to increase, particularly after 1947 when the period of intense activity in the petroleum industry got under way.
More than half of the United States investment in Canada by the end of 1967 had been accumulated since 1957. At $28,030,000, United States investments in 1967 continued to represent more than three-quarters of all non-resident investment in Canada. The main rise between 1957 and 1967 occurred in direct investments in companies controlled in the United States which almost doubled. In the same period, portfolio investments in Canada owned in the United States more than doubled, due mainly to large sales of new issues of securities in that country.
Even if the inflow of United States direct investment capital to Canada were to be reduced in the future, the growth of American-dominated operations in Canada would continue. This has been pointed out earlier in the debate. In recent years, an increasing amount of the funds required to finance the growth of Canadian subsidiaries of American corporations has been financed by retained earnings of Canadian subsidiaries and by borrowing in the Canadian market. The government publication "Foreign Owned Subsidiaries in Canada 1964-1967" reported that:
In 1965, most of the financing done in the United States was through transactions with parent and affiliated companies ... In 1967, the larger users of external funds drew largely upon Canadian sources of financing.
A further but related source of concern to Canadians derives from the number of Canadian companies which are being taken over by American owners by the purchase of shares of assets or as the result of mergers. Such take-overs may benefit Canada, for example, by injecting into the economically stagnating firm new financing, new technology, access to new markets, etc. However, there are definite disadvantages to Canada of such take-overs as well. The benefits just mentioned are wiped out when Canadian firms taken over by Americans are not economically stagnating, but rather are viable and successful. In this instance, the net result is to increase the number of United States firms in Canada and to reduce the number of Canadian ones with no net advantage for Canada.
There are many more specific sources of concern to Canadians arising from the increasing American economic intervention. The majority of most federal grants to industries under various programs go to non-resident owned firms, mainly United States firms. Another problem is the large-scale ownership by non-residents, mostly Americans, of intangible industrial property such as patents, trademarks and industrial designs which are particularly important in the most rapidly developing industries based upon improved technology. We heard a warning on this subject the other day from Dr. Firestone who pointed out the need for a whole new policy in the national field of patents, copyright and so on. For example, 96 per cent of all the patents issued in Canada in 1964

were issued to non-residents, a level far higher than that tolerated by any other western country.
The question of how to deal with these issues is not cleaf-cut. There are a number of complicated factors because United States involvement in our economy has brought with it a lot of benefits as well as disadvantages. The problem is to find a way of reducing the disadvantages without sacrificing all the benefits.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member. I do so only to advise him that his time has expired.


Mr. Steven Otto (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, I have no difficulty at all in understanding the motion. As a member of the government, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) naturally has to couch his words and his thoughts carefully, but as far as I can see the motion is abundantly clear. I venture to say that it sets out the platform issue for the Conservative party for the next federal election.
The motion speaks of a continuing deterioration of communication on the basis of common interest. Somehow, we, as the government, get blamed for this deterioration. It was we, according to the opposition, who instituted the surcharge. Did this government convince the Americans to introduce a 10 per cent surcharge? Did we have much to do with getting United States multi-national corporations to invest 50 per cent of their capital throughout the world and take production out of the United States? Is that our fault? Did we cause this? Were we responsible for this? Is this the deterioration hon. members speak of? Or do they mean the automotive pact, as a result of which we have become more productive? We did suffer from some disadvantage until 1965, but was that our fault?
Is it possible that the United States did not like our visit to the Russians, or the Russian's visit to Canada? Are we to bow and scrape to them? The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) said that Canada is not big enough as a nation to be feared-I agree with that-but we are not small enough to be despised. In the eyes of the United States, we are just about the right size to be invisible, to be completely ignored, and this we do not like. That is the deterioration of which hon. members opposite speak.
The next part of the hon. member's motion speaks of "failing to employ and improve firm and constructive economic and political relations with the United States". That is the gist of the motion, but what it really means is that the Conservative party is in favour of the status quo, of complete dependence upon the United States. Hon. members opposite feel we should remain as we are, that we should do as we are bid. Certainly, that is what the motion means. It means that we will continue to be completely dependent upon the United States; that we shall continue to send our resources to the United States for them to convert into energy, and to manufacture goods which they will send back to us. The motion means that the Conservative party is in complete agreement with a continental energy policy, indeed with a completely conti-
November 3, 1971

nental political policy. That is exactly what the United States wants.
I am very pleased to learn that the line has now been drawn clearly and definitively. If this is to be a campaign issue for the Conservative party, then I am pleased that it has the guts to say that this is what it believes. It may be what it believes, but it is not what I believe. I refuse to maintain the status quo. It is now up to this government to put forward its position. I suggest to the government that it should put forward the case for economic independence. Economic independence, but not the nationalism of Mr. Walter Gordon, which is unacceptable to most Canadians. Economic independence means that we must create an economic policy. We must create confidence within the country to process our own resources, to deal in the business world as both importer and exporter. We should think more of man hours, when we talk of the balance of trade, than dollars. Indeed, we should look to countries in South America, Europe, China and Asia in which we can foster trade relations. But most of all, we must have leadership and the confidence that we can succeed.
I suggest to the government that this should be the position to take. It is not enough to say that we are going to blame the United States, because we cannot blame the United States for the present situation. On the other hand, it was not Canada that convinced the United States to get involved in a very expensive war in Viet Nam. I also do not see the point of going begging to the United States, saying that it should not do this to us, because if the United States does have to take some measures it must take universal measures. I think the way to become visible again to the United States is to stand on our own feet and be independent-not nationalistic, but independent.
Economic Relations with United States
As mentioned by some members opposite, the question then arises: Are we really able to be independent? Do we have a big enough population to be independent? I think we have. This rationalization that with only 22 million people we are not large enough as a nation does not stand up to scrutiny in modern times, and never did in ancient times for that matter. Many nations of this world have made a success of their policies with smaller populations than Canada, some of them with almost no resources. We have lots of resources. Look about you, Mr. Speaker. We have mountains of iron ore, nickel, all the minerals of the world. We have the population, the expertise, and now we have the confidence.


Donald MacInnis: All we need is a government.


Steven Otto: If indeed this is the position of the Conservative party, then I am pleased that it has put it forward now. This will compel the Prime Minister to consider just why he was elected. He was elected because there was a haunting conviction in this nation that he would instil confidence and bring about reform; that he and the Liberal government would lead Canada to this position of which I speak.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I was simply rising to ask the House whether it would be agreeable to calling it six o'clock, since there is only one minute to go.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree to call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being six o'clock p.m. this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.

Thursday. November 4, 1971