1971-11-04

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The pressing and urgent necessity lies in the cash shortage facing farmers and the desperate need to establish stabilization and farm income support programs that are truly geared to the urgency of the present situation which has been particularly aggravated in western Canada by the refusal of the government to bring in acceptable legislation. If the House grants unanimous consent I move, seconded by the hon. member for Dauphin (Mr. Ritchie):
That this House gives unanimous consent to the withdrawal of Bill C-244 concurrent with the introduction of a well balanced farm income support and stabilization measure free from the defects of Bill C-244 and including immediate distribution of the interim acreage payment of $100 million, and the House leaders of the respective parties be instructed to make arrangements to facilitate forthwith the consideration of such measure.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Vegreville. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not and the motion cannot be put.



POSSIBLE U.S. EXCISE TAX ON AUTOMOBILES IMPORTED FROM CANADA-REQUEST FOR UNANIMOUS CONSENT TO MOVE MOTION UNDER S.O. 43

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I will see if I can be a little more successful since some efforts have been made in advance to obtain unanimity. I rise under the probisions of Standing Order 43 which provides that in cases of urgent and pressing necessity a motion may be moved if unanimous consent is given. The matter of urgent and pressing necessity is the potential loss of millions of dollars in trade revenue and of jobs of thousands of Canadians employed in the automotive
industry. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Wellington (Mr. Hales), the following motion:
That this House urges the government to make it clear in the current discussions with officials of the United States that the excise tax proposal on automobiles approved yesterday by the United States Senate finance committee contravenes the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement and as such is unacceptable to the people of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion moved under Standing Order 43 which requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should like it recorded that the nays came from the Liberal side of the House.



INDIAN ACT


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-272, to amend the Indian Act.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the hon. member shall have leave to introduce the bill?


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, this bill seeks to amend the Indian Act. The purpose is to lower the voting age to 18 years from the present 21 years of age in elections for the positions of chief and councillor of Indian bands so as to conform with the legal voting age in federal elections and the legal voting age in many of the provinces and to give young people in the age bracket of 18 to 21 years an opportunity to participate fully in the democratic process as it relates to elections on Indian reserves.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
[Stage Direction]
November 4, 1971
9318_______________________________
Inquiries of the Ministi-y


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Since top United States trade officials are in Ottawa to meet our people today, will the government formally inquire as to what the U.S. government hopes to achieve by the surcharge, and will attempts also be made to find out whether there is a list of grievances and preconditions for lifting the surcharge as it applies to Canada? I ask this question in view of repeated statements by the government that it does not know what the United States wants to achieve.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Of course the question is in order only so far as the first part is concerned. Perhaps the minister might like to reply to that.


Hon. Iean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry. Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, it is too early to know these things yet. The meeting that is taking place today between Canadian and United States officials is exploratory or preliminary, but this is the sort of subject that will be raised. It is too early to know what the list of matters will be that may be provided by officials on the other side.



POSSIBLE IMPOSITION BY UNITED STATES OF EXCISE TAX ON AUTOMOBILES IMPORTED FROM CANADA-AUTO PACT SAFEGUARDS

Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Mr. Speaker, since the United States Senate finance committee has given President Nixon authority to apply an excise tax on cars imported from Canada, will the government urge him not to initiate this tax or, alternatively, is the government prepared to consider genuine and complete free trade in automobiles as has been suggested in some United States quarters?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, our opinions are very clear on this subject. What is suggested by the committee if it should become law, would be contrary to the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement. I remind the House that this proposal is only at a very preliminary stage. Approval by the full Senate, a House-Senate conference to iron out differences and a subsequent vote by both Houses on an agreed version, if any, must still occur before any of these provisions becomes law. So it would be like the motion that was presented a moment ago. It is too early in the game, if I may use that word, to raise the issue formally.


Mr. Baldwin:: You want to wait until the axe falls.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Mr. Speaker, will the government express a clear position on retention of the auto pact safeguards both to these officials and to this House, or is this feature negotiable?


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is being negotiated, as I have said on a number of occasions before.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. As he knows, in the United States process all the steps he has indicated are necessary can be rapidly taken as a matter of national urgency. With this in mind, in the current negotiations taking place in this city has the government informed the United States officials that in its view the proposed excise tax does contravene the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had listened to the first part of what I said he would have heard the answer to his question.



AUTOMOBILES-ALTERNATIVE PLANS TO PROTECT INDUSTRY IN LIGHT OF POSSIBLE UNITED STATES EXCISE TAX ON IMPORTS

John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I will try again, and I did listen with care. In light of the possibility of the United States taking action in accordance with the excise tax proposal, does the government of Canada have alternative plans or proposals in mind that could be used to protect the automotive industry in Canada?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, I think it is too early to talk about this subject. Discussions are going on between Canada and the United States on this matter at the present time and have been going on for a number of months. The Minister of Finance has just reminded me that even if such a bill were passed in the Senate and in the House of Representatives the President would still be free to implement the recommendation or not to do so.



AUTOMOBILES-CONSULTATION WITH ONTARIO AND QUEBEC AUTHORITIES RESPECTING NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES

Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent-Essex):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a further supplementary to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Because of the prime importance of this industry to Ontario and to a lesser degree to Quebec, have the provincial authorities been brought in as consultants? Are they working with the federal government or are the negotiations strictly on a unilateral basis between the federal government and the government of the United States?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the relations between my department and the Department of Commerce of the Ontario government, for example, are good. Personally, I have met with Mr. Grossman, the Minister of Trade, three times in the last three or four months. This is the kind of subject that can be brought up by the Ontario or Quebec governments at any time they feel like. The other day when speaking to the Minister of Finance for Ontario I said I was willing to see him today, tomorrow or yesterday for that matter. We are very accessible, and if he wants to
November 4, 1971

discuss this subject I will be delighted to do so with any member of the Ontario or Quebec governments.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest that perhaps we should go on to the next question and return to this one in a short while. For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Athabasca on a supplementary and then see what can be done about further supplementaries later.



DISCUSSION OF CANADIAN OIL AND GAS EXPORTS WITH VISITING UNITED STATES OFFICIALS-POSSIBLE PARTICIPATION BY ALBERTA IN FUTURE TALKS

Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Can the minister indicate whether the agenda for the discussions with the United States officials will include the subject of oil and gas exports?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker. It has already been stated by the Prime Minister that discussion of energy matters with the United States would not take place at this time.


Paul Yewchuk: If and when discussions on oil and gas exports are held, is it the intention of the government of Canada to invite participation by the government of Alberta in these discussions with the United States?


Jean-Luc Pepin: If by "inviting" my hon. friend means to take part in the discussions, this is something different from having previous consultation with the government of Alberta. I suggest there is a difference between the two, and that the second is more possible than the first.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands rising on a supplementary?


Mr. Douglas:: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I might indicate to the House now that the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands on a supplementary and the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate and then go to the next subject and call on a representative of the party to the extreme left of the House.



PARTICIPATION BY FINANCE DEPARTMENT OFFICERS IN OTTAWA MEETING WITH UNITED STATES OFFICIALS- DISCUSSION OF EXCHANGE RATES

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance. Are officials of his department involved in the discussions which are taking place today with the representatives from Washington and, second, will the whole question of exchange rates be on the agenda?


Hon. E. I. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My officials are taking part in these discussions and as a matter of fact they were in Washington last week having discussions on this whole matter with the officials of the treasury.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Press reports indicate that there have been statements by spokesmen of the Department of External Affairs to the effect that discussions have been
Inquiries of the Ministry
going on for some time and it is hoped that the ministerial meeting will be held early in the new year. Does this mean that certain areas of agreement have been reached and, if so, how soon will a statement be made by the government and is it necessary to wait until the new year before the ministerial meeting is held?


Edgar John Benson: I think the two matters are mixed up. The ministerial meeting between certain ministers of the United States government and the Canadian government which takes place annually and discusses a great many matters is to take place early in the new year. I understand this is the statement of the Department of External Affairs. So far as the exchange problems and the balance of payments problems of the United States are concerned, the Group of Ten is planning a meeting in Rome, as my hon. friend knows, within a couple of weeks, on November 22 and 23, which I hope I as well as the secretary of the Treasury of the U.S. will be attending.



AUTHORITY FOR U.S. PRESIDENT TO INCREASE IMPORT SURTAX TO 15 PER CENT-CANADIAN REACTION

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Has the Canadian government been informed officially or was it informed prior to now that today the United States Senate finance committee has voted to give President Nixon the authority to raise the U.S. import surcharge to 15 per cent on all products, not the restricted list of some months ago and, if so, what is the Canadian reaction to this position?


Edgar John Benson: All I have on this matter is a telex. I think what the Senate committee is doing is simply to give President Nixon very broad powers. This is not an indication that he should do this or that. The same applies to the excise tax on automobiles. The Senate committee is simply giving the President, according to the telex I received, very wide powers to do whatever he deems necessary in particular circumstances.


Gerald William Baldwin: How naive can you be?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate on a last supplementary question and then recognize the hon. member for Compton.


John Howard Lundrigan: Can the Minister of Finance tell the members of the House and the Canadian people whether, before he received the telex in question, there was any prior consultation with the American authorities, and what has been the initial response from his office?


Edgar John Benson: First of all, I received the telex since I came into the House regarding the decision of the U.S. Senate committee. With respect to consultation, consultations on the particular problem of the surtax have been going on since it was first imposed. There have also been consultations with the United States government on a rather continuing basis with respect to their balance of payments problem.

November 4, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of Finance.
Can he tell the House whether it is his intention to recommend a price and wage freeze in order to curb inflation and bring down the unemployment rate?

Hon. E. ]. Benson (Minister of Finance): If any such step were to be taken by the government it would be announced in the House.



CORPORATE AFFAIRS


Mr. Pierre De Bane (Matane):: I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he is concerned and what he intends to do about American-owned companies which are unable ta increase the prices of their products in the United States because of the price freeze there but are increasing their prices in Canada? Does he intend to do something about it and is he concerned about the problem?


Mr. Bell:: Probably not.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member has put his question.

I am not sure that the question is supplementary to the one asked by the hon. member for Compton. The question will be allowed if the minister wants to reply briefly, and then we will go to another subject.


Edgar John Benson: I will bring the matter to the attention of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I stated a moment ago that we would try to pass on to a second subject and, for that purpose, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Egmont.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: My question is for the
Prime Minister. In light of the publication yesterday of a

secret report by the top environmental council to the President of the United States that the Amchitka test potentially could cause an earthquake and tidal waves, what steps has the Prime Minister taken to ascertain the importance of this report and its validity and, if so, what is his response?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: It is because of the possibility, although we think it is remote, of disturbances of this kind that we made our first protest to the United States and have protested in various forms since then.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Would the Prime Minister indicate whether or not anyone in his office or anyone in the office of the Minister of the Environment has taken the opportunity to study this and the other reports that have not been made public? If so, is there any attempt being made, even at this late hour, by the Prime Minister to exercise his normal right of office with respect to communication with the President?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the Minister of the Environment reported to the House some time ago, we had our own scientists look into this matter and their views apparently are not dissimilar to those contained in the report. It is on the basis of their views that we have made our views known to the American government.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether there is a communication problem, but twice I have asked directly whether any governmental officials in this country have looked at these reports and, if so, do they add any further information, and will there be further representations? Perhaps I could get a straight answer to that question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the latter part of the question, whether there is any further information, the answer is straight-yes, the minister responsible for the environment has had information of his own. As to whether this particular report has been looked at by anyone in my office or in the minister's office, I will inquire.


Mr. lames A. McGrath (St. lohn's East):: As a supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Again I invite the co-operation of hon. members so that we may move on. I will make a determined effort to have as many questioners as possible included in the question period today, but if we are to achieve this I hope we will have as few supplementaries as possible and that they will be brief and will be answered briefly.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, in view of this report and the mounting concern throughout the country over the proposed test on Saturday, will the Prime Minister now reconsider his view on this matter and communicate the concern of the Canadian people directly to the President of the United States?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, my own position has been made known on this, but I hope that members of the Official Opposition who are protesting U.S. action on this
November 4, 1971

basis or on the economic basis will vote againt the motion which is before the House now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Transport or to the minister's parliamentary secretary. Will the minister say what action has been taken on behalf of the large number of Canadian National dockyard employees at St. John's, Newfoundland, who were served with lay-off notices on October 25 which were rescinded on October 27, re-issued on October 29, rescinded again on November 1 and re-issued again on November 2?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I will take the question as notice and look into the matter.


Walter C. Carter: In view of the fact that these lay-offs will impose considerable hardship on the people affected, would the parliamentary secretary ask his minister to intercede to have Canadian National withdraw the lay-off notices, and do everything possible to prevent a recurrence of this inhuman treatment of its workers by Canadian National?


Gérard Duquet: I can only say to the hon. member that the matter will be looked into today.



WHEAT-STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF SUPPLY AND SERVICES ON NECESSITY OF TWO-PRICE SYSTEM-GOVERNMENT POLICY

['Order, please. The hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East.']
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. Was the Minister of Supply and Services stating government policy earlier this week in Assiniboia when he said a two-price system for wheat was now necessary, with a minimum price of $3 a bushel for wheat sold domestically in Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I did not understand what the minister was quoted as having said but I will look at both Hansard and what he said and then answer as to government policy.



Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Corn-
Inquiries of the Ministry
munications since the minister is absent but with good cause. Frankly, I want an answer at ten o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Jardine McCleave: Would the minister tell the House whether a government direction has been made with regard to the question of the forthcoming award by the Canadian Overseas Telecommunication Corporation of contracts for feeds to this continent from the Trans-Atlantic cable shortly to go into Beaver Harbour, Halifax county? The question has urgency because Treasury Board is now considering the tenders, and the decision may be reflected in hundreds of thousands of telephone bills across Canada.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Ten o'clock.


Robert Jardine McCleave: You be there, Mr. Prime Minister, and I will too.

.30 p.m.)


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Has the interdepartmental committee set up to consider implementation of the Ouimet committee recommendations yet reported to him and, if so, will he be making that report public?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, this committee still meets regularly and over 50 per cent of the recommendations contained in the Ouimet report have already been put into effect. Work is going on for implementing the others, provided they do not conflict with our policy.


David Orlikow: Would the minister consider making a statement on motions at an early date indicating which recommendations of the Ouimet report have been implemented, which, if any, the government rejects, and what steps it proposes to take to get the co-operation of the provinces in implementing those recommendations that require provincial approval?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I shall be pleased to send the hon. member as many details as possible.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour. In view of the increasing

November 4, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
number of complaints concerning the payment of unemployment insurance claims-I have a letter here from a member of the board of referees in the city of London, Ontario-will the minister provide some vehicle by which members of the House from all parties may have an opportunity to question members of the commission concerning their administrative practices and the many complaints that it regularly takes five or six weeks to pay claims? Would the minister, who is very sympathetic to labour and labouring people, do something? He would make himself very very popular if he would.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is now making a speech. He has asked the question and the minister might be allowed to reply.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I had a report on my desk this morning indicating that the number of complaints tabulated by the commission has in fact decreased over the last few weeks. When my estimates come before the appropriate committee the hon. gentleman will have full opportunity to ask further questions. However, I am quite prepared to arrange for an interview between the hon. gentleman and the chief commissioner of the Unemployment Insurance Commission at the hon. gentleman's convenience so that he can bring up these problems personally.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Could the minister be persuaded to make arrangements when the new session commences to have his estimates brought on early so that it will not be next summer before the matter is discussed? Also, since the minister has been kind enough to suggest that he would arrange a meeting between myself and the administrator of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, would he include other members who have received all sorts of complaints as well?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: I would prefer to do that, Mr. Speaker, rather than have the civil servants of the Unemployment Insurance Commission rapped with an unfair charge periodically in the House.


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister or his department received any protest or comment from the Ontario Consumer Protection Service that the advertisements of the Bank of Canada and/or the Department of Finance with regard to Canada savings bonds are in direct breach of the Consumer Protection Act of Ontario?


Edgar John Benson: Not to my
knowledge, Mr. Speaker. The advertisements I have seen indicate that Canada savings bonds are something that should be invested in by every Canadian.


INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY
Thomas Miller Bell: I have a question >for the right hon. Prime Minister, Has Mr. Donald Peacock been appointed a press officer in London, England, and is this the same person who wrote the life history of the Prime Minister before the last election, a very notable work of fiction?


AGRICULTURE
Mr. J. G. Lind (Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. My question is prompted by the minister's announcement of a fowl slaughter program to stabilize egg supplies. How does the minister expect his program to stabilize egg supplies when I understand that eggs are being imported into the Toronto area from the United States at a price which enables the importer to sell his product at a lower cost than the local producer? Could this be considered dumping and is there any way that the government can place a surcharge on these imported eggs to protect our egg producers?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I understand that a very small quantity of eggs was imported from the United States under special circumstances. The price of eggs in Ontario has increased about eight or ten cents per dozen in the last week or so and of course this makes the Canadian market somewhat more attractive to American producers. In so far as dumping is concerned, if we can establish that United States eggs are being offered or sold in Canada at a lower price than in the United States then anti-dumping provisions can apply.


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. Will the minister tell the House whether these United States eggs being sold in Canada have to be marked as such and, if not, will he take action to ensure that they are marked as U.S. eggs on the grocery shelves?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am inclined to believe that these eggs were not put on the market at all but perhaps went to the breaking plants.


BUTTER-IMPORTATION FROM UNITED STATES OR NEW ZEALAND
Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Agriculture. May I ask whether currently or within the last month the Canadian Dairy Commission or the department has imported butter from the United States or New Zealand?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: No, Mr. Speaker, they have not and there may be no imports for several weeks and perhaps months. However, the projec-
November 4, 1971

tions now would indicate that to the end of this dairy year we may be short eight or 10 days' supply on total requirements of butter for the year.


INVESTIGATION OF USE AND SAFETY OF DRUG MDA
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of reports recently of the deaths of seven people who had taken the drug MDA, with no other apparent cause of death, is the minister conducting an investigation into the use and safety of this drug?


Hon. lohn C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I shall check into the matter and report to the hon. member.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. The other day I asked the Prime Minister whether he was aware of the situation which exists at Inco involving the possible lay-off of 470 employees. I understand the matter was taken up with the Minister of Labour. Can he now advise whether there has been any discussion with Inco regarding this problem with a view to alleviating the situation?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The Prime Minister spoke to me about the question and I spoke to the appropriate minister who was not available the other day, the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. I am sure he would inform the House that Inco complied with the law and discussed the proposed lay-offs with his department so that the facilities of that department will be placed at the disposal of both management and the affected personnel.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In view of the situation that exists at Inco, is the minister planning to inject a further $100 million into the employment support program?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: The employment support program is only beginning to be put into operation and that question does not arise at this point. The Department of Manpower and Immigration is having specific discussions with Inco under the consultative manpower services in the hope of arriving at an agreement for working out the best possible solution for employment for the individuals involved.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A further supplementary-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may ask a last supplementary but we will soon be running short of time.
___________________________________9323
Inquiries of the Ministry


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In light of the fact that Dun and Bradstreet of Canada has indicated that business failures rose in September to 216 from 168 in the corresponding year-earlier period, and that the largest number of September failures occurred in Quebec, 100 companies compared with 88 in September, 1970, is the government considering new selective fiscal measures to avert such high levels of business failures next year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will appreciate that the question as asked would normally invite a general statement which ought to be made on motions. I would not think that the question in those terms is in order. The hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: I apologize to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain. The hon. member for Hamilton West is rising on a point of order.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your patience. In view of the way you ruled on my question, may I ask the Prime Minister this question. In light of the fact that business failures seem to be increasing, would he indicate to the House when a statement will be made regarding the policies that the government will undertake in order to avert this situation? Surely the Prime Minister can answer that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if the hon. member is suggesting that we should make a specific statement to tell businessmen how not to fail. However, if he is not asking that, if he is asking about the general state of the economy, may I say that the Minister of Finance made a statement less than two weeks ago and we are frequently making such statements.


Gerald William Baldwin: And that statement caused another 50 failures.


COMPLAINTS REGARDING NON-RECEIPT OF PAYMENTS UNDER FORAGE CROP AND GRASSLAND SUBSIDY PROGRAMS
Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in his capacity as the minister answering for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the large number of complaints that have come to light recently with respect to tardy payment or non-payment of moneys owing to western farmers under the government's forage crop and grassland subsidy programs which are related to the Lift program, what steps, if any, is the minister taking to clear up this serious situation?

November 4, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, to the extent that any individual problems are brought to my attention we attempt to check into them. We find, on occasion, that cheques which have been sent out have been lost. There are bound to be some cases like that among the 100,000 applications which were dealt with under the program.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I want to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. In view of the high unemployment rate in Quebec, does he know that one Crown corporation, COTC, has fired fourteen men at a time when the company is making $20 million in net profit? Why is that policy allowed, and does the minister intend to change that situation with regard to Crown corporations?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I think the specific question had better be addressed to a colleague of mine rather than to me. It is, of course, government policy generally to allow Crown corporations to exercise individual business judgment. As far as the Department of Manpower and Immigration is concerned, we continually offer our services to employees of Crown corporations in the same way as to others who are affected by a lay-off.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister say whether Lieutenant Colonel W. Kenneth Robinson, a Member of Parliament, was expressing government policy when he stated on a short summer visit to South Africa that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that a question in those terms would not be in order. He cannot ask a representative of the government to indicate whether a member making a statement outside the House is enunciating government policy. That is clearly not in order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member might rephrase the question.


John Leroy Skoberg: Is it government policy to suggest that South African non-whites should realize they are not yet ready for full political independence, as was indicated by Lieutenant Colonel W. Kenneth Robinson?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Dart-mouth-Halifax East.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, it is with sadness that I rise to ask this question of the Minister of National Defence. It concerns the first serious accident involving an air search and rescue craft in about 20 years. Would the minister make a brief comment on whether the bodies are recoverable, and so on?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. The tragic accident I think will serve as a reminder that the business of search and rescue is not only arduous and at times unexciting but also dangerous. I am sure the House will join me in expressing our sorrow to the bereaved families. The accident, as the hon. member indicated, is the first fatal accident involving a Canadian Armed Forces Dakota since 1951. A board of inquiry is under way at the moment. I cannot report at the moment on the possibility of recovering bodies, because, as the hon. member may well know, the crash was complete and there was heavy burning at the time.



CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday the Prime Minister indicated that he was interested in avoiding a court case between a miner and the Cape Breton Development Corporation. In view of that interest, would he follow it up by asking Treasury Board to review the final report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in order to bring about a just settlement of this question?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I will take notice of the question.



MANPOWER


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. My question concerns the local initiatives program and particularly the federal work-intensive projects. Would the minister indicate when the people of Canada will be given more information on the projects that can be carried out by the departments of Public Works, National Defence, National Health and Welfare, Industry, Trade and Commerce and others?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I cannot put a specific timing on when further details will be announced but they will certainly be announced as specific decisions are made and

November 4, 1971

announcement is appropriate. Decisions are moving forward and I think we may have an announcement about the details before very long.



CANADA PENSION PLAN


Mr. Robert Muir (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Since it has taken between four and six months and in some cases up to eight months to process claims under the Canada Pension Plan, would the minister be good enough to have that situation investigated and ascertain if further equipment is required such as computers, or more staff, in order to expedite these claims?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. member that, because of the hundreds of thousands of claims now coming in as the program ages, it has been necessary in order to catch up with the load for us to do the very thing the hon. member is suggesting. We are converting to computers but the process is not complete.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if the government has now arranged a program of special assistance for the victims of the terrible tragedy in the state of Orissa, India. If so, what is the nature of the assistance?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I inquired of the department this morning and they are putting before me today a recommendation for some temporary assistance at least in the form of a cheque to the Red Cross, but since it has not come formally before me I cannot yet announce it.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is he aware that an American research laboratory in Chicago has conducted successful experiments with the morning after contraceptive pill, and is the minister's department prepared to conduct similar tests on this pill to determine whether or not it is suitable for use in Canada?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that, generally, is yes. We are watching the developments in this area closeinquiries of the Ministry
ly. Our most recent action was to reconstitute the experimental committee on the pill and other recent discoveries in this area. We expect to have a report from them shortly.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Can the minister tell the House whether, in the figure of $52.5 million he gave in his recent statement regarding the cost of the development program for the hydrofoil Bras d'Or, there is included the cost of computerized weapons systems and other armament costs?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I think this is a matter of public record but I can look up the references and let the hon. member know.



AIR TRANSPORT


Mr. Ambrose Hubert Peddle (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I have been trying for three days to catch your eye.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: Actually, I had been absent, Mr. Speaker, attending the funeral-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ambrose Hubert Peddle: -of a government. My question was to be addressed to the Minister of Transport but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. It is an international question, Mr. Speaker, involving Great Britain, the United States and Canada. Is the minister aware that the Royal Air Force, which up to now has been using Department of Transport facilities at Goose Bay, is now using United States Air Force facilities for its aircraft as a result of the deterioration of DOT ramps, and hangars? If so, what action is the minister prepared to take to ensure that this RAF activity is returned to the Canadian site?


Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, I will take this question as notice.



ABORTION


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. In view of evidence

November 4, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
that the abortion law is being unevenly applied, partly as a result of congestion in certain metropolitan hospitals, is the minister studying any measures in conjunction with the provincial health ministers intended to ensure that this law is fairly applied regardless of whether people live in rural or urban communities?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of justice):: This is a matter we can properly deal with in debate. Of course, the administration of the law depends on enforcement by the provinces.


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice, arising from his earlier answer to the effect that uneven facilities for abortion available in different hospitals could be considered in debate. I should like to ask the minister to do his best to see that we get an opportunity for such a debate during the present session.



INDUSTRY


Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Has the government calculated what, if any, increase in the prices of work shirts and low and medium-priced dress shirts will result, or has resulted, from the new import restrictions announced last month?


Jean-Luc Pepin: The opinion of my experts is that the effect will be minimal if any. I would remind the hon. gentleman that there will still be a little more than 1.2 million dozen low priced shirts imported into Canada next year. I am quite sure the hon, member will be able to find one his size if he cares to.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: I do not think we should get personal, Mr. Speaker. May I ask whether the Prices and Incomes Commission was consulted in connection with the decision to limit imports of work shirts and low and medium-priced dress shirts?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker but all departments were.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the hon. Minister of Finance a question.
The Finance Minister of Quebec stated yesterday that he still hoped the new tax system would not go into effect until 1973. Could the minister tell the House whether the government intends to apply the new system in 1972?
(Mr. Ritchie.]


Edgar John Benson: I have indicated very often that it is the intention of the government to proceed with Bill C-259 and to have it passed and implemented on January 1, 1972.



AGRICULTURE


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Bearing in mind the cash shortage among farmers today, would the minister consider sending a communication to the Farm Credit Corporation asking them to show understanding, caution and friendly restraint in attempting to extract from farmers payments on Farm Credit Corporation loans?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I did that several months ago.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the elusive Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Has he met with the members of the Atlantic Development Council, and when may we expect a statement from him concerning the recommendations contained in the council's first report?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: No, Mr. Speaker, I have not met with the members of the council; I have not been asked to meet with them, though I shall probably do so at a future date. However, if I have a statement to make I shall make it in due course.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East on a supplementary and then call orders of the day.



SIGNING OF SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT WITH NOVA SCOTIA

J. Michael Forrestall: I wish to direct a supplementary or related question to the minister. Can he now confirm the signing of the supplementary DREE agreement with the province of Nova Scotia and tell us when an announcement may be made?


Jean Marchand: I think all these questions should be a little more precise. Does the agreement to which the hon. member refers concern highways? If so, I hope it will be signed very soon.
November 4, 1971



INQUIRY AS TO FINAL REPORT OF LE DAIN COMMISSION

Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister tell us when the LeDain report on the non-medical use of drugs will be completed and made public?


John Carr Munro: As I said in the House some time ago, the latest advice I have received, after discussing the matter with the Chairman, is that it will probably be available by the latter part of December at the earliest.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the leader of the House what the business is to be for the rest of this week, and what plans the government has for next week, particularly bearing in mind that next Thursday will be Remembrance Day? Can the hon. gentleman indicate whether there is any special plan for the sittings next week?


Mr. MacEachen:: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, we shall resume the debate in committee on the tax bill and continue it next week. With respect to Remembrance Day and the holiday which is provided for that day under the rules, a number of hon. members have indicated that they would like to participate in ceremonies in their constituencies on that day. However, it will be difficult for hon. members, especially those from outlying constituencies, to do this and be back on Friday morning. If it could be arranged to pick up the hours which are normally spent on government business on Friday early in the week, it might be possible for us not to sit on Friday in order that hon. members can spend Remembrance Day in their constituencies and still be able to get back for the sitting on Monday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If that is agreeable we can do something about it tomorrow by way of making it an order.


Gerald William Baldwin: I wonder whether the minister is able to give the House a statement as to the government's intentions respecting business for the rest of this session. What happens after Bill C-259 has been completed? In particular, is it the intention of the government or of the Minister of Finance to introduce further budgetary measures which would have to be passed before this session ends?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is not the intention of the government, following the completion of the tax bill, to commence discussion of new items which are not presently at the report stage, except, possibly, with respect to the tax legislation arising from the statement in the House some
Business of the House
time ago by the Minister of Finance. That would be a possible additional item.


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise merely to indicate that as far as this party is concerned we would agree to the suggested arrangements for next week. We feel it would be proper for the House not to sit on Friday, it being understood that the time lost on government business because of our not sitting on Friday would be made up on Monday and Tuesday.


Robert Jardine McCleave: May I express the hope, Mr. Speaker, that we who star in the late show will not be forgotten in all this amity and concord, and that the late show can start, instead of at ten o'clock, at midnight or one o'clock in the morning, whenever the beautiful people in the House of Commons decide to adjourn.


Mr. Blair:: As hon. members are aware, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of private bills which have been on the order paper for a long period. It seems that every time there has been an arrangement by the consent of all parties to put one piece of business ahead of another it has been at the expense of these private bills. I ask the leaders of the parties to take into account the fact that this will happen again next Thursday under the present proposal. Can arrangements not be made to replace at least some of the hours which have been lost?


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, November 3, consideration of the motion (Mr. Macquarrie):
That this House, noting the continuing deterioration of communications 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.
Douglas Charles Rowland: Mr. Speaker, the motion before the House reads:
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.

November 4, 1971
Economic Relations with United States
There, Mr. Speaker, is an expression of the kind of courageous leadership that this nation requires as it moves into one of the most difficult phases of its history. There stand the Tory statesmen with feet firmly planted, one on each side of the fence, issuing the traditional clarion call of Canadian politicians in difficulty-"Join us in confused inaction". If I did not know the source of this motion I would have sworn that it emanated from the Liberal party. It sounds like something Mackenzie King would have said were he here today. Indeed, I suspect that the motion was written by Eddie Goodman sitting in Laurier House. That, at least, would explain the clear case of schizophrenia which has gripped the person who prepared the motion.
The hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) yesterday presented us with a highly emotional defence of his motion. It was emotional by necessity since one obviously cannot employ logic in speaking in its favour. Following one of the more sentimental passages which drew appropriate reactions from other members of the House, the hon. member for Hillsborough obliquely charged that hon. members were being intellectually indecent. Let me say this, Mr. Speaker: if anything was intellectually indecent in this House yesterday, it was the speech of the hon. member for Hillsborough. When I see a man such as the hon. member for Hillsborough, whom I personally admire, representing a party for which I have a great deal of respect, the party of Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir Robert Borden and Arthur Meighen, consciously and deliberately hurl himself into the depths of intellectual dishonesty, I become depressed and angry. This motion reeks with intellectual dishonesty, an intellectual dishonesty motivated by the crassest political cupidity.
This resolution was carefully designed to create the impression that Canada, by taking a slightly more independent stance on foreign affairs, had betrayed its ancient ally, was cozying up to the Godless communists, and that in righteous anger the United States government had smitten us with the 10 per cent surtax. I know that the hon. member did not say that in so many words, but that was the impression he was seeking to leave. One need hardly say that such is a total and complete misrepresentation of the situation.
In the name of what noble cause has the Conservative party perpetrated this disservice to the nation? In the name of more votes at the next election and more money for its next election war chest. The Conservatives know that there are sizeable numbers of people in this country who suffered terrible indignities in Eastern Europe and who undoubtedly as a result view attempts at east-west rapprochement with mistrust. Tory strategists obviously wish to fan the flames of fear in the breasts of such people in the hope that that fear will be transformed into Tory votes at the next election.
The Conservative party is attempting to create a species of sophisticated neo-McCarthyism. It is attempting to form an unholy alliance between the right-wing extremists of the Edmund Burke sort and persons who, because of terrible personal experiences, legitimately mistrust the governments of eastern Europe and the People's Republic of China. That kind of raw political opportunism stinks to

high heaven and is unworthy of the Progressive Conservative party.
But what is beneath contempt is the other political pay-off that the Conservatives expect, that of having their warchest swelled by funds from United States corporations operating in Canada. They learned through bitter experience in 1962 and 1963 that U.S. corporations in Canada are extremely nervous about even the most watered down manifestations of an independence of spirit on the part of Canada, and that they will do whatever is necessary to crush it if a Canadian political party gives them the opportunity. The Liberals gave them that opportunity in 1962 and 1963, to the eternal shame of that party and to the discomfiture of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). The Tory party has now determined to play that role. As I said, that is crass political cupidity.
What makes me even more angry is that the whole exercise is not only intellectually dishonest, in direct opposition to this country's best interests, but it is also bloody stupid and completely inept. This motion is making those do-nothing continentalists on the other side of the House look good. To my horror, yesterday I found myself applauding on occasion the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). The Liberal party, which more than any other institution in this country has contributed to Canada's becoming virtually an economic fief-dom of the United States, is coming out of this debate sounding like the guardian of Canadian independence, courtesy of the Tory party.
Just what has the government done that is so bold and innovative? It has recognized the People's Republic of China. Britain and France did that in 1949. We in the New Democratic Party have been demanding such action for years and so, by implication, have western Tories who have cried for increased grain sales to that country. The government has voted to have the People's Republic of China seated in the United Nations. This the hon. member for Hillsborough called a cruel act. This "cruel act" was supported by two-thirds of the membership of that organization. Is it a cruel act to say that the effective government of China is the government in Peking which rules 600 million Chinese rather than the government of Taiwan which rules approximately three million Chinese and another 10 million or so highly discontented Taiwanese? What bold steps has this government taken which would have the effect of shaking United States confidence in us? Was it because the government invited Marshal Tito for a visit? He was in Washington first. Was it because the government invited Mr. Kosygin for a visit? Mr. Nixon himself is going to the Soviet Union to see him.
What bold actions that are contrary to the interests of the United States have we taken? We have allowed our dollar to float, which is in accordance with United States desires. We have the lowest tariffs in our history, which is also in accordance with United States desires. This government has seen to it that Canada lay supine as Canadian industry after Canadian industry and Canadian resource after Canadian resource has fallen into the hands of foreign corporations. The rate of take-over after the war of about 50 corporations a year has now risen to 175 a year. This is the government which in principle part has presided over the development of a branch plant
November 4, 1971
COMMONS DEBATES___________
Economic Relations with United States
economy in Canada, a branch plant economy that has hobbled our capacity to be productive, which has warped our economic development into a misshapen horror and left us horribly vulnerable to the effects of the United States DISC program, if and when it comes into effect.
This is the government which four years after receiving a report on the danger to our independence of increased foreign ownership of our economy has done nothing to meet that danger. This is the government that ten weeks after the imposition of the U.S. surcharge on imports has taken no effective steps to counteract its effects, even though by its own calculations the surcharge, if left on for one year, will result in the loss of 90,000 jobs in Canada. This is the government which, threatened by wholesale shutdowns of United States branch plant operations in Canada should DISC come into effect, mutters vaguely about contingency plans and which has not presented any concrete measures for the protection of the Canadian economy for discussion by the Canadian people.
This is why the second part of the motion makes so much sense. The second part reads:
-for failing to develop a new economic policy which would strengthen our economic independence and fully employ our growing and highly-skilled human resources.
What do the Tories really mean by those words? Let me quote a passage from a speech by a prominent Conservative recently:
Another suggestion that has been made, which may shock . .. some is that the inevitable answer for Canada is to seek closer economic integration with the United States. There are two sides to that question. Personally, I believe that integration, on a planned and programmed basis, of our economy with that of the United States is absolutely necessary. We have integration now. It happens to be unplanned and unstructured, and it is that lack of planning and lack of structuring that has caused the particular problems of this emergency.
This is a statement by Senator Grosart on October 4. So while the statement in the motion stands as valid, one must question the sincerity of its drafters. There are things we can do and must do right now to meet the current emergency. Spokesmen from my party have mentioned them time and time again, and I will review them briefly.
One of the first steps this party suggested was the reduction of interest rates in Canada, and I am pleased to see there have been some steps in that direction. We have also suggested the establishment of a monitoring agency, similar to that proposed in the Watkins report of 1968 and supported by the External Affairs Committee, to ensure that Canadian subsidiaries of United States corporations do not transfer production to their parent companies in the United States, or elsewhere, for that matter. The third suggestion we have made is implementing very substantial tax cuts, particularly for low income people, in order to increase aggregate demand in Canada. We have suggested the immediate, massive infusion of funds into the field of housing and construction. We have suggested that the federal government should make a serious contribution of funds for building waste treatment plants across the country, both for the purpose of expanding economic activity and for the purpose of dealing with the problems of pollution.
Hon. members will certainly note that none of these measures imply retaliation against United States economic measures. They are measures that Canada can and must take at home to stimulate and build up our own economy, to make it more resistant to measures such as those the United States has implemented. There are also things we can and must do now in order to guarantee the continued independence of this nation. My party has suggested on numerous occasions medium and long-range policies which are absolutely necessary to that end. Again, spokesmen from my party have gone into that time and time again so I have no need to do so now. In fact, time would not permit me to do so.
In summary, it is my contention and the contention of this party that we must now, in the words of the motion, develop a new economic policy which would strengthen our economic independence and fully employ our growing and highly skilled human resources. It is our further contention that a more independent stance on the part of Canada has not and will not result in a deterioration of relations with our friends to the south. If those relations are slightly strained at the moment, if communication is slightly more difficulty, it is not Canada which is at fault. That is not to say we should not be seeking to repair any damage that does exist with all the means at our disposal, but how great is the damage? I would remind hon. members that today's papers carry headlines announcing that United States officials are in Canada to discuss the surtax.
I would, therefore, move, second by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the motion be amended by deleting therefrom the words "for failing to employ and improve firm and constructive economic and political relations with the United States, and, at the same time",-
The motion as amended would then read:
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 develop a new economic policy which would strengthen our economic independence and fully employ our growing and highly-skilled human resources.


Harold Warren Danforth: As the House is aware, I hesitate to get into partisan politics, but I have been tempted by the speech we have just heard from the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland). He did make some rather harsh criticisms of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie). As as matter of fact, he said his speech was an example of crass political cupidity. In referring to the speech of the hon. member for Selkirk, I think I should substitute the word stupidity for cupidity. I do this kindly because such speeches were heard from one end of Ontario to the other during the election campaign last month which resulted in the demise of that party.
It is not strange for us to hear the hon. member utter words of praise for tighter or closer ties with Communist nations. This is a policy that party has been advocating for years. What is strange is that they have an anti-U.S. policy, to prevent the United States take-over of Canadian industry and, at the same time, their Maritime manifesto refers to the state taking over industries without compen-
9330

November 4, 1971
Economic Relations with United States
sation. I have often wondered why, as have many people in this nation, when this party is dealing with anti-U.S. policy and United States interference in this country, they never talk about the interference of the United States unions in Canadian domestic affairs or of retrieving Canadian moneys used for financing United States unions. We never hear them speak about this. If they are to be concerned about Canadian independence they should deal with the whole gamut.
One of the real disappointments to me in this entire debate, as a member for Ontario where this matter is of vital importance, is the fact that the government speakers in the main have not dealt with the actual issue before us. It is not good enough for the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) to spend his allotted time whining about the reaction of our party when we were in government 10 years ago. We want to know what is to be done about the situation facing Canada today, and we want to know what the government's policy is toward the problems of tomorrow. It is not good enough for the Secretary of State for External Affairs to cry about their efforts to date. The man on the street and the people of this nation know there is a difficulty in Canada-U.S. relations today. They know there is confusion and they know we are facing problems we have never faced before. As far as we can gather from the speeches of any members of government, in an official or unofficial capacity, there is no plan, no policy and no program; therefore, there is no progress.
I am going to support many of the statements, and emphasize them if I may, made by my colleague, the hon. member for Hillsborough. In his speech he intimated that we are now in a brand new ball game, and we are. We heard the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) talking about the Tory party making this an election issue. I should like to deal with that because the Liberal party started making statements of this type during the war of 1812, and they have not changed since. That is nothing new. I would like to say that in this era we are not just dealing strictly with United States-Canadian relations. We are in an era of world trading groups; we are in an era of international combines, corporations, factories and businesses. The hon. member for York East probably knows this aspect of the subject as well as any other member in this House. Why did he not deal with it on that plane rather than deal in partisan politics? He is from Ontario and knows the importance of good United States-Canadian relations.
There are several areas in which we can make progress. One thing I should like to mention is the fact that this government seems to have been almost panic stricken by the application of the surcharge. In his reference to this the hon. member for Selkirk mentioned that the surcharge was applied ten weeks ago but there has been no action yet by this government. I believe the government should be criticized for this because the United States action was not unforeseen. As a matter of fact, those on the government benches who were in a position to be well informed economically, those in the opposition and in the financial circles of Canada, could tell from the fact that the United States dollar had been in trouble for months because of the balance of payments difficulty that the
(Mr. Danforth.]
United States had almost no other course of action than the one it took.
My criticism of this government is based on the fact that, having this knowledge and knowing this course of action was almost inevitable, it did not have any program or contingency plan to meet it. The terrible shame is that to date, ten weeks later, we still do not have any program and are still not making any progress. The fact which must be emphasized is that we are still waiting for the United States to make a move. The onus should have been on us. I think this was an opportune time for the Canadian government to show the leadership Canadians expect, because we are in a brand new ball game. The trading patterns in the future are not going to be comparable to those of the past. This was the time for us to break new ground. The fact that we are alienating ourselves from the United States, whether through political moves or government economic moves, matters little if we are to end up all alone. The pattern today is for nations to align themselves together into strong trading groups which can take a share of the markets of the world.
The fact is that Great Britain, which has long been a pillar of strength as a trading nation, has decided it could no longer go it alone and has joined the European Economic Community. It should be pointed out in no uncertain terms that this is the trend. This is the way we are going. We should not be staying on the outside looking in and asking for crumbs from the table of the Americans. When we asked the government what was going on in the European Economic Community, since we were not within the inner circle of informed people, we were told that there had been some consultations in respect of some of the negotiations but we had taken no part in working out the ramifications of such a treaty. This was not the case with Australia and New Zealand; they obtained concessions. Canada did not obtain any concessions. We do not have to leave it at that. There are other areas which we should be exploring. Does it not seem logical and plausible at this time for Canada to start exploring either unilaterally, bilaterally or multilaterally the other markets of the world that are developing right before us? We have Japan; we have the Pacific rim; we have the European Economic Community; we have a whole group of nations.
The world is breaking down into blocks of potential consumers. I am afraid that Canada will find itself running around at the last moment trying to beg someone to look at it as a trading nation. Canada must choose what it wants to be. It must do this now and not count, as we seem to have been doing, on the patience of others as we vacillate without any clear and consistent long-term objective. We must take a stand. With Information Canada which this government uses so well, and with the facilities for the dissemination of news which we have in Canada either through television, radio or the press, if this government had had any policy whatsoever, everyone in the factories and on the street would know about it. But ask any learned gentleman or lady today who is earning a living what the policy of the government is toward the industry they work for or the business in which they are engaged and they cannot give you a single plank, platform or promise. They do not know. I suspect the government does not know. Is it not time we started to take measures to do something about it?
November 4, 1971

I think the problem is that there are so many departments in this government that one department does not know what the other is doing. A prime example of this is, at a time when a major industry is in trouble through lack of markets, either domestically or internationally, the Minister of Regional Economic Affairs (Mr. Marchand) is allocating money to establish the same type of productive capacity as that which is in trouble. This does not make any sense. Is it not time we embarked on a program to find out what we could do best to compete in the various parts of the world. We should concentrate on these particular objectives, instead of muddling along in the same old manner that was outdated years ago. Certainly, we should learn. If we cannot learn and if we have lost all initiative, then we can copy.
I point to the economic status today of West Germany, which not only has no unemployment problem but has a problem obtaining sufficient workers. We should look to Japan whose industries were smashed during the war some 30 years ago and who today is an industrial giant. Here we are in Canada talking about going to the United States on our knees and asking for concessions. Where is the leadership? Many of us in this House, especially from Ontario, have grown up next door to the United States. Many of us have been engaged in businesses directly concerned with companies in the United States. I am not afraid of United States domination. I am not afraid of a take-over by the United States. That is not what they want. These are businessmen. All they ask is that their counterparts in Canada be businessmen, too, and speak to them as one businessman to another. They do not want Canadians to go to them with cup-in-hand and say "please". They want the co-operation that is their due as one neighbour to another. Is this too much to expect?


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, my adrenal glands do not seem to be pumping very hard today. I am more in the mood in which the House was yesterday, I suppose, when I found myself very frequently applauding individual statements made by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) and others, because I think there were some profound truths spoken about Canadian-American relations. But there seemed really to be more agreement among speakers than disagreement. I wondered for a time if I might see a repetition of something that happened a good many years ago in British Columbia. There was a young judge in the Kootenays named Cox. He visited his circuits only occasionally, and in the district of Boundary it was usually eight months before the judge arrived. At one time the inhabitants of this mining area saved up quite a splendid collection of law suits with which to test the young judge. But his horse went lame on the Kootenay trail and the judge did not arrive on time, so the litigants repaired to the local saloon. Judge Cox was a long time getting there, so they stayed in the saloon three days. At the end of that time all the litigation had been settled among themselves and there were no cases left for the judge to hear. They were strong men in the Kootenays and continue to be so. I will refrain
Economic Relations with United States
from speaking about Coast-Chilcotin this afternoon because it would take too long.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Paul St. Pierre: I thought yesterday that perhaps sometime this afternoon the opposition party would decide it was not really worthwhile to bring their resolution to a vote today, but after hearing them today I think perhaps they feel it should come to a vote.
I have had some trouble with the resolution, as have many others. I have looked at it sideways, straight-up, upside down, and I have held it up to a strong light, but I really cannot be sure what the official opposition party is trying to say here. The closest I can paraphrase this statement is that we must stand up to the Americans but we must never tell them anything that they might not care to hear.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul St. Pierre: I am afraid we cannot have it both ways. I am quite convinced that neither our American friends nor any other friendly nation on this earth would want us to do that. The United States does not expect that Canadian policy should be identical with theirs on every issue. We may find such complete harmony of views among the governments of eastern Europe, but not within free and independent societies such as ours, and to suggest that our American friends really expect Canada's views to be identical with the American in every aspect is to insult the intelligence of the American government and of the American diplomats. What the United States does have a right to expect of us is that our position be clear, and that we speak as frankly and calmly about the few areas of disagreement as we do about those vast regions of bilateral and multilateral relationships in which the two governments have worked in complete harmony for many years, and in which they will continue to work in such harmony.
I suggest that in dealing with other states we must have policies which have the immense virtue of credibility. I should like to quote the diplomat Talleyrand. This is a partial quote from a long statement, but I think it is appropriate here. This is what he said:
In order to destroy a prejudice fairly generally current, I must here point out that diplomacy is in no way a science of cunning and duplicity. If good faith is necessary anywhere, it is especially so in political transactions, for it is good faith that makes them strong and enduring-
In respect of credibility, we might cast our thoughts back to the disagreement between the United States and Canada over the Bomarc missiles. I am sure I do not have to remind members of the Official Opposition about that issue because they were in government then. This was a situation in which Canada accepted the Bomarc delivery vehicles and then said that we did not want to put warheads on them. It would be hard to imagine a less credible policy than that one. It can only be compared to a man who walks into a shoe store, buys a pair of shoes and announces he will only wear one of them. It is such lack of credibility, such unreliability in dealings abroad, that arouse the contempt, anger or scorn of other governments, and who could blame them?
Let us compare this with the recent China vote in the United Nations in which Canada and the United States
24372-31j

November 4, 1971
Economic Relations with United States
voted in different ways. First, let us consider that Canada had not pledged itself to support the United States. Second, we had instead informed our ally in advance what our policy was, why we felt as we did, and how we would vote. We did no proselytizing. Other nations could vote as they saw fit; we would vote as we saw fit. Of course, the Americans would have preferred that we support their view, but even in disagreement we were straightforward and our behaviour was credible. I suggest to the House that the Americans fully appreciate our position, and I draw the attention of the House to the fact that not a single responsible U.S. government official or diplomat has accused Canada of betrayal.
In my closing remarks, I would like to deal with some of the opening remarks of the hon. member for Hillsborough in this debate. He said that Canada was not so big as to be feared nor so small as to be despised. I would agree with him, but I would add one more line. I would say that we are not so large as to be feared, not so small as to be despised and not so young as to be pampered. I wonder if psychologically our country was, for much of the first century, in a psychologically dependent frame of mind. For so many generations we looked to mother Britain, who too must have wondered at times if we were ever going to get out of the nest. Last week Britain voted to join the organization which appears to be evolving rather rapidly into the united states of Europe. Are our relations less friendly and less open with the British? Of course not, but the relationship is and has been for some time on an entirely different basis from the old, the basis of two nations with a multitude of common interests and a tradition of friendship. Never again, however, will Canadians even subconsciously be able to take a tug at mother Britain's apron strings.
Then, in our later evolution, I wonder to what extent we depended on spontaneous affection from good old Uncle Sam to the south-Uncle Sugar as he came to be known for his generous spending in many parts of this world. Well, Uncle is still friendly despite what some may say, but we have been reminded that he is a great power and he will behave essentially as any great power and most small powers would do and should do. The government will act in what it conceives to be its national interest, and Canadian governments must also so act. But nothing in this precludes the central fact which has been recognized by most and perhaps all of the participants in this debate. We and the United States are two nations which have a vast multitude of common interests and a long tradition of firm friendship, and this will continue.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, the government members are wondering why the opposition has presented the motion now under consideration. I think that the answer is extremely simple.
For several months, the members of the opposition have tried on several occasions to find out what uneasiness could exist between our country and the United States. Unfortunately, as a result of vague answers, we have been compelled to state the problem clearly in the House and that is why we presented the motion now under consideration.

Hon. members, including the government members, would be blind if they did not realize that we have been witnessing for several months a serious deterioration in our relations with the United States, a deterioration which is due, in my view, to some inflammatory statements.


Jean Marchand: I guess because we imposed a surcharge on them.


Martial Asselin: We will come back to that later. If the Minister for Regional Economic Expansion wants to make a speech, we will listen to him. If he has remarks to make or questions to ask, I can answer them immediately.
Mr. Speaker, I say that deterioration is the result of the inflammatory remarks made recently by members of the government about our relations with the United States.
Must I remind you that, generally, Canadians bitterly deplored the statement the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made during his visit to the USSR when he spoke of the economic imperialism of the United States? Must I remind you that the equally inflammatory statements of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), after the 10 per cent American surcharge was levied on imports did nothing to improve our relations with the United States?
Mr. Speaker, the true sense of diplomacy as exercised by former governments has been relegated to the second rank. The attempts of the former Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson) will be remembered: wishing that China be recognized in 1968, he met President Eisenhower and discussed the matter with him; when the president told him that U.S. public opinion was not ready to recognize the People's Republic of China, the prime minister replied that it was impossible for Canada to make such representations if we were not supported by the U.S.
I do not say, Mr. Speaker, that we of the opposition blame the government for having made representations in favour of the recognition of Red China or voted in favour of its admission to the United Nations, but we say that all those decisions must in our view be taken in consultation with our allies, and our closest allies are the United States. In that connection, we have been greatly remiss in our duty by not relying on the quiet diplomacy which is important in our relations with the United States.
Mr. Speaker, I say again what we said a short while ago that we, Canadians, do not want the government to bow before the Americans in order to formulate our economic policy. Nor do we oppose the efforts of Parliament when it enacts laws to guarantee the economic sovereignty of this country, but we want the government to show greater leadership when it comes to establishing with our neighbours to the South relations which in our opinion can have extremely important effects on the Canadian economy as a whole.
Mr. Speaker, to restore Canada's name in the United States, it was even suggested, after the application of the 10 per cent surcharge, that the Canadian government could retaliate against that country, if the latter did not withdraw it.
November 4, 1971

Does such an aggressive and provocative statement represent the best way to solve this problem?
And despite the fact that the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce went to the United States, we have failed to influence the American's decision and the 10 per cent surtax, as we are all aware, will certainly penalize a great many Canadian industrialists and manufacturers.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, it is not a matter of our going on our knees to the Americans and ask their blessing when we have to take decisions in the interests of Canadians. But I suggest that we must find a formula to coordinate relations between the two governments so that the measures taken by either administration will not penalize Canadians as is now the case with the 10 per cent surcharge.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps we should ask the government to read once more the report submitted by ambassadors Heeney and Merchant on the coordination that should exist in our relations with United States. I feel that if the government chose to reread this report which has been made public, they would find all necessary guidelines to ensure better coordination of our relations with our neighbours to the south, especially in matters as important as those we have dealt with recently.
Obviously, the 10 per cent surcharge, as I said a moment ago, will have a considerable effect on Canadians, which will be felt mainly in the province of Quebec. If we look at the statistics on imports, we find that in 1971 exports from Quebec to the United States and other countries were decreasing, and this has very serious consequences for Quebecers.
Everyone knows that the employment situation is very bad in Quebec. We need all our resources. We must make all possible means available to our industrialists and manufacturers, not only in order to create new jobs but also to protect the existing ones.
Mr. Speaker, I have already spoken here, and I am doing so again today, of the pulp and paper industry, because the subject is of great interest to me and also because some mills are located in my riding. For many years, that industry was the most flourishing one in Quebec. During the past year or so, pulp and paper mills are in an extremely precarious situation, and this is, obviously, because this government and high officials have failed to coordinate our trade relations with the United States. In fact, most of our news-print is sold in the U.S., and mostly in New York.
We have gone through proceedings, Mr. Speaker, and I am extremely concerned when I see that these firms, which had flourished for decades, are now laying off workers, or shutting down for two or three weeks. This is, by the way, what Donohue Brothers Limited and other pulp and paper companies in Quebec are doing, and this government, though we have insisted on that, has not managed to meet with some representatives of the U.S. government so as to ensure the survival of the news-print factories.
Mr. Speaker, other industries in Quebec are also affected by the 10 per cent surcharge, and it would be enough to name the snowmobile industry. Even if the snowmobile
Economic Relations with United States
industry is tax exempt under the automobile agreement, the fact remains that because we impose a 12 per cent tax on imported snowmobiles, we now have an important fight to win. In fact, we notice that American snowmobile manufacturers have been trying for some time to influence the Nixon administration in order to get a revision of the automobile agreement, so that the United States tax snowmobiles imported from Canada at the same rate we tax those we import from that country. The snowmobile industry was created in Quebec. Thousands of Canadians earn their living from it and because of the lack of leadership from the present government, Quebec is losing important profits in that field.
Mr. Speaker, in closing, I wish to point out that we did not merely want to criticize the government in a nonobjective way with regard to our relationships with the United States, because it is not a matter of being pro- or anti-American, but of strictly facing facts.
We have serious problems with our southern neighbours and for the past few months we have been asking the government to enlighten us, to define its policy of co-ordination of relations with those neighbours, and since we have had no specific replies, we introduced this motion in order to clarify the situation.
Hon. members, whatever party they belong, to, should seriously consider the possibility of supporting our motion in order to force the government to show better leadership, in our relations with our southern neighbours. [English]


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, participating in this debate yesterday, my colleague the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) said that this motion which is before us now was perhaps the issue which the Official Opposition might use at the next election. The question was put very squarely to the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Dan-forth) and there was no reply given in any terms understandable to me. I sincerely hope this is not the case because if there is any issue in which the loser would be Canada, it would be such an issue. None of us could gain by seeking any narrow partisan political advantage out of events that have taken place with our neighbour to the south. I listened with a great deal of interest to some very good speeches.


An hon. Member:: From this side.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: I felt that perhaps there was no reason for members on this side of the House to rise when I listened to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) and the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) attack the Conservative party for its hypocrisy in attempting to blame the deterioration of our relations with the United States on the Liberal party, and-


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Cyril Lloyd Francis: -when they recalled the deterioration that had taken place under the last administration for which the Official Opposition was responsible some years ago. But then we saw, through an interesting procedural device, the presentation of an amendment by one party in

November 4, 1971
Economic Relations with United States
the opposition to a motion presented by another party by which the absurdities of the motion itself were reduced to a minimum. I find it strange, in listening to the very good speeches, that the member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands had found a method of defending it so that they could-


An hon. Member:: You only listened to half the speech.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: They have changed the thrust of the motion. They have deleted one-half of the motion, and the part they have deleted is the charge against the government that it is responsible for the deterioration of relations with the United States of America. Therefore, all the sanctimonious pieties that we heard in the speeches from the Official Opposition are, by the admission of the opposition itself in accepting the amendment, thereby denied by their own act. There is no longer any obligation on members on this side of the House to attempt to answer the absolutely absurd charges contained in the first half of the motion.
What we have before us now, Mr. Speaker, is purely and simply a motion which is cast in the framework of economic nationalism which says that Canada should seek to become more independent in its economic relations with our neighbour to the south. This is the thrust which the New Democratic Party has given to this debate and which has been accepted by the movers of the motion, admitting the clumsy way in which it had been originally construed and the absurdity of trying to put together the pieces which were totally irreconcilable.
We have to look at the economic realities of Canada. As a result of the events of recent days we have a wave of economic nationalism surging in our country. We all recognize that. As Canadians, we have a certain dual aspect to almost everything we do with the United States. On a day to day basis we want to drive a motor car of North American manufacture; we want to buy gasoline of a North American brand; we want to be able to cross the border and use credit cards; we want to watch the same programs on television; we want to participate in the same national or international sports of football-and argue whether it should be three downs or four downs- and hockey in which we trade our players back and forth. We want at the same time to maintain our complete social, economic and cultural independence.
There are certain problems in seeking those objectives and the problems come out when we have to deal with matters like this. I have received, as I am sure every member of this House has, letters from constituents demanding that we take forcible and vigorous action against our neighbours to the south. Indeed, my colleague the hon. member for York East who spoke earlier in this debate also spoke in the debate in this House on September 10 when he said Canada should stand alone. These are fine phrases, but Canada's record as a trading nation is something that we should not forget. We know that 28 per cent of our gross national product is derived from exports and that per capita we are one of the world's great trading nations. We have to look at places like Singapore, Hong Kong and so on to get a similar situation in per capita terms.
We have to look again at what is happening in the contemporary world. I listened to my good friend the hon.

member for Kent-Essex when he spoke about Great Britain joining the European Economic Community. It is no accident that the decade of debate was finally resolved by a government of the United Kingdom supported not only by a majority of its own members but a very significant group of the Official Opposition in the House in a historic decision to join the European Economic Community.
Those of us who speculated about what such a decision would mean to Canada have got over the initial alarm with which we approached the potential loss of the Canadian markets, realizing that we must look forward. It is suggested that we must take advantage of the expanded markets and prosperity of western Europe, especially since that prosperity will undoubtedly grow in the years ahead. Yet, there is no immediate prospect of Canada's joining the European Economic Community. The facts of geography are against it. The facts behind the trading patterns of Canada are also against it, if one examines those facts. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) have said in this House that we must face the problem of creating jobs and protecting jobs.
In its 1965 report the Economic Council of Canada pointed out that resource development does not create enough jobs and that we have to look to secondary industry if we want to create jobs. In order to achieve our national objectives, industries that show reasonable prospects for development should be given the greatest encouragement possible to develop. Where are we to find markets for those export products other than our national resources that create jobs in Canada? I listened to my hon. friends on the other side talk about the growing Japanese market. Does Japan really want to buy our aircraft, or does that country want to buy our copper, paper, coal and primary materials? We complain in Washington, and justifiably, in my opinion, that the Americans want Canadians to be hewers of wood and drawers of water; yet would not the Japanese wish even more to create such a pattern if we were to seek to expand our trade with them?


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Would they be prepared to accept Canadian manufactured products as a substitute for the raw materials that they are now buying in such quantities as to create serious balance of payment problems which affect our relationships with Japan?


An hon. Member:: In what quantities?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Those of us who think that Canada should seek markets ought to be a little more precise. They ought to specify which markets for which products they have in mind. I listened to the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) say that we should export more wheat. He distinguished between renewable and non-renewable resources. Where should we export more wheat, Mr. Speaker? Where should we export more paper products? Hon. members ought to tell salesmen of the pulp mills across Canada where to sell paper. They are doing their very best to sell paper right across the world. We should export our manu-
November 4, 1971

factured products, of course; but where do we find the markets that want to buy our manufactured products?


An hon. Member:: We'll find them.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Which markets will take our manufactured products instead of taking basic raw materials which they feel we should supply? Mr. Speaker, the so-called "simple facts" of economic life in Canada are not at all simple. We are an exposed nation and, on top of all our other difficulties, we face difficulties in our relationship with our neighbour to the south. We face a major crisis in the field of international currency. In view of the difficulties involving the International Monetary Fund and the collapse of the Breton Woods Agreement, we face the prospect of a long period of floating currencies without any agreement to bring about currency stability in sight.
A nation that is thus exposed in the markets of the world is not a nation to rattle any kind of economic sword, Mr. Speaker. There are those who will say that I am not belligerent enough, that I am not demanding enough for Canada and that I am not adopting a sufficiently bellicose line in standing up to those who are uttering such terrible things in Washington. The word I want to leave with the House is this: no one stands to gain by pursuing aggressive and ill-conceived policies of economic isolationism, as I said yesterday to my good friends in the NDP when I applauded them after they had spoken so well of the true record of this government in the field of foreign relations.
This- debate is related in part to the field of foreign relations, and we have conceded that there is no case against the government in terms of what it has done. We are now talking about how far we can pursue economic isolationism in the name of Canadian independence. We must think hard, Mr. Speaker, and we must think in terms of our own vulnerability. That should not inhibit us from driving the best bargain we can, from fighting for stable currencies with the Council of Ten and from doing our best to play our role as a constructive international trader, because that is our role in the contemporary world.


Mr. Aiken:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member may only ask a question with the permission of the hon. member who has the floor.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Agreed.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I merely want the hon. member to clear up something that arose in his remarks. He said that the Official Opposition, "has accepted an amendment to our resolution". Of course, this is not factually correct. Will he not agree that we merely did not object to it as being procedurally acceptable as we did yesterday?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, if hon. members on the other side want to say where they stand on this matter, they will have an opportunity to participate in the debate and clarify the record, because their position is far from clear.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, before coming to the main part of my remarks may I indicate to the previous speaker, and to others who have spoken today, one of the sources of the concern that
Economic Relations with United States
has resulted in the motion under the name of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) being put before the House. One concern arose as a result of remarks made last night by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). He was responding to the opening remarks of the hon. member for Hillsborough and was dealing with the multiplicity of avenues and channels of communication with our good neighbour, the United States. He said in part, as reported at page 9310 of yesterday's Hansard:
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.
I interjected and asked, "How often has it met in the last five years?" The minister answered:
It has met frequently, and it is meeting very soon.
For the sake of the record and to indicate to hon. members the concern that led in part to the bringing forward of this motion, may I say that the Canada Ministerial Committee on Joint Defence, formed in September, 1958, met, actually, in 1958,1959, 1960 and 1964. That board has not met since.


Harold Warren Danforth: There goes the minister's credibility.


J. Michael Forrestall: The Secretary of State for External Affairs saw fit to refer to this matter. That was his first example of the level of our relationships with the United States. What he said was not correct. That shows why we are concerned and that, in part, is why I am on my feet now.
In addition, I should like for a few minutes to talk about another aspect of our deteriorating relations with the United States. In the general area of defence, our relations have deteriorated. We stopped listing the United States as potential enemies in our official war strategy planning documents back in 1931. Sometimes you get the feeling, and I have had it particularly in the last two or three years, that, for some reason unknown to Canadians, we have decided to list them in that category again. We long ago recognized, as many hon. members in this chamber have noted, the inseparableness of our positions with respect to defence.
Indeed, the truth of this statement will be borne out by an examination beginning with the Hyde Park Declaration of 1941 and ending with present defence production sharing arrangements. It will be seen that in the development of this particular relationship with the United States, it has become absolutely necessary for us to enter into the closest and frankest of relationships with our American allies in the areas of defence and defence expenditure. John Gellner expressed this view on this matter in his Globe and Mail article of April 28, 1971: Canada is the only country in the world with almost unrestricted access to the U.S. arms-market. The cornerstone of the Defence Production Sharing Programme which was put together in 1958, was the waiving by the U.S. of the Buy American Act where Canadian Goods were concerned.
I am trying to show the closeness of our relationships in this area and the degree of sincerity with which the United States recognizes the existing, close relationship. The degree to which we are involved in defence production sharing is evident from two or three simple facts.

November 4, 1971
Economic Relations with United States
First, over the years it has provided, and continues to provide, jobs for well over 100,000 Canadians. As of the latest figures we seem to have a surplus in the order of $509 million.
Here again, is a reason for one of the fears which has led to the tabling of the motion we are discussing today. The United States treasury people are eyeing this surplus closely, so closely in fact that pressure is building up to knock some of it out through the forced sale of the Lockheed Orion. During the past year and a half, I suppose, there has been a departure by the United States from practices and procedures which have been followed for a long time. We must ask ourselves out loud, why this is. It is unfortunate, Mr. Speaker, but one does not have to look very far to find an openly expressed opinion in the United States that during the past two or three years Canadian negotiators have been acting more like hungry headhunters in search of victory rather than honest traders. As a result, our American friends have been much more cautious in their trading approach, because they believe, rightly or wrongly, that our end is victory for victory's sake in order to satisfy what some people might consider to be a sentiment in Canada which would say "To Hell with the Americans". This is an impression which exists in the United States because the government has done nothing to correct it.
In a field as complex as defence, it is imperative that those involved enjoy mutual confidence and trust. Because of this, our attitude toward our United States neighbours must always be honest, frank and open. The 1964 white paper was a basis for departure from an approach which we had taken for many years. It paved the way for what has become a serious deterioration in the quantity and quality of information we exchange with the United States on military, scientific and related matters. Let us consider some of the reasons for this. First of all, there was the unilateral decision to cut back NATO troops in Europe. This comes to mind immediately. There was the decision to reduce our maritime fleet by virtually half-though, admittedly, some of these vessels were obsolescent. There was the hesitancy displayed with regard to the part we would play in NORAD in the future. The white paper of 1971 made no mention of what our posture would be in 1973 when the agreement comes up for renewal. There is the Prime Minister's statement that the preservation of Canadian sovereignty was considered more important than continental defence. Peyton Lyon had some interesting comments to make about this proposition.
I, myself, am hard-pressed to imagine how one could separate the defence of Canada from the defence of North America, but in any event this observation has created serious doubts among our NATO allies to the south. We have shut down Bomarc sites. We have refused in a determined way to permit the use of our facilities at North Bay in the event,-which Heaven forbid-that Colorado Springs was destroyed or put out of action as a result of nuclear attack. One has heard expression in many quarters from time to time in traditionally Liberal circles, not to mention circles close to those who sit to my left, that what we are doing is retreating from traditional military
(Mr. Forrestall.]
ties and associations, particularly with Britain and the United States, to a position of neutrality. People are wondering out loud whether we are doing this in order to placate the Soviet Union, so as not to disturb the new relationship with Russia. Again, in the policy papers for Canadians we find that the maintenance of Canadian sovereignty is listed as the No. 2 priority, whereas in the white paper on defence it was said to be priority No. 1. Mr. Speaker, if we do not understand whether it is our first priority or our second, how can we expect our American allies to understand it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


J. Michael Forrestall: We on this side sincerely suggest that it is the responsibility of Canada to participate to the fullest possible extent in continental defence. I do not think this view is seriously disputed on either side of the House, but I believe it ought to be stated. In spite of the fact that we may generally agree with this thesis, it is apparent that we are not taking steps to accomplish it. Nor do we go to the trouble of informing our friends to the south of our changing plans. I cannot help but wonder whether the Americans consider that we are likely to make any real or meaningful contribution to military defence. I think this uncertainty has resulted in a very serious downgrading of the quality of military and related information exchanged between the two countries.
The importance of this downgrading is, indeed, very real. Dr. G. R. Lindsey, Chief of Defence Research, told the maritime defence sub-committee in January, 1970, that reductions in Canada's military contribution had resulted in the drying up of United States military and scientific information which used to flow into Canada. Dr. Lindsey specifically said, and I quote:
Not too long ago we did make a survey of the number of reports that have been coming in from some of our allied countries, and it is much less than it used to be. Of course, we do not know what reports they have written they did not send us, but it seems surprising that we are getting fewer. I think we find ourselves invited to less exchanges of information and scientific and technical meetings than we were.
This decline in reports was particularly noticeable, he said, in relation to plans for new military equipment or the results of the testing of experimental vehicles. In short, the whole field of nuclear weapons, radar and sonar detection devices. In this respect, I can only conclude that the government's attitude toward the United States, as reflected and determined by the Prime Minister's decision to use Soviet Russia as a platform last summer from which to take a whack at our United States allies, could lead to an even further decline in these exchanges of vital information. Maybe the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made his observations facetiously on that occasion. I do not know. But he did make them, and he has not retracted them. He said he feared economic or military domination from the south.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, a determined government can broaden and extend its relationships with other countries, such as the Soviet Union and China, while at the same time continuing to enjoy good relations with the United States. These are good things and we in this party welcome them. We also welcome the initiatives of the President of the United States. What we do not welcome, and what continues to scare us, is the fear being engendered
November 4, 1971

by the present administration because of its inconclusive and undetermined policy objectives, particularly in the military field, that have let our United States allies not to take us nearly as seriously as they have in the past, and indeed as they should if we are to continue to get along on this continent in the way we should.
It is my contention that our weakness comes only from fear itself. We have no need to fear, as the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) said, economic domination by the United States because this will not happen.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member, but I do so to inform him his time has expired.


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Fort William):: Mr. Speaker, as a North American country, it is inevitable that Canada has developed North American points of view on political, social and economic questions and possesses certain North American social and racial characteristics. Geography is an important part of the relationship between Canada and the United States, the customs and outlooks we have acquired, and also accounts for the constant flow of people between the two countries. It has been estimated that one-third of all the people of Canadian origin are now living in the United States, and a goodly percentage of American people are living in Canada. It is, therefore, natural that economic and financial relationships are closer and more extensive than those between two foreign countries.
It is because of this background that in the course of time United States capital began to exploit and develop our immense natural resources and provide a market for our nickel, iron ore, oil, gas and forest products, to name a few. This invasion of capital from south of the border has been exploited by various groups, and has initiated a wave of anti-Americanism, condemning any and all United States investments in Canada. It is not the government that is anti-American.
In an interview given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to a journalist last February, he was asked: "Do Canadians suffer because of domination of the economy by American business interests?" The Prime Minister replied:
They don't, I think, suffer in an economic sense or even for that matter in a technological sense. It is because of American capital investment, and the technology that came with it, that we enjoy one of the highest standards of living in the world-that our resources, which are extraordinarily abundant, have been exploited to the extent that they are and have provided wealth for the people of Canada. So they don't suffer in that sense.
I believe that anti-Americanism in Canada stems from the fact that United States capital has successfully developed some of our major industries, hence the voices of blind nationalism which are heard almost daily in this very chamber. A few weeks ago, I listened to a panel discussion on the topic of American investments in Canada. It sounded as though the "taking over of Canada" by the United States was well on the way; and it ended with a good dose of anti-Americanism. There are reasons for this sentiment. Americans can be ruthless, hard-boiled, keen investors, not afraid to risk capital ven-
Economic Relations with United States
tures in the hope of making a fortune, and they often have. However, the fact is that we are forever tied to the United States by reason of geography, history and circumstances, so let us be practical and make the best of it.
The United States is a great and wealthy nation, with many good qualities and great achievements to its credit. It was born of revolution. It lives in, and on, crisis. But it has been, and continues to be, the most generous nation the world has ever known. It has contributed millions of dollars through foundations and in other ways to Canadian universities and organizations. Its colleges and schools have been freely open to Canadian students and scholars, and every year thousands of them take advantage of these opportunities for study and research. Its contributions to science and technology are almost fantastic. Do we want to build walls against this? Do we want to reject it, and refuse to permit its entry to Canada? As for United States investment and the often repeated cry of "take-over" by our nationalists, this is a matter of concern to every thinking Canadian. But we do need United States capital and United States know-how, and I believe we should continue not only to admit it but to go after it. At the same time we should and must take the necessary steps to ensure that actual control remains in Canada; and the government of Canada is doing just that.
Mr. Gordon Archibald, president of the Maritime Telegraph and Telephone Company, speaking to a conference in Toronto, as reported in the Globe and Mail of October 8, made a vigorous plea for the benefits of continued foreign investments in Canada. He linked it with sharp attacks on anti-foreign investment arguments of the Committee for an Independent Canada, and said:
Businessmen must rally to convince others who oppose foreign investments on emotional and nationalistic grounds. Few, if any, practical businessmen oppose foreign investment, particularly in our resource industries. It would be fine if Canadians could control all companies doing business in Canada, but this is not practical. Until we can, let us be thankful we have a wealthy neighbour, whose citizens have the resources and are willing to take risks and to invest in areas where we Canadians, even when funds are available, are not so inclined to invest our money.
The Committee for an Independent Canada charges that Canada is being "bled", which is questionable indeed.
The basic inflow-outflow comparison ignores the over-all gains resulting from the foreign investment itself: in the form of various taxes and reinvested profits, the creation of exports, substitutes for imports, demand for imports, and other beneficial effects to the balance of payments.
In conclusion, he warned of the serious danger of adopting any kind of nationalism, or desperation measures, to save Canada from an imaginary, self-induced situation.
The "Business Review" published by the Bank of Montreal for October 27, 1971 carries an article by Mr. Leonard Walker, president of the bank, and I should like to quote a few paragraphs from it:
The Canadian attitude towards foreign capital has been described as a love/hate relationship and the description seems to me to be quite appropriate. On the one hand, as a matter of national policy we have from the beginning welcomed foreign capital with open arms, and even the most ardent nationalist will admit that we could not have got along nearly as well in the world as we have, or have enjoyed so many of the good things of life that come from a high and rising material standard of living, if we had not been able to use other people's savings for the development of our great country. On the other hand, there have over the years been waves of resentment about the degree of dependence on
9338

November 4, 1971
Economic Relations with United States
foreigners which the use of their capital seems to imply, as well as ill-defined fears about the dangers in terms of loss of political sovereignty or the loss of a national cultural identity. However, as with any relationship as devoid of logic as the phrase love/hate suggests, realism has tended to be submerged by emotion.
Frankly, I am less concerned about the so-called "American take-over" in the sphere of industry, economics, and natural resources, than I am about unemployment. If American capital will develop an industry in Thunder Bay that will create jobs for our unemployed, I am all for it. I am confident that the Canadian government will continue to recognize the need for foreign investment for some time to come. Canada has the fastest growing labour force, relative to population, in the western world. The investment required to create a new job in manufacturing is around $25,000.
Job requirements and welfare costs are the main reasons Canada has a continuing need for foreign investment. The economic nationalists argue that Canada should be able to get along without foreign investments. Their argument fails to take into account the rising cost of new job creation, and social welfare. Recently, the Hon. Jean Marchand, Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, announced an incentive grant of $332,000 to Larson Woodlands Research Limited for a new plant to manufacture short wood harvesters in Thunder Bay. The new plant will empl oy 80 persons. The incentive is based on a rate of 15 per cent of the approved capital costs which are estimated at $.5 million, plus $3,200 for each new job created.
The President of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, Mr. Neil V. German, speaking to the Canadian Club of Toronto, a few weeks ago, said:
The goal of Canadian foreign policy should be to obtain some kind of special relationship with the United States imbedded in law and treaty, which could begin with selected free trade, industry by industry.
Since Canada has no major outlets for its manufactured goods, which employ more Canadians than any other economic sector, we may find ourselves obliged to seek and make special arrangements with the United States, so that they will give us some special treatment. Our bargaining power for such negotiations is substantial: they need our raw materials in the foreseeable future.
One fact of life is that it is clear that Canada is utterly dependent on the American market.
No one can deny that foreign capital has helped to keep Canada together, and prosperous, as a nation, beginning with the construction of the Canadian Pacific Railway a century ago, down to the development of the Steep Rock Iron Mines in northwestern Ontario and the creation of a community of 6,000 people at Atikokan.
Another example is the export of Canadian coal to Japan, mined in the Kootenays of British Columbia, developed by United States capital which alone will contribute $324 million in labour income, and $210 million in taxes over a 15-year period, according to Mr. H. M. Romoff, Research Manager of the Canadian Pacific Railways. He made these statements before a Canadian Transport Commission hearing, which further indicated much greater loss than the sum of these two figures, if the area was not developed at all. There must also be taken into consideration all the jobs created; special railway equipment had to be designed and built in Canada; a new

superport, Robert Bank, had to be built; townsites had to be constructed to accommodate staff, with all that means in provisions of supplies and services, as in the case of numerous other developed projects. Whole new areas have been and are being opened from such simple beginnings as a single mine-from new homes to offices, beauty salons, bowling alleys, supermarkets, hotels and newspapers. The fact about this particular coal mine is that the coal which is now being mined would still be in the ground, unused and contributing nothing, if an American company with the necessary money and nerve had not undertaken to develop it.
Full employment is the key to prosperity and, although the employment picture across the country is one of concern, there has not, and it appears there will not be, any immediate danger of mass lay-offs in Thunder Bay. The manager of the Canada Manpower centre in my constituency said recently that we did have some lay-offs at the Great Lakes Paper Company. He said, however, that the economy in Thunder Bay in general is fairly reasonable. Construction has been booming. The shipyards and Canadian Car are moving ahead with work; and there will be no slackening of activities at the grain elevators. In other words, the Thunder Bay economy, I am pleased to say, appears to be better than in most Canadian cities.
In conclusion, I want to stress that my views on foreign investments are that I would much prefer to see greater encouragement for Canadian-owned industry, rather than discourage foreign investments.


John Edward Broadbent: During my comments I will not spend any time discussing that intellectually confused or dishonest, and I hope it is the former, resolution presented by the Conservative party. It has already been dealt with adequately by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland), and even, God forbid, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). What I should like to deal with primarily is the automotive industry.
In terms of the resolution before the House the automotive industry, perhaps more than any other in Canada, symbolizes the issues at stake. On the one hand, it is a major industry employing, if we include, as we must, the supplier plants to the automotive manufacturers, some 83,000 Canadians, and its exports are responsible for an annual surplus of trade to the extent of $200 million. It is therefore a major industry both in terms of the number of Canadians employed and our trading position. In my view, it is also the major bone of contention in terms of the United States government's economic policies as they are directed toward this country.
In recent weeks, the Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, Mr. John Connally, and the Assistant Secretary, John Petty, as well as numerous Congressmen, Senators and other officials within the president's office, have all been referring to the Canada-U.S. auto agreement as the major block or obstacle in that government's view to what is necessary for the removal of the surcharge against Canada imposed by President Nixon in the middle of August. There can be no doubt that automotive pact changes are a major objective of the United States. The single most important area of trade in terms of our favou-
November 4, 1971

rable position with the United States is the automotive industry. Therefore, in terms of U.S. economic interests in redressing what they consider to be an unfair imbalance, they want to go after the automotive pact. As recently as today, we heard that further action is planned by the United States government. A measure has been introduced in the U.S. Senate and was passed by its finance committee yesterday. This was a proposal to allow the president to levy a 7 per cent tax on automobiles exported from Canada to the United States. Of course, this would be in complete violation of the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement if it were enforced.
When the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and, as I recall, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), were questioned about the matter this afternoon, they dismissed it as being not a very serious matter in the typical, nonchalant government fashion. It was suggested by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce that this was just a first step. He said that before it could be acted on it would have to get through the Senate as a whole, the House Committee on Ways and Means, and then be approved by the President. I say to the government of Canada that that process should not be lightly dismissed. If the United States government, both the executive and legislative branch, should deem it to be of prime importance to their economy to act quickly, they could get that measure right through all stages of the legislative process in a matter of days. Then, President Nixon would be in a position to act as unilaterally as he did in imposing the surtax in the first place. This possibility cannot be lightly dismissed.
I should like to say something about what led up to our present crisis. Before I do so, however, perhaps it would be worth while to mention the numbers involved in terms of the practical matter of jobs which seems to concern people around here in the abstract but not in terms of any attitude or emotion which results in any concrete action in respect of rectifying the situation. The people in Ste. The-rese, Quebec and in St. Catharines, Oshawa and Windsor in Ontario as of Monday this week experienced about 2,300 job reductions. This affects currently at least 7,000 or 8,000 men, women and children if we take families into consideration. This is very significant. It is 10 per cent of the General Motors labour force and cannot be lightly dismissed.
If the safeguards in the auto pact are not maintained- and no one including the Prime Minister of this country has said in recent weeks that they will be maintained- what is currently happening in General Motors could spread to Ford, Chrysler and American Motors. In a year or two, it might mean that instead of having 83,000 persons employed in this industry the figure could be down to 10,000. I repeat that this possibility should not be lightly dismissed. This is a distinct possibility. It is a distinct desire on the part of certain United States Senators, including the senator for Michigan, and it is the distinct desire of many other congressmen. Unless this government makes its position clear in respect of these safeguards it is very understandable that the state of apprehension and anxiety which exists in the automotive homes throughout this country will be maintained.
Economic Relations with United States
In 1964, it was decided to set up the automotive agreement which was finally signed in 1965. At that time the government of this country had to make a major decision. It had to ask itself whether Canada, like Sweden or Japan, should create an independent autonomous automotive industry. That was one possibility. That would have been difficult to bring about. However, that was one alternative. The other alternative was to more fully integrate our industry into the economy of North America. That was the decision reached and that principle is embodied in the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement.
When this was done it was realized by the government that we could not simply have free trade in automobiles because this industry is virtually owned and controlled in the United States and there would be nothing to protect jobs in this country if pressure should be built up, as has been the case in the past six months in the United States, to create and maintain jobs in that country. So, important safeguards were provided in the pact. The first safeguard concerns the ratio of production to sales of vehicles in Canada. The agreement provides that, as a minimum, manufacturers must produce vehicles in Canada in the same ratio to sales as they produced in 1964. The second safeguard concerns the amount of Canadian economic content involved in the production of automobiles in this country. A certain Canadian dollar level, different for each manufacturer, based on its 1964 position, must go into the production of cars in Canada. This provision ensures that not merely units of cars but real dollar value is protected in Canada and that a certain amount of the labour content in the production of automobiles is ensured for this country.
These are the safeguards which the government of Canada has refused to assure the people of this country they will maintain. They must be maintained at all costs, but in addition to this the government of Canada should be seeking in a positive, non-belligerent way to improve the position of this industry within the country. The Canadian government should be insisting that the minimum objective is to increase the Canadian value added component to 100 per cent. That is to say, if the total value of cars sold in Canada by a North American manufacturer is $100 million, then the minimum Canadian dollar value of his production should be $100 million. This is a very important point because at the present time we do not produce all we consume in terms of dollar value in the automotive industry. The government has, therefore, a legitimate and positive point it can make in negotiations with the United States. It need not maintain its defensive, supine position on this issue. These two points rest directly on the issue of our economic relationship with the United States, and on the kind of trade arrangements which exist between our government and the government of the United States.
There is the matter of employment. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that this is the last part of the Conservative motion. Very few people have spoken of this. The motion criticizes the government for its failure to develop a policy to fully employ our growing and highly skilled human resources. Something must be done to encourage the expansion, or at least retention, of the number of jobs which currently exist in this industry. I remind hon. members that at present the number of jobs in the automotive
9340

November 4, 1971
Economic Relations with United States
industry is being reduced and that a state of genuine apprehension exists, I am sure, in the ridings of at least 10 or 15 members of this House.
What else can the government do? If it is concerned about the creation and maintenance of jobs, it can remove entirely or at least substantially reduce the federal tax on automobiles. It did this last spring in respect of the electrical appliance industry, and the effect on the economy and on that industry was very positive; jobs were created. There is no reason this could not be done in the automotive industry. Second, I urge that a very serious investigation be made of the price-making policies of the automotive industry in this country. There is no adequate reason at this point that automobiles in Canada should be sold at prices which range between $100 and $700 more when purchased in this country than when purchased in the United States.
I have here two shipping statements taken from automobiles produced in Oshawa. They reveal a very interesting situation, indeed. One is off a car being sent to Verdun, Quebec, and the other is off a car being sent to Rochester, New York. These are identical automobiles produced in Oshawa. The manufacturer's recommended price for the automobile to go to a destination in Canada is about $700 higher than the recommended price for the automobile being shipped to the United States. This is an astounding fact. These are the manufacturer's recommended prices. I repeat that these are identical cars run off the line in Oshawa. If you add to the difference in the recommended prices such things as vinyl interior, floor mats, wheel covers and so on, all of which are listed as extras although most people would hope they could be taken for granted, you will find there is another $100 of difference in the recommended price for the car sold in the province of Quebec and the car sold in the state of New York.
I think it is a scandal that after all the years of the auto pact's existence, after all the capital renovation of plants that has taken place on this side of the border which has led to the fact that we have the most efficient industry in North America on this side of the border, not on the American side, we should be paying from $100 to $700 more for a car. Therefore, I say that this government has an obligation to investigate this industry very thoroughly and to reveal its findings to the public of Canada. I say this both in terms of the general interest of Canadians as consumers, and more specifically in this case in terms of the interest of the 83,000 Canadians who are employed in that industry. If we want to compete with Japanese imports, one of the best ways of competing, in my judgment, would be to drop the prices of automobiles very soon. If General Motors and other companies were prepared to accept the same profit margins that Japanese and German automobile producers are prepared to accept, then they could compete, and we would not have as we now have some 25 per cent of the cars sold in this country being small foreign imports. They would not be imported because they could not compete if our major producers decided to set prices in an equitable fashion.
I will conclude, in terms of the recommendations for the federal government with regard to the automobile indus-

try, on that point. I have tried to stick as closely as I could to factual points. I will repeat my opening observation that this industry above all others in Canada is perhaps symptomatic of the issue involved in this debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I must advise the hon. member that his time has expired.


Mr. C. Terrence Murphy (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I will not take any time dealing with the wording of the motion which has been placed before the House because that has been done adequately by many speakers before me. I need not say any more than did a very eminent gentleman lately, who said that the resolution seems to be one of the things that meets itself coming around the corner.
During the course of the debate there have been a number of excellent speeches, and I would like to comment on some of them, particularly the opening speech by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie). That speech was emotionally touching; its phrasing was beautiful, and at times it was even melodramatic. But at the end of it I seemed to get the impression that the hon. member was so carried away with the brilliance of his eloquence that he forgot to deal with the facts. I must endorse the comments of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) when he dealt at greater length with that particular speech. During the course of his remarks he said that he experienced great difficulty during the course of the speech by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), because he was agreeing with it, and even at times had to applaud it. May I say to the hon. member for Selkirk that I found myself in the identical position while the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) was speaking.


Gerald William Baldwin: That makes four of you in the wrong.


Charles Terrence Murphy: There were a couple of other speeches, one by the hon. member for Kent-Essex (Mr. Danforth) and one by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall), both of whom said that we have nothing really to fear from the Americans; they have no aims on our country and all they want to do is to deal as businessmen. That may be so, and I do not dispute it, but I wish I could be as sure of that as these hon. members are because there are other people around who are not that sure. I should like to quote someone of their own ilk. This article appeared in the Toronto Telegram of October 8. It was written by Aaron R. Einfrank who, the Toronto Telegram alleges,-at that time at any rate it was not a Liberal newspaper-to be an expert on things in Ottawa. He wrote:
The surcharge and other protectionist moves against Canada are indications of the change which has been brought home to me during ten days of interviews in Washington . ..
An example of what might be termed the end of an era is a conversation I had with a high-ranking Nixon Administration Official in his office.
I asked this official, who is close to the ultimate political power in the U.S., what would happen if American protectionist policy led to the destruction of the Canadian state because of resulting economic chaos in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada.
He began his answer in a routine way by saying "I don't think it will happen." Then I was stunned to hear him ramble on: "But if it did happen, it might not be a bad thing."
November 4, 1971

In explaining why "it might not be a bad thing'' for Canada to disappear, he made two points:
The North American economy could be planned on a unified, continental basis, in regard to land and resources, including energy and water, as well as in regard to industrial development.
The addition of 21 million predominatly white "stable" Canadians to the American body politic would counter balance "our minorities here". In other words, these 21 million "stable" Canadians would tend to off-set the influence of 23 million blacks in the U.S.
I do not know whether or not that is correct, but I recommend to the hon. member for Kent-Essex and to the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East these comments for their consideration when they are considering the whole problem.
During the course of the debate there has been much philosophizing and much flowing oratory. I should like, if I may in my small contribution, to come down to the facts and face hard realities. What are the facts? I submit that if we really look at them, and look at history, we will admit that Canada and Canadians have been spoilt. We have been spoilt first by the United Kingdom, later by the Commonwealth, and more lately, since the second world war, by the United States of America. We have reached that lofty plateau where we are described as having the second highest standard of living in the world, and I suppose we have. We arrived there, particularly during the last two decades, by looking to the south and seeking to follow as the sheep follow the shepherd. Why do sheep follow shepherds? Sheep follow shepherds because the shepherd takes care of them, and that was what was happening to us during the last 20 or 25 years.
Then came August 15 and the boom was lowered. The shepherd found that his house was in danger. He found that he could no longer take care of all the sheep; he had to look after his own interests, and that is a quite valid position. If he did not look after his own interests, he would be a fool. Some people in this country seem to think that the actions taken by President Nixon on August 15, and latterly by Secretary Connally, are tragedies and represent, in effect, a tragedy for Canada. I do not think so. I think that those activities, and what has happened during the last two months, have given Canada the pause it needed to stop and look at itself. We must must look at our policies, find out where we are, and determine where we want to go. If we re-assess the facts there are two or three things that become obvious.
In order to exist, we must trade. In order to trade, we must have markets. Those markets do not exist in Canada. We need the markets in the United States. We need the markets in the United Kingdom, in Europe, in Russia, in China, in Japan and wherever else we can find them. One alternative, the one that seems to be espoused by the loyal opposition, is that we can seek some form of economic integration, the suggestion being that this economic integration be with the United States of America. One of the members memtioned, and used as an example, the moving by the United Kingdom and other countries into the European Common Market so that that community will now be a group of ten as compared with a group of six. This is the type of example we are told we should follow.
Economic Relations with United States
I should like to point out that it is one thing for six or ten countries of approximately equal size, approximately the same interest in all ways, but particularly in size and particularly in the value of gross national product, to get together and form a bloc. But it is another thing completely for a country the size of Canada to join a country ten times its size and hope to retain any type of national recognition. There is no way that can be done. Economic integration with the United States will lead eventually to complete economic domination, and economic domination will lead to political integration and eventually to political domination as well.


Gerald William Baldwin: How about Luxemburg and Germany?


Charles Terrence Murphy: Luxemburg, the three Benelux countries, always work together with Germany as a group and have the same voice as Germany in the Common Market. They are three countries and they work together as one.
A second alternative is to throw up the barriers and take the route to economic nationalism; I think everyone agrees that would be disastrous. A country this size, trying to go it alone, would end up completely on the outside, bankrupt and completely undone, and would be at the mercy of any other country. This, too, would lead to the loss of our national identity.
Thankfully, Mr. Speaker, there is a third route. We, as Canadians, can decide to mature economically. We have been weaned, as I said, by the United Kingdom and by the Commonealth, and to a degree we have received special treatment and pampering from the United States. Now is the time when we should be prepared to recognize that we are no longer economic infants; we are mature people prepared to act responsibly and with maturity.
We must decide if it is possible to enjoy the luxury of having the second highest standard of living in the world and at the same time compete with other countries in the market places of the world. Can we any longer afford the luxuries of wasteful industrial strife, high wages, fat profits large dividends, short work weeks, a high return on the dollar, and so on? Can we afford all that and still claim for ourselves the right to economic and political independence? As responsible adults, what do you do when you realize you are living beyond your means: What then should responsible Canadians do if they wish to retain the right to be called Canadians? That is the question facing us today, Mr. Speaker. Have we matured enough as a nation to recognize and accept our responsibilities? Are we ready to put our work muscles where our mouths are?
We were born a little more than 100 years ago. We took our first faltering steps as a nation when we helped our friends in the Boer War. We passed the age of puberty with flying colours by our participation in World War I. We learned in our adolescence that life is not a bowl of cherries. That was the lesson of the thirties. We demonstrated our strength and daring as young adults in World War II and later in Korea. Now, in a time of crises, in this time of re-assessment, I believe that Canadians have the opportunity to prove to the world and to themselves that they have attained the full maturity of adulthood, and I do not think we should be lacking in the courage to try.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, the first thing I want to say is that the speech by the hon.

November 4, 1971
Economic Relations with United States
member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) yesterday has drawn consistent and continuous remarks from every member. I cannot understand how a speech which was "so inadequate," "so incomplete," "so contradictory," "so emotional," "so filled with nothing good" could draw such a tremendous response from everybody, beginning with the past leader of the NDP and moving over to the person who sits to the right of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). That struck me as a bit strange when listening to this debate.
In June, 1970, the government published what it termed a theoretical framework of Canadian foreign policy, a white paper which consisted of six booklets: Canada's position on Europe, Canada's position on the Pacific region, Canada's position on Latin America, Canada's position on the United Nations, Canada's position on Development Assistance. But there was no reference at all to Canada's position on her relations with our neighbours, those whom we in this party talk about as our neighbours to the south of us. On numerous occasions we have given the government the opportunity of spelling out its position on economic policies and on other policies connected with our relations with our southern neighbours. We did so again yesterday, and yesterday I listened to the speech made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). Later, I re-read his speech to see if I could believe my ears and eyes.
His speech contained no reference at all to our present political and economic relations with the United States, no reference at all to the present economic moves by the United States, no reference at all to the Gray Report which finds itself locked away in somebody's desk drawer, no reference at all to energy policies, and no reference at all to the conflicting statements made by people such as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien). It was just unbelievable. I have never read or heard so much in my life and learned absolutely nothing from it. The minister's speech was filled with words like "childish". I repeat that this was a speech by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, that great diplomat. It was filled with words like "silly," "contradictory," and "hypocrisy," all in reaction to the position taken by our spokesman on external affairs, with no reference at all to the position of the government. There was a continuous challenge, one which seems to be dominant in the front benches of the government, a challenge to our party to state our position on a multitude of issues.
It may be trite to say the obvious thing, Mr. Speaker, that we are living in a unique nation. It is the second largest nation in the world geographically speaking, a nation of 22 million people, a nation with great resources and with great regional disparities but which has a rather unique tariff policy. Our tariff policy reacts to the tariff policies of another government, the government of the country to the south, which has devised a system which makes it difficult for us to manufacture and export manufactured products but which makes it very easy for Canadian industrialists and business people to export raw resources.
Despite the bragging of the government that we have a buoyant economy, we have a country which has had mas-
[Mr. Lundrigan.J
sive problems over the last several years, not just since May, not just since the imposition of the U.S. 10 per cent surcharge, with rapidly growing unemployment. We have a government which has allowed the business community to remain in a position of uncertainty to the point where, if one watched the stock market over the last several months, one saw a drop of 10 to 12 percentage points from the level that existed six or seven weeks ago. According to recent statistics, business failures in the province of Quebec have increased by about 10 per cent and have increased right across the nation.
In November, 1971, we are faced with two significant challenges. The first is to improve our interrelationships with our neighbours to the south through discussions, and the second is to see what we can do within the confines of the Canadian economy, bearing in mind our resources, our manufacturing position, our taxation and tariff position, to help a staggering and sick economy. These challenges have faced this nation for the last several years.
I cannot see how any of those people who sit to my extreme left can say that the motion before us today is the least contradictory. We are saying that we have a challenge to establish healthy working and friendly relationships, both political and economic, with our neighbours to the south. We are also saying that, bearing in mind our resources, the economy of the Canadian nation, the tariffs and the business community, bearing in mind all the conditions that are peculiar to Canada, we can develop economic muscle. That is what we are saying in the motion.
The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Murphy) was here for 15 minutes today and I heard him and the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre) say that we have been spoiled, that we have emerged from puberty and adolescence, have reached adulthood and must become independent. They said we have to become big boys and expose ourselves to all the winds and forces of the international scene, that we have to be able to negotiate with other countries and maybe even turn our backs on our friends to the south, saying that we have now reached the age of maturity. But I ask these members what we have done in the last three years to put muscle in the Canadian economy so that we can become independent, so that we can insult our friends and allow a breakdown in our international relations? Right now we find ourselves in a corner, because at the moment our neighbour receives 80 per cent of our exports.
There are questions that I should like the Secretary of State for External Affairs to answer today. What have we done with energy? Have we found out from the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) what our total capacity is? Have we discovered how much the Americans depend on it? Are we in a strong bargaining position? Do we know what our own domestic needs are? Is it necessary to develop the Fundy Tidal Power project? The Churchill Falls project has been developed privately with the assistance of one provincial government and no assistance at all from Ottawa. What is the position on resources domestically? And have the Americans become so dependent on our resources that we can talk tough to them? Have we developed strategies to help our resource
November 4, 1971

industries by means of tax credits, tax abatements, tax incentives or industrial growth incentives? Are the Americans so dependent on our resources that we can take that line of attack without hurting ourselves? Can other nations in the world supply the resource needs of the American people? If we talk tough are we liable to lose the market and thereby the jobs which have been created through the export of raw materials? I feel that this government has reached conclusions on these questions, but for political reasons or through incompetency is afraid to disclose them to the Canadian people.
What is our position on technological capability? Are we so capable technologically that we can forge ahead and become dominant in the world? What have we done about developing managerial capability? The books I have read say that any nation is dependent to a large extent on managerial capability for independence in the industrialized world. Has Canada set up special programs to help business communities, industry, universities and technical colleges develop managerial expertise? I am not talking about a master's degree from a university; I am talking about spending a lot of Canadian dollars to assist the business community in developing competency in the field of management.
What have we done about the recommendations of the Science Council of Canada for a new industrial strategy? I am not referring to an auto pact or an ad hoc policy on textiles or a policy on resources that is ad hoc to everything else in Canada. What I am talking about is a major industrial strategy which includes tax policies, tariff policies, expertise in management. Has the government considered these measures? This is what we are talking about in the second part of our motion when we refer to a number of things that we can do within Canada in order to make ourselves more vigorous and viable. No nation in the world will react to Canada making moves on its own considering its unique characteristics, its qualities, its advantages and disadvantages. This government has not stated any policy on energy, on resource development, on managerial capability nor a new industrial strategy. I do not think that our neighbours to the south can talk with people in this government because I do not believe this government knows where it stands on these issues.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: If the Gray report found that we are so inextricably involved with the United States economy that it is going to be difficult for us to do any more than reconsummate the marriage, why are the Canadian people not informed? If this government has found in discussions on energy and resources that we are not indispensable, why are the Canadian people not informed? These are things that the Canadian people must accept. I do not believe that the Canadian people are all that upset and terrified over losing their economic sovereignty. If they were faced today with a choice between losing economic sovereignty or suffering massive unemployment, I think they would quickly opt for closer relations with our neighbours to the south.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Economic Relations with United States


John Howard Lundrigan: I do not believe that in order to stand as adults among the nations of the world we have to sacrifice our political independence or identity as a nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: Newfoundland became part of this nation in 1949 and has not lost its identity. It has not lost its culture or its heritage.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Howard Lundrigan: It is an integral part of the Canadian nation in every sense of the word. In the last three and a half years, I think we have had the worst of both worlds. I see members on the other side of the House whose feelings I know are the same as mine. Our economy went from a position of relative strength four years ago to one that is causing grave concern to every Canadian. The economy has been weakened to the point that more than 7 per cent of our labour force, on a seasonally adjusted basis, is unemployed. We have a government that persists in blaming this on our neighbours to the south. They blame everybody. They blame striking workers, single people, young people, the aged, new technologies, lazy deadbeats, organized labour and participation rates; and now they are blaming our United States neighbours for our unemployment.
Instead of blaming all these people, the government ought to accept the challenge of establishing closer and better working relationships with our neighbour to the south and attempt to offset the devastating economic situation that has arisen in Canada. Instead of doing that, we have offended our neighbours. We have made it much more difficult to establish healthy working relationships with them. At home nothing has been done to help us find a way out of our present position in order to make sure that when similar moves are made by other nations in future, the Canadian people will be better able to stand alone. That is the devastating part of what has happened. The challenge facing this government and the Canadian people is this: we must find a better, quicker and easier way to establish adequate working relationships with our neighbour to the south. We must remember that, aside from relying on the United States, we can do many things for ourselves within Canada, so that in future we may stand economically independent.


Mr. Ian Wahn (St. Paul's):: Mr. Speaker, despite the eloquent and forceful manner in which the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Lundrigan) expressed his point of view, it is entirely clear, of course, that the motion originally introduced by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) is not only confused and illiterate, it is also intellectually dishonest or schizophrenic. That has been clearly established by a number of speakers, including the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) and the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland).
I do not intend to spend much time repeating arguments which have been advanced. The motion, however, is helpful and important because it exposes clearly a fundamen-

November 4, 1971
Economic Relations with United States
tal cleavage within the ranks of the official opposition. This cleavage cannot be denied and is clear if one reads the record of yesterday's debate. One of the views is that expressed by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fair-weather) who emphasized the importance of developing, basically, policies of Canadian nationalism. In so speaking, he was speaking in the tradition of the original founder of his party, Sir John A. Macdonald. On the other hand, the hon. member for Hillsborough spoke in another tradition, a tradition which has also been associated with his party for many years, a tradition and I say this with respect because I respect the views of the hon. member, that is based on what I might call the colonial mentality, the fear of independence which pervades a large part of Canadian society and which affects some of our business people, some of our professional people and some of our bankers and other financial people. This is a fear of new initiatives, expressed by the desire to remain in a sheltered position or, as is sometimes said, under the American umbrella. Theirs is the desire to maintain the status quo. After all, these are privileged people and very comfortable at present. They do not want to rock the boat. They are not anxious to take new initiatives. They want to wait and see.
Years ago they wanted to wait to see what Great Britain would do, and then they would follow; and today, Mr. Speaker, they want to wait and see what the Americans will do, and then they want to follow. They are terrified at the possibility that a country so small, so weak and so dependent as they suspect Canada is, should ever do something before our American friends do it. This was made entirely clear in the remarks last night of the hon. member for Hillsborough.
What were the reasons he gave for attacking the present government for alleged anti-Americanism? We had taken an initiative in developing friendlier cultural and trading relationships with the Soviet Union and other countries of eastern Europe. We had taken steps to establish trading and cultural relationships with the People's Republic of China, and we had failed to follow the United States lead with regard to the recognition of the Peking government of China. We were diversifying our economic and cultural relationships and the hon. member said-and I emphasize that I am referring to what the hon. member said-that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had made some injudicious remarks to this effect. On that basis, this government is accused of an anti-American policy. It is a very serious charge and appears on page 9299 of Hansard, where the hon. member for Hillsborough is reported as having said:
-no government in Canada should recklessly engage upon a rampage of anti-Americanism without being prepared to face some painful consequences.
That is true, of course, but I think the implication is clear. The hon. member is charging this government with such a policy. And that is false; that is far from the truth.


An hon. Member:: That is what the hon. member says.


Ian Grant Wahn: That is absolutely false.


An hon. Member:: 


Ian Grant Wahn: It is false for the reasons I have given. There is no basis for the charge, as proved by those illustrations

which I have already given. Obviously, there is nothing inconsistent with our diversifying our relations with other countries and developing friendly relations with other countries while maintaining friendly relations with the United States and our traditional friends.
Nevertheless, and this is an important point, we must recognize that, unfortunately, in Canada today there is a great deal of anti-American sentiment. But that anti-Americanism has not been sponsored or encouraged by this government. That anti-Americanism shows itself in many ways. For this reason, we should be very careful in Canada to emphasize and continue emphasizing, and reemphasize, if necessary, our desire to maintain the friendliest possible relations with the United States while at the same time-and this is not an inconsistent position-diversifying our relationships and trying to build friendlier cultural and trade relationships with other countries as well, even though they have not traditionally been our friends. For example, when we start firing off telegrams to the President of the United States protesting against the Amchitka blast, I think we should also send telegrams to the heads of state of the Soviet Union, France and the People's Republic of China, because they are all doing much the same thing, and it is bad no matter who does it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Grant Wahn: When we protest, as we often do in Canada,. against the American involvement in Viet Nam, should we not also protest against the Soviet Union's involvement in Hungary of some years ago and its involvement in Czechoslovakia?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Grant Wahn: When we protest against the American treatment of blacks and other minority groups in the United States, should we not also protest-and send telegrams- against the treatment in the Soviet Union of minorities in that country and should we not also protest against our own treatment of our own minorities in Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Grant Wahn: Although there is no substance in the allegation of the hon. member for Hillsborough, which charges our government with anti-Americanism, I am happy that the point has been raised and brought into the open because, in repeating that allegation the hon. member for Hillsborough, whether he realizes it or not, is joining in and participating in a widespread whispering campaign which is now under way and which is designed to suggest that the present government of Canada is communist oriented and is trying to "cozy up" to the communists-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Grant Wahn: -and give up its traditional friendships with the United States and the countries of western Europe.


An hon. Member:: That is true.


Ian Grant Wahn: I suppose all of us in the House have received some of the filthy publications which mostly come, I think, from extreme right wing organizations in the United States which make these charges. I am, in a way, glad to see this charge raised in the House in this

Economic Relations with United States
debate so that the people of Canada can realize just how insubstantial it is.
I should like to return to the most important aspect of this discussion. Should Canada seek economic integration in a single continental American market dominated by the United States, or should we seek economic independence based upon the development of a new Canadian economic policy which in turn must be founded upon the development of multilateral relationships, basically economic relationships? This is the fundamental economic problem which faces us in Canada at the present time. And opinion in Canada is divided right down the middle.
I have spoken of the cleavage within the ranks of the Official Opposition. But there is also a cleavage within the ranks of the NDP. This becomes clear when we emphasize that it is not just business dependence we are talking about but dependence in the field of trade unionism, and the domination exerted by the so-called international unions, which are really United States dominated unions.
Within my own party there are obvious differences of opinion. Although I respect the views of my hon. friend from Fort William (Mr. Badanai) as expressed earlier today in this debate, I can hardly agree with them.
The hon. member for Fundy-Royal attacked the government because it has not yet made up its mind what its policy should be in this field. It has, indeed, taken time to make up its mind and it is just as well that it should not hurry the process. Because when the new policy is published, if it is directed toward achieving a greater degree of Canadian independence, we can be sure that hon. members opposite will attack the government for being anti-American.
Policy in this area has to be developed very carefully and in a responsible way. While continuing to emphasize that we shall necessarily for many years continue to be highly dependent upon our United States friends in many ways, I certainly hope that when the policy is published it will indicate clearly that we are moving toward a greater degree of economic and cultural independence. I hope that we shall reject the notion of complete economic integration with the United States as being inconsistent with the maintenance of an independent and unified Canada.
I should like to emphasize that the new Nixon economic policy involving the 10 per cent surtax and other protectionist devices does pose a serious economic threat to Canada. But it also presents us with a tremendous opportunity if we have the courage to take advantage of it. It emphasizes, as nothing else could, the extent of our dependence on the United States. What is the use of the people of Canada having elections to elect members of this House if our economy is completely integrated with that of the United States: if, as a result, all the basic economic decisions are made in Washington, if at all?
The people of Canada are primarily concerned about their jobs, their families, and getting enough to live decently. All these things are related to the state of the economy. If our economy is integrated with that of the United States, decisions in this area will be made in the United States unless, as sometimes appears to be the case, the U.S. economy is completely beyond the control of the
American people, in which case there would be no one guiding our economy.
For these reasons it is important that the government announce promptly its policy concerning foreign investment in Canada. I hope it will be a policy pointing in the direction of less rather than greater economic dependence upon the United States. Mr. Speaker, to help our United States friends I think we should renounce voluntarily and unilaterally the benefit of the special exemptions they have given us in the past. We should give up our exemptions under the interest equalization tax and other balance of payments programs introduced by the United States to protect its balance of payments position. Our reserves are higher than ever before-more than $5 billion. We could well afford voluntarily to give up the benefit of these exemptions as an indication to the United States that we recognize their problems and wish to help them, while at the same time moving in the direction of greater independence for Canada.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: I was beginning to doubt that I would be able to get the floor on this subject today.
I have the pleasure to speak to the non-confidence motion which condemns, and I quote:
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.
I think this motion should be closely scrutinized since it allows us to look back briefly at the performance of the various governments we have had since 1962.
To this end, I will give the substance of the first four speeches I heard in the House. As I only have 15 minutes, I will quote the analysis of those speeches published in today's edition of Le Devoir, entitled "Canada-US hot line cooling down", which states:
The foreign affair critic, Tory MP Heath Macquarrie, yesterday stressed the fact that no Canadian government can afford the luxury of violent anti-Americanism. This statement was booed by the Liberals.
The economies of our two countries, Mr. Macquarrie stated, are closely related, and any government which tries to undermine traditionally good relations between Ottawa and Washington is endangering the position of Canadians, who are in the hands of Americans.
That was for the first speech. The article comments as follows on the second speech:
Secretary of State for External Affairs Mitchell Sharp answered that disagreements between Canada and the United States do not necessarily reflect a deterioration of the relations between the two countries but that they are more likely the outcome of the development of these relations.
These relations must develop according to the circumstances and that sometimes may cause some disagreements, said Mr. Sharp.
He could have added: the extension of their relations with other countries.

November 4, 1971
Economic Relations with United States
And I quote further:
For this part, former New Democratic Party leader T. C. Douglas, commended the government for its efforts to establish better relations with the socialist and communist world.
He said that he was surprised to hear that blame from the official opposition which in his opinion goes along with the right wing organizations and newspapers that attempt to accuse the government of turning its back on "our excellent American friends" in favour of the socialist and communist regimes.
However, the NDP member expressed the hope that Canada will achieve greater economic independence and closer control over the corporations operating in its territory.
As we may see, member of the New Democratic Party are always tempted to come back to their socialist doctrine in order to control corporations. So they keep trying to stand against those who dare talk against certain communist doctrines.
As usual, they moved an amendment which was rejected. So, they came up with another one. I want to point out that as far as we are concerned the chair should never accept amendments on allotted days, days which by right belong to the parties moving the non-confidence motion. Often the other parties take that opportunity to try to bring in their own ideas about the motion moved so that it completely loses its meaning, as it happened in our case.
This is why I ask that such amendments not be introduced in future but that we discuss instead the non-confidence motion moved by an opposition party. We should not have to put up with these amendments. Let us deal with the subject matter.
I resume the quotation:
As for Mr. Matte, he stated that we should not wait for a further deterioration of Canada-United States relations before taking action.
Relations are not too good, he went on, compared with what they have been in the past.
Speaking of the Canadian economy, the member for Champlain reiterated that the evil is more in the present system than in the nature of Canada-United States relations.
If Canada could achieve production equal to its consumption, the 10 per cent American surtax on imports would have had little effect on us.
Those were the opinions expressed by the first four speakers on the motion.
Now, let us get down to facts. First political aspects, after which we will deal with our economic situation and finally with our future diplomacy.
To my knowledge, and I have been sitting here since 1962, this matter of anti-Americanism began under the former administration, that of the Progressive Conservative party under the leadership of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker). That government was charged with anti-Americanism because it opened more widely its doors to British goods. That was the opinion of the then right hon. Prime Minister and he may have been right at that. That assuredly did not please the United States because non only did we see the consequences in the progressive conservative defeat, but we all know that the Americans financed the liberal victory. American financiers attempted to bring back to reason those who wanted us to stop relying so much on North American markets.
That is the nature of the present conflict and I do not contend that the Progressive Conservative government
(Mr. Gauthier.]
was any more anti-American than the Liberal government that followed was pro-American, but I say that we acknowledge facts. American capital put the government headed by the right hon. Mr. Pearson into power, because the previous Progressive Conservative government disappointed Americans a little.
The present government under the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) then presided over the destinies of the country. Several questions come to our minds. We feel the United States are also asking themselves questions, because they do not know whether the present government is pro-American, anti-American, socialist, capitalist or democratic. We still do not know. It is neither flesh nor good red herring. I think that is partly what the United States fear. Even those who are members of the cabinet fear that. Privately, they are afriad of the Prime Minister: is he a socialist disguised as a liberal, or a liberal disguised as a financial dictator? We still do not know.
That is, I believe, part of the cause of our present difficulties with regard to our relations with the United States. At times, he says that he is of the left or of the far left, although he looks to the far right and remains with the Liberals. And this governmental instability surely scares the United States, although, on the whole, some effort is made today to find markets outside the American continent-which is very well-but the economic context should not be ignored.
And this brings me to my second point, the economic context in which we find ourselves. What are our present economic positions? In fact, in many areas, especially with regard to raw materials, we are exporters. We also export a certain quantity of semi-finished products, but we import large quantities of finished products, and this poses a threat to our economic situation.
In order to direct our economy toward increased independence, as proposed in the second part of the motion, I feel that it is time for Canada to deal with its own affairs as regards finished products. This is where our economic weakness is most apparent. As long as we are not aware of this economic weakness, we will not be able to live beside a country like the United States and deal with them on equal terms, because we are dependent on them. In fact, we are a little bit like the child who has not yet left his mother; we are still being led by the hand by the United States since we have to get from them 60 per cent of our consumer goods.
If this government really means business, if it wants to act responsibly, let it start first by developing our secondary industries so as to satisfy the needs of local consumers. That is the first step to take.
On the other hand, we often compete with the United States. We should not conceal the fact. As competitors, we should play the game and be cautious. If we are selling the same product to other countries, it gives rise to conflicts because the United States are used to treating us as a child and when we want to act like an adult, they get angry.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.
November 4, 1971


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: Mr. Speaker, as has been said by other hon. members, this Conservative resolution is an embodiment of contradictions. They are trying to have it both ways; they are trying to ride two horses at once. On the one hand they condemn the government for poor relations with the United States because it took certain initiatives, and on the other they condemn the government for not presenting a policy of economic independence, which in itself is a very serious issue that could disrupt relations with the United States. I do not view this as an argument against such a policy and I will discuss this question later. The Conservative opposition condemns the government when it takes steps to make this country more independent, but at the same time criticizes it for not doing more. Fortunately, most Canadians can see through this nonsense.
What are the matters raised by the Conservatives when they allege there are poor relations between Canada and the United States? First of all they refer to the recent economic measures introduced by Mr. Nixon, the surcharge and others. If those measures resulted from Canadian action, certainly all governments in the world could be condemned by the same resolution. I submit, as many others have done before me, that the United States action is an attempt by that government to solve their economic problems by riding on the backs of not only their enemies but also their friends. In that particular instance I say Canada is not at fault. We have floated our dollar, we have had very liberal trade with the United States, and we have tried to communicate on all problems. What has happened is not the fault of this government.
Another issue raised is the Amchitka incident. If there are poor relations between Canada and the United States as a result of our protests regarding the Amchitka test, whom are we to hold responsible? Are we to hold responsible those people who may be damaged seriously by such a blast, or are we to hold responsible those people who are initiating this atomic test which could cause serious ecological and personal damage not only to Canada but to many parts of the United States and other areas of the world? I fail to see how the Canadian government bears any responsibility if there is a breakdown between Canada and the United States on that point.
Next we have the visits of Messrs. Kosygin and Tito to Canada and the visit of our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) to eastern Europe. We also have developed relations with China. Again, I fail to see how our initiative in attempting to build bridges between the west and the east for the good of peace in the world can be considered a measure which is anti-American. I fail to see how an attempt by this government to take strong initiatives for the independence of Canada by spreading our contacts and creating friends in many parts of the world can be considered anti-American.
The Conservative position in this regard is just not credible. As has been pointed out, the United States itself has followed up the initiatives we have taken. After we established relations with China, the President of the United States announced that he would be visiting that country. We do not think he will try to establish relations with China, but his visit could lead to that in the long run.
Economic Relations with United States
The President is going to the Soviet Union. Our Prime Minister took the initiative and went there last year; he was the first western head of government to do so.
If in raising these issues the opposition is trying to present them as a policy of anti-Americanism, I fail to see how that can be done. These policies have been followed by the government in an attempt to make Canada more independent economically, politically and socially. As a result of these new contacts in the eastern bloc and in Asia we hope to develop cultural and economic relationships which will be of benefit not only to Canada but to the western world.
There have been other measures taken in the last few years. We have attempted through the Canadian Radio Television Commission to develop a more independent broadcasting policy and we have attempted to develop more independent policies in other areas. For a long time we have maintained relations with Cuba and we have traded with that country although the United States did not do so. No one considers that as being anti-American.
I reiterate that it is in the interests of Canada, since we lie between the Soviet Union and the United States, to establish good relations with both these countries. In this era of modern communication and fast means of transportation the Soviet Union is as close to us, in many respects, as the United States and I think it is necessary that we maintain these close relationships.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Perhaps the Chair might make its first request. The hon. member has only a few minutes left; perhaps hon. members would agree to let him finish so that we can start with a new speaker at eight o'clock.


William Warren Allmand: Perhaps I could have another five or ten minutes, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: No, it is six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: There is not unanimous agreement. It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, before the supper hour I had pointed out that the government has taken many new initiatives in respect of foreign policy. We admit that and are proud of it. But as I mentioned before, these have been pro-Canadian policies rather than anti-American. If the United States blames us for helping ourselves and for trying to protect our own interests, then it is doing this as a pretext for carrying on its isolationist policies. We want friendly relations with the United States. It is in the interests of both countries to have friendly relations-but we would not want such relations at the expense of our own interests, our own sovereignty, our own resources, and so on. We feel we can be a close friend of the United States

November 4, 1971
Economic Relations with United States
and still be very pro-Canadian. I believe the United States is big enough and mature enough to appreciate and accept such a relationship.
The second part of the resolution condemns the government for failing to develop a new economic policy which would strengthen our economic independence. That is not true: the government is developing such a policy and has taken certain steps already. It has set up the Canada Development Corporation. It has taken action in the case of Denison Mines and Home Oil. Also, several fiscal measures have been adopted. It was a Liberal government which appointed the Watkins commission, and another Liberal government which referred the report of that commission to a cabinet committee. In addition, the Government reported recently through the Prime Minister that it will make its policy on the Gray report known very shortly.
I was a member of the external affairs committee which prepared the report on United States-Canada relations in 1970. I fully support the recommendations in that report and hope that several of them will be included in the government's policy statement when announced. I think it would be worth while to repeat some of the important statements in the report of the external affairs committee. In summing up their assessment of the U.S.-Canadian relations the committee said:
The danger facing Canada is not one of political absorption by the United States: The danger which Canada must guard against is that it will drift into such a position of dependency in relation to the United States that it will be unable, in practice, to adopt policies displeasing to the United States because of the fear of American reaction which would involve consequences unacceptable to Canadians. The committee believes it is in the interests of both Canada and the United States that Canada should remain politically united and economically strong.
The committee has concluded that, in addition to maintaining political independence, Canada must also maintain a sufficient degree of military, economic and cultural independence that it will, in practice, be able to make the independent decisions which constitute the vital characteristic of an independent nation.
This was a report by a committee with a majority of Liberal members. It is true we had support for these recommendations from members of other parties. One important recommendation in the report is that we must adopt positive measures to make our industry much more efficient so that it can compete on a world-wide basis. We also recommended the establishment of a Canadian Development Corporation. That has been set up.
Another important recommendation was that we enact a Canadian ownership law which would set up a Canadian ownership and control bureau. It was suggested that this Canadian ownership and control bureau would monitor foreign ownership, would keep a close watch on foreign companies operating in Canada and would see that these companies follow the guidelines and laws laid down for foreign corporations. It would do many other things which I cannot go into this evening because I do not have sufficient time. One thing it would do would be to monitor a rule which we think should be implemented, to the effect that in key sectors of Canadian industry 51 per cent of voting shares should be in Canadian hands. Unfortunately, this recommendation was misunderstood when the report came out and was badly reported in the press. It was reported that we had recommended that companies operating in Canada must have 51 per cent Canadian

control. That was not the recommendation. The recommendation was as follows:
Nevertheless, the committee recognizes that as a general rule it is desirable that Canadians should control Canadian companies by owning at least 51 per cent of their voting shares particularly in the important sectors of the economy where American control is now most highly concentrated, and that we should move toward this goal as rapidly as capital requirements and other relevant circumstances permit.
The recommendation was that in important sectors of the economy we must maintain control as we acquire the capital. Another important recommendation was that there should be no take-over of a Canadian company unless such take-over is passed by the Canadian ownership and control bureau. This is a very important recommendation. There were others with respect to the extraterritorial effect of American and other foreign laws in Canada, the role of foreign-based trade unions, cultural imperialism, and so on.
I submit that this was an important report. Much time was spent on it. I presume that the government is taking these recommendations into consideration in preparing their economic independence policy statement, in addition to their consideration of the Gray recommendations. I feel that the government has been moving in this direction and I have confidence that soon we will have a strong policy on Canadian economic independence.
In conclusion, I want to state again that I think the motion by the Conservative opposition is a nonsense motion. It is trying to sit on both sides of the fence at the same time. It criticizes the government for the very thing that it asks for in the latter part of the resolution.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I cannot say that there has been a high-level debate from some quarters today, but it has been a very interesting one and it is the first occasion for some time that government members have been really smoked out. Shakespeare had a word for nearly everything and what he said certainly applies to government members-methinks she doth protest too much! I have never seen such an exhibition and heard such pronouncements of how much we love the United States. What a reversal this is from the actions, which speak much louder than words, of the last two or three years. I will deal with those in a moment.
Also very interesting to me was the speech of the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland). I am sorry he is not in the House at the moment because I dislike criticizing a member in his absence. I am extremely sorry that the hon. member for Selkirk dealt with the speech of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) in the way that he did. He got himself all wrapped up in pious observations about intellectual honesty. If I recall his speech this afternoon, he described the expulsion of Taiwan from the United Nations-mentioned by the hon. member for Hillsborough in his speech-as a cruel act. He intimated that the hon. member for Hillsborough had said that the seating of the People's Republic of China was a cruel act. Of course, this is pure nonsense.
I am not imputing motives to the hon. member for Selkirk: one cannot do that. I can only assume from what he said and from the evidence that he is new in this House
November 4, 1971

and, I presume, very new to the United Nations and that therefore he probably made a mistake. What the hon. member for Hillsborough said is clearly on the record. I think in the view of nearly all members of the House, if not all, the People's Republic of China should indeed have the Chinese seat in the General Assembly and on the Security Council.
What was objected to by members of this party was that Taiwan, which is a different government altogether and for which the American resolution would have provided a seat, should not have been allowed some representation at the United Nations. They had been a good member of long standing. They had paid their dues better than some other nations. Taiwan, with a population of 14 million, has a bigger population than half of the other members, including bogus members such as the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic which represents nobody other than the Soviet government, and Byelorussia. I remember that a senior delegate of that country said, "Our foreign office is one room over a grocery store in Minsk".
The very least this government could do is to recognize Taiwan. I hear lots of pious observations from the government side and from my friends to the left about universality being the great thing in the United Nations-pious hypocrisy! If a Communist nation had been concerned, they could have forgotten it, but with Taiwan they could not. The very least the government could do was to bring forward a resolution-


Mr. Faulkner:: Mr. Speaker-


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: The hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Faulkner) should keep still for a moment. He ought to remember what happened to his riding in the provincial election. The very least the government could do in this case was to bring a resolution before the General Assembly to seat Taiwan which is a de facto country. Certainly they do not represent mainland China-nobody suggested they did-but they are certainly entitled to representation. That was promised in the last election by the man who sits in the seat of foreign affairs minister of this country. "Oh, no, we would never sacrifice Taiwan", he said in the nice manner of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp). He changed his mind pretty quickly.
I am sorry that the hon. member for St. Paul's (Mr. Wahn) is not here, but I was very interested in his mindreading speech this afternoon. All I can say is that it is just another indication of how disturbed hon. members over there are about this whole debate, because everybody recognizes them for what they really are no matter what they say. The hon. member for St. Paul's wanted to know why people in Canada and on this side of the House think the government is anti-American.
I have some examples which I am happy to be able to provide for him. Let us take the following, for example. During the Prime Minister's recent visit to the Soviet Union, in what was I suppose a happy frame of mind after a Russian dinner-you can get in that frame of mind after those dinners-he said that Canada needed to have closer relations with Russia to counterbalance the military threat from the United States. Then, of course, there is the little item of the cutting of our NATO commitments and certain other matters which were dealt with by my colleague, the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Economic Relations with United States
Forrestall), regarding our lack of co-operation in other defence fields.
Then there was the red carpet treatment given by us to U.S. draft-dodgers. Let us only compare the immigration difficulties presented to good, honest immigrants who wanted to come here from Italy, the Netherlands or elsewhere. They were examined for security and everything else, but the draft-dodgers were cleared, so we were told, sometimes in half an hour. There is also the recent attitude at the United Nations regarding Taiwan. I have already mentioned that. There was the reported behaviour of members of the Canadian delegation jumping with joy, laughing and screaming epithets at the American delegation when the United States suffered the diplomatic defeat which they did. This is bad manners.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul St. Pierre: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the parliamentary secretary rising on a point of order?


Paul St. Pierre: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member should check his facts. What he stated is absolutely untrue.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: This is not a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am certainly prepared to accept the word of the hon. member for whom I have great personal regard. I realize he was there at the time in his capacity as parliamentary secretary. The only thing I have to say is that I had reports from some of my colleagues who were there, and when the question was raised in the House the other day the Secretary of State for External Affairs seemed a little unsure of his facts on the matter. While there is no question in my mind that the hon. member who has just spoken would certainly not have engaged in such activities, I am informed that some of our other delegates did. Perhaps the hon. member for Coast Chilcotin (Mr. St. Pierre) did not see it.
There are other matters. The division concerning Canadian-American relations is not confined to the government; unfortunately, it also exists among the people of these two countries, with the daily barrage of anti-American propaganda whipped up by some members of the government party and by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation in its daily, venomous attacks on the United States.
People in the United States hear this; the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation covers a large section of the United States. Since it is the CBC they think it is the public mouthpiece of the Canadian government. Mr. Speaker, you know that is not so and I know it is not so. We know that the CBC is an entity very much unto itself. But people in other countries do not understand these niceties, particularly when they hear "hate America" propaganda every day.
I remember that at one of the last meetings of the broadcasting committee I asked the president of the CBC if he could produce one program from the public affairs division that had been even neutral to the Americans within the last five years. He had to think for a while and

November 4, 1971
Economic Relations with United States
then he said there were two, a series on the American landings on the moon, and de Tocqueville's visit to the United States, which I think took place about 1828.
Then there is confusion about U.S. investment in Canada. We hear "Yankee go home" from all quarters. We heard something like that from a former Minister of Finance, Walter Gordon, a prominent member of the Liberal party, and from others. Yet we do not seem to have any policy. This is something that has been mentioned by a number of members on the other side of the chamber. It must be very difficult for our American friends when we have the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) going down to the United States begging Americans to invest their money in Canada, and then we have the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene)-I am sorry he also is not here-speaking and giving Americans hell for investing here. The Secretary of State for External Affairs is saying much the same thing. This must be puzzling to Americans.
Then we have the provincial premiers, the premier or former premier-whichever he is-of Newfoundland, the premier of Nova Scotia, the premier of New Brunswick and the premier of Quebec going down to the United States asking our American friends to invest in Canada, and when they do and they come up here they get a chorus of "Yankee go home". You cannot blame our American friends for being a little puzzled about where we are going.
I have heard the question asked, "What are you people going to do about it?" The first thing that I suggest the government should do about it is try to produce the Gray report, on which the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) spent one dickens of a long time and much hard work, instead of burying it in the recesses of cabinet lockers. Let us have a look at it. The government should formulate a policy on American and other foreign investment in Canada. But the government has done nothing, has shown no indication of doing anything and has not given any leadership other than schizophrenic pronouncements by various cabinet ministers.
We would like a co-ordinated effort in this regard. The government should take the lead in determining our policy on American and other foreign investment. It should hold a conference with the provinces on this matter and, in all fairness to our friends, whether they be in the United States, the U.K., West Germany, Japan or wherever else, the government should say, "This is our policy. We would like your money here under certain terms and conditions. These are the terms and conditions." But we have had none of that, not one bit of it. There has been no leadership. All we get is anti-American propaganda when someone on the other side of the border does something that does not suit the views of this government.
In 15 minutes, Mr. Speaker, it is pretty hard to deal at length with a very complex subject such as Canadian-U.S. relations. But there is very little doubt about one thing. The government says that things are fine and relations have never been better with the United States. But everybody in the country knows that is not so. All we ask the government is this: please try and avoid in the future incidents such as I have mentioned tonight. A recent

example of such an incident concerns the Amchitka explosion. I am sure that nobody in this House approves of nuclear explosions. I certainly do not, and I spent a good many years of my life working at the United Nations on this problem. But some of us object to the selective vilification of the United States. On this point I agree with the hon. member for St. Paul's who spoke this afternoon.
The government of France has announced that it is going to detonate nuclear explosions in the atmosphere next spring. I hope there is the same amount of protest to the French government and in front of the French embassy next spring as there has been in front of the American embassy, and also in front of the Russian embassy, because I point out that the Russians detonated a big nuclear blast last month; and I hope the same thing happens with respect to the Chinese. You can readily understand why people in the United States think the Canadian government is anti-American when it selects the American government for selective vilification and all other governments are allowed to do whatever they like and no one here utters a peep.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, there is an old expression which says that it is not what you do, it is the way you do it. No one in any party in this House does not want the Canadian government to stick up for Canadian national interests, but you do not have to be anti-American to be pro-Canadian. It is as simple as that. And it is not in our national interest to be attacking the United States constantly, gnawing at our closest neighbours. They are our closest neighbours whether we like it or not. If a major war breaks out and nuclear bombs are dropped on Detroit, that will affect the whole southern end of Ontario. If dropped on the Seaway, that means Montreal; and if dropped on Seattle, that means Vancouver.
Whether we like it or not, we are tied up intimately with the United States-militarily, economically and in many other ways. The best thing for us to do is to get along with our friends, and they have been our friends at least since 1812. We can be firm with them and we can be severe, but we do not need to be unnecessarily abusive and provocative.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the parliamentary secretary rising on a question of privilege?


Paul St. Pierre: Would the hon. member permit a question, Mr. Speaker?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Certainly.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Just before he concluded his remarks the hon. member's time had expired. If there is unanimous consent he may be permitted to reply. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Paul St. Pierre: Mr. Speaker, could the hon. member tell the House whether the person who said members of the Canadian delegation were hooting and jeering at the Americans, dancing and stomping, claimed to have been present in the assembly at that time, because this was total fiction? I ask him to inform the House whether this person claimed to be present. Actually, the proceedings
November 4, 1971

are all on television tapes at the United Nations and can be checked there.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I have to go by the reports I received and all I can say is that I was also told certain remarks were passed to the Saudi Arabian delegation. This appeared on the CBC, if I am not mistaken. I am not disputing the veracity of the parliamentary secretary's remarks. What he says may be so, but this was not the report that appeared on the CBC and reports I received from my colleagues. I just leave it at that.


Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, it was not my intention to intervene in this debate but I think I share with people on all sides of the House a sense of sincere regret that the hon. member who preceded me made so many rather unfortunate remarks.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Unfortunate for you, maybe.


David Anderson: The first thing, of course, is, as we have known for many years-it stretches back throughout our history-that there is no easy way to co-exist with the Americans. This has been mentioned often enough, not just over the last 100 or 104 years of confederation but long before Canada existed as such. It was mentioned in the days of the early colonies. It is deep in the history of many of our people.
Many of the Loyalists came from the United States. Indeed, ironically those who left the States and settled here were known in the States as Tories. I wonder whether those people who left wealth, position and comfort in the United States, who were happy to call themselves Tories, would be proud today to hear the drivel spouted a few moments ago by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt). They would be shocked and dismayed, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Better than the drivel we are hearing right now!


David Anderson: Mr. Speaker, as I mentioned, the question of relations with the United States is most difficult. In this country, through two world wars we suffered enormous losses in wealth and materiel but particularly in terms of personnel, people killed. We suffered enormously before the Americans came in. We welcomed American citizens in our armed forces, those who came to fight for what we thought was democracy, for what we thought the two countries, Canada and the United States, stood for even before their government realized this. At this time I think we should bear in mind that there are many Americans then and now who have shown themselves to be friends and who shared our ideals even though their own governments were a little behind.
We realize that in the two world wars it was necessary for many European nations with whom we also have very close links, the United Kingdom in particular, to virtually give away, to sell at fire-sale prices, all their assets overseas to American corporations and American interests. I wonder whether the U.S. today remembers this.
I think it is only fair to point out that we have long experience of a fruitful relationship, but one that was never easy. It was not easy back in 1812 when, as the hon.
Economic Relations with United States
member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) mentioned, we had our difficulties. It was not easy during the Fenian raids or at any other time since then.
I must say I find the present debate very disappointing. We have heard that the Tory party which has abandoned its traditional positions which, incidentally, it held 93 years ago when my great grandfather, the nominated Tory candidate, stood down to allow Sir John A. Macdonald to be elected in Victoria. He did this because he believed in the principles that Sir John A. stood for then. What the Tories stand for now we do now know, and we have not learned a great deal in the last day and a half. All we know is that it is far from their historical position, far from the position of the great Sir John A.


An hon. Member:: You should have been in the House.


David Anderson: I see the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) sitting opposite and I realize this is a very difficult resolution for him to defend. On the one hand the Conservative Party has been criticizing the government for its failure to rush down to Washington and plead for our special interests; on the other hand it has been complaining bitterly about what it considers our too close relationship with the United States. Faced with this dilemma, the hon. member for Hillsborough is to be congratulated. He has steered a most tortuous course, swinging back and forth on thin ice, trying hard not to break through. He did a fine job.


Paul Yewchuk: This is a reactionary speech.


David Anderson: I hear the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) describe the speech of the hon. member for Hillsborough as reactionary. I think that is unfair.


An hon. Member:: He is talking about you.


David Anderson: Perhaps more than most, we on this side of the House often see irreconcilable differences among members of the Tory party which, of course, because they are in opposition and intend to remain in opposition, they make no attempt to reconcile or deal with.
The problem facing this nation of how to arrange relations with the United States which takes such an enormous amount of our trade, which has so many Canadian born citizens, which wields more power than any other nation on earth, is an extremely difficult one. To suggest that we can somehow deal with this problem with simplistic formulae, in a trite and trivial manner, is foolish and does no service to good relations between our two countries, which I hope all members of this House are anxious to see in as good condition as possible.
With respect to trade, we understand the American position and their vast balance of payment deficits. They have a war in Indo-China. Perhaps more than most members I realize what a traumatic experience this is for the Americans because I spent a year in Viet Nam in 1963-64. We realize that this war has led to economic difficulties because the United States government was unwilling to finance it by taxing the people. They attempted to finance it by a peculiar form of deficit financing which, to a large extent, I believe, has led them to their present difficulties.
We warned them that the problems they now face might occur. At the same time, despite the criticism of members

November 4, 1971
Economic Relations with United States
of the Conservative party and the New Democratic Party, we have attempted to do something about these problems, something to help the United States. For example, over a year ago we freed our dollar and allowed it to float. There were cries of anguish from the opposition that we were hurting the Canadian exporter, yet it was known at that time that this step was necessary in order to prevent the trade situation becoming so unbalanced that the Americans would be forced to do something drastic about it. We tried to act in a reasonable way. We pointed out to them the amount of American ownership in this country. I could refer to the U.S. trade and ownership figures. The hon. member for Athabasca regards this as very amusing.


Paul Yewchuk: Say something original.


David Anderson: We tried to point out to them that the extensive ownership of Canadian industry has created problems for Canada. This is known not only to members of the Liberal party but also to the New Democratic Party. If the Tory party ever listened to their youth wing it might even find they have some interesting things to say about this. Even people in their own party have commented upon the difficult situation caused by the enormous amount of American ownership in Canada.
It is easy to say that this creates a situation in which we should show ourselves to be more pro-American. This is taking the easy, thoughtless way out. I think it is indicative of the lack of content of this resolution that Tory members opposite pay so little attention to the debate of today and yesterday. It is almost an irrelevant debate because I think they have chosen such a bad motion.


An hon. Member:: You are not helping it any.


David Anderson: I see the difficulty and I appreciate and sympathize with hon. members in the Conservative party-


An hon. Member:: Sit down, then.


David Anderson: -for the dilemma they face. I know it must not be easy to defend such an absurd resolution and I am sure when it comes to the vote they will find that members of other parties will not support them.
But we are still faced with the question of how to deal with the United States. There have been criticisms of this government for attempting to create better relations with other nations, in particular such countries as Yugoslavia, the Soviet Union and communist China. I think we are much more fortunate than the American people or their government in that we do not have the enormous burden that they carry as the world's most powerful nation, and so it is possible for us to be more flexible than they are. It is ironic that the President of the United States, who made his name largely by his strong anti-communist stand, is now making a trip to the People's Republic of China and, later, to the Soviet Union. We find in President Nixon a great pragmatist.
Those who criticize Canada for its independent role are ignoring the fact that in some ways we have been only a step, if not only half a step, ahead of the American people and the American government. I do not think that the Americans object to our attempts to create a world in which there is more understanding and less suspicion, less

of the cold war, and more understanding. They are doing precisely the same thing. Those who have embarked upon a rather shabby course of criticizing the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) for his efforts to bring about better understanding between the communist and non-communist worlds are really doing this country a disservice as well as a disservice to the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Anderson: I know that some hon. members opposite are criticizing. I wonder what the right hon. gentleman for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), who has been noticeably absent during the whole debate, would say to all this. I daresay, since the government he headed instituted trade between this country and communist China and brought about closer relations in that regard, he would be embarrassed by this Conservative motion which is being debated in the House.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Athabasca rising on a question of privilege?


Paul Yewchuk: No, Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I think the hon. member's 15 minutes have expired.


An hon. Member:: Check your watch.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. With respect, the Chair watches the time very closely and the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich still has the floor.


David Anderson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I am afraid I was not watching the time as closely as you were or as closely as the hon. member for Athabasca was. He seems to have difficulty telling the time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Anderson: Nevertheless, I submit that it is still pretty easy in a debate like this to score second-rate debating points when speaking of our problems in dealing with the United States. There are real problems, difficult problems, problems based on realities all Canadian governments have had to face, including the governments headed by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, by former Prime Minister Pearson, whose constituency is now represented by the present hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster), and by the present Prime Minister. All our governments have had to face such difficulties. The governments of Mackenzie King, Borden and other Prime Ministers faced these difficulties.
The simplistic approach in dealing with such problems and the shallow criticisms which have come from the Tory party do a disservice to the people of this country. The problem is difficult and nobody pretends that there are easy solutions except, apparently, the Conservative opposition. I do not think the Americans would want us to adopt the servile position in world affairs suggested by some members opposite and echo U.S. views in the United Nations and elsewhere. The U.S. knows there is value in demonstrating to the world that it is possible for an independent and much smaller nation living close to them
November 4, 1971
COMMONS DEBATES______________________________
Economic Relations with United States
to trade with them and to maintain friendly and fruitful relations with them.
I regret that the difficulties involving the surtax which is in large part directed against us, the Amchitka problem that we are now facing, and the problem of the Alaska pipeline involving threatened damage to the Canadian west coast from oil pollution, should all have arisen at the same time. It is unfortunate that they have arisen at a time when the American government apparently is feeling isolated and, in a sense, feels misunderstood by other nations.


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


Paul Yewchuk: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may ask a question only if he has unanimous consent of the House. On the other hand, it occurs to the Chair that since there was a special order perhaps it would not be advisable to ask for such consent. The hon. member for Edmonton Centre.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Mr. Speaker, before beginning my main remarks may I say to the hon. member who has just finished speaking that if it had not been for the entrepreneurship of the Conservative party under the leadership of the right hon. member for Saint Albert-I beg your pardon, Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbak-er)-the hon. member opposite would be supporting the government of a second-rate nation instead of a first-rate nation that is led by a second-rate government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The right hon. gentleman is not a saint yet.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I am pleased, Mr. Speaker, to take part in the debate on this non-confidence motion and to add a little weight-


An hon. Member:: Physical or moral?


Steve Eugene Paproski: -to my colleague's argument in order to show that this government has brought about a deterioration in Canada-United States relations in the field of energy. Canada has energy resources which can be used to power our industries and those of the United States, but the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has yet to tell Canadians and Americans what is his position on Canadian energy policy, let alone continental energy policy.


An hon. Member:: He has no policy.


Steve Eugene Paproski: When recently questioned in the House of Commons on the position of Canada-U.S. energy talks, the Prime Minister had this to say:
We are not at this time prepared to continue them because we do not have the wherewithal, the personnel and the time to arrive at a decision.
Obviously, this cannot be true since talks between Canada and the United States have been going on for the last two years and by now Canada should have at least a
temporary position on domestic energy in the continental American market. Furthermore, the reluctance to initiate further talks on energy at this time suggests strongly a veiled threat by the Prime Minister to use Canada's energy exports as a lever to counteract domestic effects of the recently imposed 10 per cent surcharge. Such a posture by the Prime Minister of Canada adds further support to the growing concern felt by many over the deterioration of Canadian-American relations. My following statements proposed to elaborate on this assumption by placing the Canadian position in its proper perspective.
Let me ask, Mr. Speaker, where does Canada stand? Let me give a little background to my remarks. The largest consumer of oil and gas in the world is the United States of America. If I may illustrate, last year the Americans used approximately 15.6 million barrels of oil daily. This year that consumption has risen to 16.5 million barrels daily. By contrast, Canada's daily consumption of oil was about 1.4 million barrels daily in 1969 and last year it was about 1.5 million barrels daily. This year's domestic consumption is about 1.6 million barrels per day.
The largest oil reserves in the world are found in the Middle East, Russia, South America and the United States. May I illustrate. Of total, known world recoverable oil reserves, the Middle East has about 50 per cent, Russia and South America 30 per cent and the United States 10 per cent. By contrast, Canada holds only 2 per cent of recoverable world oil reserves. Furthermore, on the basis of present patterns of consumption, the Middle East has enough oil for the next 50 years, Canada for the next 20 years and the United States for the next 10 years.
As these figures show, the United States has been relying and will continue to rely increasingly on foreign imports of oil and gas to protect her meagre reserves while at the same time meeting rising domestic demands for these commodities. Presently foreign imports of oil and gas to the United States come from essentially three regions, Venezuela, the Middle East and Canada. Of these foreign imports, Canada supplies about 25 per cent of the daily requirements of the United States. In 1969 Canada's exports to the United States stood at about 555,000 barrels per day. By 1970 this export had increased to about 670,000 barrels per day.
On August 15, President Nixon announced the by now famous 10 per cent import surcharge. This surcharge affects about one quarter of Canada's exports to United States markets. The surcharge, however, does not affect the sale of Canadian oil and gas to the American market. In fact, as the latest preliminary figures from Statistics Canada indicate, the export of petroleum in September increased 18.5 per cent and natural gas exports increased about 27.5 per cent. These very large export increases came about one month after the surcharge was imposed and probably reflect the increasing demand and dependence of the American market on Canada's energy fuels.
On October 4, 1971, the Prime Minister indicated to the House of Commons that talks between Canada and the United States on energy, which were adjourned in the spring of this year, have not been resumed this fall because-
-at this particular point we are preoccupied with other matters, particularly economic matters, and .. . we are not in a position at the moment to sit down with United States officials and continue

November 4, 1971
Economic Relations with United States
these talks. But there has been no indefinite postponement of them, there is merely an inability to find the time now to proceed with them.
[DOT] <8:50 p.m.)
That is reported at page 8385 of Hansard for October 4.
On October 8, 1971, the Prime Minister had this to say when questioned about the resumption of energy talks between Canada and the United States:
We are not at this time prepared to continue them because we do not have the wherewithal, the time and the personnel to arrive at a decision.


Mr. Mahoney:: What page is that on?


Steve Eugene Paproski: This is on record in Hansard at page 8549. I wanted to make sure that I quoted the Prime Minister in the right context. The hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Mahoney) knows that in our province oil is our lifeline and bloodline. He should keep quiet or at least get up and say something.
Canada and the United States have been holding both official and unofficial talks on energy from time to time. These talks were initiated by the Prime Minister's visit to Washington in March, 1969, and were to be consistent with responsibilities of the regulatory bodies concerned for an increasing trade in crude oil products and other fuels between the United States and Canada. The latest talks between Canada and the United States took place in the spring of this year when the then Secretary of the Interior, Walter Hickel, announced in Ottawa that the United States was considering a free access agreement for Canada's oil to the United States and that America was ready to take on more Canadian oil.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: And he was fired.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Canadian producers responded so vigorously during the remainder of 1971 that in September, one month after the imposition of the 10 per cent surcharge, Canadian exports of oil and gas to the United States were up 18.5 per cent and 27.5 per cent respectively. Yet despite the prospect of continued sales of more oil and gas to the United States as well as the planning for more formal, long-range agreements between Canada and the U.S. on energy matters, the Prime Minister announced that we were not prepared to continue talks because we did not have "the wherewithal, the personnel and the time to arrive at a decision".
Obviously this cannot be true, since talks between Canada and the United States have been going on for the last two years. By now Canada should have taken at least a temporary position on energy in the continental American market. Furthermore, the reluctance on the part of the Prime Minister to initiate further talks on energy with the United States at this time suggests strongly a threat by the right hon. gentleman to use Canada's energy exports as a lever to counteract the domestic effect of the 10 per cent surcharge.
Canada cannot afford to stop exporting oil and gas to the United States. However, at the same time care must be taken not to overextend domestic reserves and not to ship too much energy to the American market. What is needed now is a comprehensive Canadian energy policy, rather than the threats of our Prime Minister, if we are to stabil-

ize our domestic industry and support better Canadian-American relationships in this vital sector. Let me say that the following points in a Canadian energy policy coijild help to achieve these objectives:
1.	A Canadian energy resource policy should encourage a de-emphasis on any one particular energy commodity by stressing new alternative sources of energy. A better energy mix can be achieved if less reliance is placed on such commodities as oil and coal and if such new sources as tides, chemicals and wind are tapped.
2.	Energy should not be treated solely as a commodity available for export but as a factor of production in the Canadian economy. Because of its unique role in our economy, better energy balances must be achieved between regional production and consumption and between domestic and foreign consumption.
3.	Present thermal systems can convert fossil fuels to electricity at 40 per cent efficiency. New technologies can do the same at 55 to 60 per cent efficiency. Canada must develop these new technologies to conserve her domestic fuel supply.
4.	Of the five conventional energy sources, hydro, uranium, coal, oil and gas, coal is the most abundant in Canada. Because of escalating energy demands Canada must convert more extensively to the use of coal.
5.	A Canadian energy resource policy must attempt to achieve better regional and northern development. To this end attempts should be made:
a)	to forbid any mineral extraction from areas north of the treeline while at the same time encouraging more exploration in these regions;
b)	to develop a government assisted program for mid-Canada which will build up suitable industries in northern communities once the mineral extractive phase is over; and
c)	to achieve a more balanced approach to oil and gas exploration in Canada's marine and offshore areas.
6.	No attempt should be made to enter into any longterm continental energy arrangements with the United States. At the same time, no attempt should be made to exert leverage on the United States by not exporting any more oil and gas to these markets.
We in the House of Commons have had our eyes opened. We have been told by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) that Canada-U.S. relations are on a firm and reliable basis because our grey-flannel diplomats are more on the ball than ever before. All must be well because our diplomats and our officials are talking as they have never talked before! Mr. Speaker, I am still not impressed, because I do not believe diplomats and cocktail parties have, will or can formulate constructive and self-interested foreign policy to protect and maximize Canadian-made interests within North America.
The talks and contacts the present government has had with U.S. officials over the last three years have, by and large, been ad hoc, superficial, inconsistent and indecisive. Our diplomacy with the United States is simply an extension of this government's performance at home. Now, because diplomacy cannot function in a vacuum, the real crux of the issue is the fundamental and original failure of the Trudeau government to develop a new eco-
November 4, 1971

nomic policy for the most beneficial and independent development of the Canadian economy.
While the machinery and competence of Canada's diplomatic efforts in Washington must and can be improved, it is na'ive and dangerous to suggest we can construct optimum Canada-U.S. relations before we decide what are the best goals for Canada. Diplomacy is at best a servant of Canadian goals. Therefore, we cannot have an effective and coherent diplomatic strategy without an effective and coherent strategy for Canada.
Mr. Speaker, it is here that the Trudeau government has neglected my country's interests and squandered our opportunities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Steve Eugene Paproski: The present government is not equipped to negotiate a practical and reliable energy policy with the United States because it has failed to formulate a comprehensive energy policy for Canada. The government is not equipped to negotiate an end to the surcharge or a constructive new trade policy with the United States because it has not succeeded in formulating an industrial policy, an employment policy or a regional and national development policy for Canada.
The government has been unable to take leadership in the IMF or in the Group of Ten talks on trade and currency reform because it has formulated neither an optimum dollar nor an optimum trade strategy for Canada. Simply, it cannot reach out to the United States or to the world. It cannot bargain and it dare not bargain, because it has no policy for Canada.
If the government is to stop compromising our longterm interests and moving from crisis to crisis and inconsistency to inconsistency in its relations with the United States, it must first stop doing the same with Canada. It is of first priority that the government come clean with Parliament and the provinces of Canada and develop a new economic policy. The government must construct an industrial policy, a trade policy, a foreign investment and capital policy and an energy and human resource policy. With such new economic policy for Canada it would then be possible to achieve reliable and self-interested relations with the United States. The United States will recognize and respect the interests of Canada when Canada defines and develops her own destiny.


Mr. Kenneth Robinson (Toronto-Lakeshore):: Mr. Speaker, I was surprised indeed upon reading the motion of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) to find it was so unclear. It was difficult to see what he was driving at. This is not like the hon. gentleman who is usually so clear and concise that there is no misunderstanding. What he means is usually what he says.
As I understand the motion, it condemns the government for failing to foster closer economic and political relations with the United States and at the same time it blames the government for failing to develop economic and political independence of the United States. This is the old story-be damned if you do, and be damned if you don't. I wonder which of the condemnations the hon. member really means.
Economic Relations with United States
Let us deal with the first. Canada has traditionally had close economic relations with the United States. In fact, about 70 per cent of Canada's trade is with the United States. So how much closer do hon. members want Canada to get to the United States? In effect, the United States has provided Canada with needed investment capital and expertise. It has also provided Canada with a ready market for goods and products of all kinds. As a result, Canada has had and still enjoys a standard of living considered the second highest in the world, second only to that of the United States.
It is true, as was stated in a recent study by the Ontario Federation of Labour, that 138 plants were shut down in Ontario between June, 1970, and June, 1971. It was also true that 55 per cent were foreign-owned and controlled and employed about 63 per cent of the workers who were laid off or had their jobs made redundant. However, it is to be remembered that the other 45 per cent of the plants shut down, which accounted for the 37 per cent of the employees who lost their jobs, were under Canadian ownership and control.
Can you say with any degree of certainty, Mr. Speaker, that it is United States influence that has closed these plants when there were wholly-owned Canadian plants that shut down also? Do not the percentages I have quoted merely represent the degree of United States influence in Canada's economy? Surely you would not suggest, Mr. Speaker, that when a business is not viable it should continue until bankruptcy results.
When President Nixon of the United States announced his new economic rules, the Canadian government immediately sent off a ministerial mission to see whether Canada could get an exemption. But to no avail. The United States was advised of Canada's position. It was pointed out that the 10 per cent surcharge on imports would fall particularly heavily on us because of our large volume of trade with the United States. Other countries made representations because they also are affected by the surcharge, such as Japan, France, West Germany, Italy, the United Kingdom and others. Canada was not singled out for specially tough treatment; nor was Canada singled out for special consideration, in spite of our traditional trade arrangements with the United States. Nearly every country is affected by the 10 per cent surcharge, and no special exemptions have been granted, that I know of, apart from the quota on Japanese textiles.
What about the second condemnation contained in the motion, namely, the government's failure to foster economic and political independence from the United States? Surely the hon. member is aware of the government's desire to find other markets besides the United States on whom Canada has economic dependence. Canada stands to lose its preferred position with the United Kingdom with the impending entry of the U.K. into the European Common Market. Canada now stands to lose its preferred position in the United States market due to the 10 per cent surcharge. Obviously there is a moving away by Canada from dependence to economic independence.
Since this government took office there has been a concerted effort to find new friends and new markets throughout the world. Hence the diplomatic ties with

November 4, 1971
Economic Relations with United States
China, the Soviet Union and many other countries where alternative markets for Canada's goods and produce can be found. If that is not tantamount to fostering economic independence, then I do not know what is.
The fact is that in political and international affairs Canada has been ahead of the United States. It is only now that the United States is following Canada's lead. For example, the U.S. is planning to send its President to China and the Soviet Union. The fact, also, is that in times of economic crises, of tremendous inflation and unemployment, this government has been far ahead of the United States in reducing the inflation spiral and in taking steps to alleviate unemployment through additional benefits by way of unemployment insurance, manpower retraining schemes and other manpower programs.
It is a fact that further government action was taken with regard to prices and incomes through the establishment of the Prices and Incomes Commission. This kind of action is only now being taken in the United States. It is also the fact that at a time when the United States is taking protectionist measures and has applied a 10 per cent surcharge on imports to achieve economic survival, Canada did not sit idly by and do nothing. Canada did not break into tears or wring its hands. No-it did none of these things; rather, it took decisive action. It provided $80 million in federal aid to surcharge-smitten industries. It provided $1 billion infusion into the economy by way of a host of programs to help the country immeasurably and to assist in warding off the effects of the United States surcharge.
This government realizes that the surcharge could be retained for a considerable period of time, that it could even be increased and that further action may be taken by the United States to bolster its ailing dollar position. This government will take positive, decisive, action as deemed necessary to protect our economy and to maintain our high standard of living.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the motion before us today in the name of the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) surprised, I think, a number of us on this side of the House. It would not have surprised us had it been moved by one of a number of other members in the Conservative party, though I confess it looks more like a Liberal motion. The hon. member for Hillsborough has planted one foot firmly on each side of the fence. Looking at the motion, Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of Mackenzie King. On the one hand the hon. member is saying that we should condemn the government for failing to employ and improve firm and constructive and economic political relations with the United States; on the other hand, in the second part of his motion,-


Gerald William Baldwin: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) is rising on a point of order.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I know that the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) is too modest to say so, but to compare his motion with one coming from the Liberal party is, I think, a very slanderous statement, which makes it contrary to the rules of the House.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that the House leader of the Conservative party has stood in his place and admitted this great error that his party has committed. He admits it is a very slanderous thing. It is also a very curious motion and I think points up some of the divisions within the Conservative party. They realize that there is a great feeling in this country of nationalism, a desire to develop an independent foreign and economic policy. Certain members of that party are also paranoiac when it comes to being anti-Communist or anti-anything that might offend the United States. In fact, one of the people very close to the nerve centre of the Conservative party told one of my colleagues that they had to include the first part in the motion to appease certain extremist elements within their party. I think perhaps this goes a long way to explain why this type of motion is before the House today.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member for Hillsborough should move a motion like this because I did not think he was that sort of person. I thought he was a man who saw the world in a more global way. I thought he was a man who took a more progressive attitude to international and domestic affairs. This type of motion totally breaks with the traditions of the Conservative party, from the time of Sir John A. Macdonald to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who has been very conspicuous by his absence.
We all remember very well the general election campaigns of 1962 and 1963 when that right hon. gentleman was accused of being anti-American. Some of my constituents who voted for the Conservative party at that time would be very curious now about this motion. One reason they voted for the Conservative party was that the leader of the party at that time was a Canadian. He was talking about Canada asserting itself and he took the odd swipe at some of the multinational corporations. Then all of a sudden something happened to that party. A fellow named Dalton Camp came along, and so did a few Bay Street Tories, and the motion now before the House proves to me and to my constituents, no doubt, the many suspicions they had about the new Tory party-a party that has changed, that is now different, a party that is continentalist, a party that now wants to cosy up even more to the United States than it has in the past.
I think this motion was moved for a number of reasons. I do not doubt the sincerity of some members of the Conservative party and I do not criticize members such as the hon. members for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), Fundy-Royal (Mr. Fairweather) and Egmont (Mr. MacDonald). One of the bases on which the motion was moved is political opportunism. The Conservatives have sensed there is a bit of emotion in the country because of the visit of the Soviet Premier, perhaps because of the visit of the President of Yugoslavia, and other things. They are trying to play upon the emotions of a number of people who have genuine fear because of things that happened in the past.
Some people have suggested there may be an aura of McCarthyism developing in this country. This is not being helped by the motion before us today. Perhaps there is another reason for moving this motion. Perhaps the Con-
November 4, 1971

servatives are looking toward the next federal election. They will need a lot of money to finance a big campaign. Perhaps they are considering what happened in Ontario, where the money comes from for their elections. I think a motion like this may have been drafted with that in mind. Perhaps they hired a public relations man from Michigan to help them draft this motion with a view to convincing the Canadian people. This is the type of motion we often see from the Conservative party.


Steve Eugene Paproski: What you see is what you get.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) is making his typical remarks in a debate of this kind.
A number of things have brought about this motion. The Conservative party has been very concerned about our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) visiting the Soviet Union and signing a protocol with them. People were concerned about the visit of Premier Kosygin to Canada because this might alienate us from the United States. Mr. Kosygin went to the United States, yet still people in this country are concerned about his visit here. They are also concerned about the visit of Mr. Tito. He was also in the United States a few days ago.
In this House we have some intellectual dinosaurs in the Conservative party crying about the Taiwan situation and nationalist China being seated in the United Nations. We failed to recognize the People's Republic of China for 20 years, but at least we have recognized that they are in existence. The French recognized them in 1949.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: We have a number of critics in this House, and the one for Oxford is now interjecting. Many of the opposition members are worried about the poor people in Taiwan, but the arguments they put forward would ordinarily amaze me. Many members are laughing and using these arguments as an opportunity to be witty. It surprises me that they are so concerned about issues such as this when we have problems facing Canada which are genuinely serious.
Motions of this kind criticize the government for taking direct action to build bridges to ease world tensions. The extreme element of the Conservative party is very much worried about this. The young people in this country-I suggest, the overwhelming majority-are happy that Canada has now recognized China and that China is now seated in the United Nations. We now have a Conservative party that is paranoiac through worry about some of these things. They suggest we are out of touch with reality. That is a sad commentary on this Parliament of Canada.
The hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) is very worried about why we protested with such vigour the nuclear bomb test at Amchitka. Members of this party have protested nuclear blasts participated in by the Soviet Union, China and France. I am very proud of this country and the people here for protesting the blast at Amchitka which will probably go off on Saturday. If we have not stopped that blast by our protests, perhaps we will have stopped a future blast by the Soviet Union, the United States, China or France. This is a step in the right direc-
Economic Relations with United States
tion. I do not care a damn whose bomb it is, but perhaps the hon. member for Oxford does. If it is a Russian or an American or a French bomb, it is a bomb. We must do all we can to promote disarmament in the world and to stop nuclear tests in the atmosphere or underground.
It is very interesting that we should be concerned about this matter at this time. Mr. Nixon and Mr. Kosygin, as well as the leaders of other countries, are carrying out these tests but the only people who seem to be concerned are the reactionaries-


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am very much afraid that my friend who is making these remarks has the advantage over me. I am much too old to know everything.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member should be old enough to know better, but apparently he does not. He has sat in this House for a long time and I am astonished that he would utter some of the statements he did tonight.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have sat here much longer than you will.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: If I am in the House as long as the hon. member for Oxford and begin to support the suggestions and policies he supports, I shall be glad to leave. We must continue in the direction of improving our foreign affairs. We must try to make the United Nations a universal body, giving it more power and sovereignty. We must continue in that direction. I commend the government of Canada and members of my party as well as others who have tried to convince governments for years to move in that direction.
There are a number of other things that might be said in this debate. The second part of the motion does raise some concern regarding the economic policy of Canada. It is about time we in Canada developed an economy which is independent in order that we can make our own decisions, provide more jobs and not be a branch plant of another country, or a multinational corporation. This is the direction in which we must move and we must do so soon if Canada is to continue as a nation.
The only industries we actually control in Canada are the broadcasting industry, the banking industry and the booze industry. That is a sad commentary on the wellbeing of this country. The sad thing is that the Americans do not come in with only their money. The United States department of commerce has issued a statement to the effect that over 90 per cent of foreign investment by multinational companies in Canada have used Canadian money generated in Canada by plants operated here or generated on the Canadian financial market, so they are buying us out with our own money. We are losing jobs and a lot of our political sovereignty, and we are exporting more wealth than we are importing from the United States.
It is about time we in this country woke up and devised policies whereby Canadians can control their won destinies. That should be the main thrust of this debate. That is what the Conservative member for Fundy-Royal is concerned about and that is the concern of most Canadians from coast to coast. They are more concerned with this than with the phony issues dragged out by some of the more reactionary Tories in this House.

November 4, 1971
Economic Relations with United States


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, I should like first of all to say a few words about the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland). My party cannot support it, because we believe to do so would be to condone the government for what it has done and we feel what has been done has not been adequate.
In any debate such as this we must take a serious look at the point of view held by the United States and decide whether or not we agree or disagree with its position. We must remember, I believe, that before World War II the Americans were isolationist and were soundly denounced by many people in the western world, including Canadians. Since the end of World War II they have taken a most active part in the world and at the present time they feel they have ended up with fewer friends and find themselves disliked intensely in many parts of the world.
In their opinion they have aided the world a good deal since World War II. I think we can say that Germany and Japan, which were bankrupt, benefited a great deal from the Marshall aid plan which went a long way toward making those countries very aggressive in a commercial sense. The United States has carried the burden of an enormous defence in a nuclear world with little or no help from Germany, Japan, Canada and the western European countries. The United States has followed a policy of containment of Communism in the Viet Nam war. In the minds of historians, the Viet Nam war may well be viewed as the war that contained the Chinese communists until the red regime of Mao Tse-tung quieted down and lost some of its aggressiveness. Almost certainly, without the Viet Nam war Chinese Communism would be extending far into the South Pacific and most likely would have overwhelmed the Philippines and be lapping at the shores of Australia.
What has all this effort brought to the American nation from their own viewpoint? It has brought the United States into the situation of seriously reassessing its position. It is faced with a trade deficit of $13 billion. It is reassessing its position of defending for free the western world. It is increasingly aware of so-called interference by United States companies in the commercial world and the accusation that they are trying to buy up the world. As to the trading position of the United States, perhaps this can best be illustrated in the words of Maurice H. Stans, United States Secretary of Commerce who on October 27, 1971, said:
Our share of the world's international trade dropped from approximately 21 per cent to about 18 per cent within a decade.
In 1970 Germany replaced the United States as the world's leading exporter of manufactured goods.
Our trade in minerals and fuels and low technology goods are steadily moving deeper into very severe deficits.
Even our traditional dominance in high technology trade has begun to be challenged by a number of countries in a number of items, including electronics, computers and aircraft.
Other countries have begun investing relatively more than we are doing in plant assets, in research and development, and in incentives for technological achievements, and they enjoy substantially lower wage levels.
Over the past five years productivity in American industry has had the smallest increase of any industrial nation in the free world-far slower than our major competitors.

Finally, competing countries have confronted us with a large and growing array of trade barriers, investment restrictions and various violations of accepted international rules and agreements-all of which severely jeopardized our competitive position in the world, and undermined the strength of the dollar.
He continued:
Out of all these individual problems, several conclusions have become very clear! For one, the United States cannot go on absorbing the goods of the world, unless we are able to compete equally and fairly in the markets of the world. Secondly, the time has come for new international agreements on tariffs and trade, on the protection of foreign investment, on the elimination of non-tariff barriers, on uniform technical standards, and so on.
Whether we agree with this or not, these are the words of a responsible member of the United States government. But what has happened? During the last decade the foreign policy of Canada has shown a tendency to diverge from the United States. Since the advent of this administration the government of Canda has moved a remarkably long way in its difference of opinion with its American neighbour. The present administration has acted very much as if Canada were in orbit, spinning around sometimes very close to the Soviet Union.
In April, 1969, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) downgraded Canada's role in the western collective security system and put stress on "protection of our sovereignty." By making a distinction between collective security arrangements and protection of our sovereignty, the Prime Minister revealed his ignorance of Canada's defence problems. Due to Canada's position, and especially since the advent of the nuclear era, we have to rely on the collective protection of other people. Since 1940 the mainstay of our security has been the North Atlantic Treaty Organization whose backbone has been the might of the United States. Had the United States wanted to do so, it could have swallowed us decades ago, the same as Russia has done with the Baltic states. The only real protection we have to our sovereignty is collective defence, and for self-evident reasons our well-being depends entirely on western collective security.
The white paper on defence states:
It is highly unlikely Canada would be attacked by a foreign power other than as a result of a strategic nuclear strike directed at the U.S.. .. Canada's overriding defence objective must therefore be the prevention of nuclear war . . . Because of Canada's obvious inability to deter major nuclear war unilaterally, we can best contribute to peace by participating in collective security arrangements.
The reduction of Canada's participation in NATO is well known and has made us suspect in all of western Europe. But as if this were not enough, in Singapore the Prime Minister next turned his attention to the British Commonwealth of Nations. There the Prime Minister effectively sided with the forces of India, Tanzania, Zambia and Uganda, all of whom are intimately connected with communist China against Great Britain.
Then in respect of the enormous Soviet menace in the Indian Ocean it was said that the Canadian delegates could care less if somebody pulled the plug from the Indian Ocean. Canada sided with those countries that were against the sale of British arms to South Africa, arms which could be used in the naval defence of the Indian Ocean, while at the same time it made little com-
November 4, 1971

ment on the sale of arms by France and Italy which could be directly used against villages and their inhabitants.
Then in May of this year the Prime Minister made a visit to the Soviet Union. The western world had too late prevented the communist enslavement of eastern and central Europe but had stopped Soviet expansion in the heart of the continent and stabilized a line of armed coexistence. It was not the western world but the communists who turned the dividing line into an ideological as well as a physical iron curtain with electrified barbed wire and machine-gun towers. It has turned the whole Soviet Union into a huge concentration camp. In his report to the Twenty-fourth Congress of the Soviet communist party on March 30 this year, Leonid Brezhnev said:
The full triumph of the socialist cause all over the world is inevitable. And we shall not spare ourselves in the fight for this triumph-
And what did the Prime Minister say about this? In a communique he issued the following astounding statement:
The discussions revealed that Canada and the U.S.S.R. hold similar views on a number of international problems.
Then there was his assertion in Kiev that Soviet and Canadian citizens were living under similar federal systems of government. Then there was his repeated allegation of acute United States "danger to our identity from the cultural, economic and perhaps even military point of view". The visit of Premier Kosygin, which might have been turned into a reasonable exchange between countries of different ideologies, was made the occasion to launch an attack by Mr. Kosygin on the economic policies of the United States.
Now we have the surcharge of August 15. For many years economic nationalists in Canada have been busily claiming that the Americans are making us hewers of wood and drawers of water. This has been the cry in many quarters of central Canada. It has been the cry of the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans)-and I do not put any more stock in what he said about this than I do in his running of the Post Office. The Prime Minister recently said that if the Americans do realize what they are doing, and if it becomes apparent that they want us to be just "sellers of natural resources to them and buyers of their manufactured goods, we will have to reassess fundamentally our relations with them, trading, political and otherwise".
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), on September 7 while speaking in the House of Commons on President Nixon's surcharge, said that 85 per cent of exports of Canadian finished goods are sold in the United States. Surely this rejects the Prime Minister's view that Canadians are treated as hewers of wood and drawers of water. Our export statistics show that in 1969 Canada sold abroad highly-finished industrial products worth $5,630 million. Of this total, 86.8 per cent went to the United States, 1.78 per cent to the European Common Market and 1.4 per cent to the United Kingdom. Excluding the United States market, we have sold only 13.2 per cent of our export manufactured goods to other countries. In 1969 the export total of $14.87 billion bears the classification of processed industrial materials. Here the labour content is lower but it is still substantial. We sold $5,251 million worth of processed industrial materials abroad. Of this
Economic Relations with United States
total, 69.5 per cent went to the United States, 10.2 per cent to the United Kingdom and 6 per cent to the European Common Market. Canada's exports now total $17.5 billion, of whiph 75 per cent goes to the United States.
Those who say, including the Prime Minister, that the Americans just want us to be "sellers of natural resources to them and buyers of their manufactured products" must realize, surely, that this does not bear up under examination. The United Kingdom, the European Common Market and Japan have been getting raw materials from Canada without providing any substantial outlet for any industrial goods. Indeed, Japan is noted for this. If Washington had always had its own interest at heart, why would it have signed the auto pact agreement when the United States had $704 million surplus in 1965 which has been turned into $1,200 million in favour of Canada this year?
If it is true that the government hopes to replace the United States in exports to the Soviet Union, let us take a look at trade last year. We sold $128 million to the Soviet Union, mostly in wheat, and took back $8 million. The energy talks which have been suspended by the United States after the outburst of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) have not been resumed. Communications between Washington and Ottawa are at a low ebb. Apparently the Prime Minister has forgotten that Washington has an enormous political and economic clout and that their influence could have a severe impact on the Canadian economy.
No one knows what the new measures of phase 2 in the Nixon administration will be, but it is likely that they will be no less severe than the surcharge. This may well require some hard bargaining over the auto pact. There may have to be bargaining over the sale of energy, and if so what will the amounts be? We have energy for sale but it is high-priced energy and the only buyers can be the Americans. We will have to decide whether or not we will sell them any more.
With regard to the larger issues, Canadians will have to do some deciding with regard to their future course of action. Almost certainly the United States is entering a period of trade protectionism and is withdrawing within its own borders. The United States has the resources to provide its people with a reasonable standard of living. We must decide if Canada wishes to accept the premise of Economic nationalism with restrictions on foreign capital and with the consequent restriction in job expansion in the immediate future.
The reports would indicate that the unpublished Gray report pursues a policy of restrictions on foreign capital. We will have the fastest growing labour force in the western world in the next decade. We have built up the most comprehensive welfare system, in its broadest sense, in the western world which is still increasing its share of the take of the gross national product. The Unemployment Insurance Act goes a long way toward guaranteed income and provides 44 weeks of benefit for eight weeks of work. The tax bill presently before the House will restrict the development of the resource industries and channel investment money to manufacturing. That area will

November 4, 1971
Economic Relations with United States
increasingly feel shut out from its only real market by the action of the United States.
It is widely stated that the new competition act and the labour act will restrict business growth. These will have to be considered extremely carefully. Canada will have to assess whether it wishes to have closer trading arrangements with the United States or revert to a more independent status. If the United Kingdom, with its population of 55 million, feels it has to join the Common Market, surely the importance of trade with the U.S. and whatever results it might have will require considerable debate by Canadians.
Under the present administration there will be no meaningful dialogue between Canada and the United States regarding these problems. Dialogue with the United States will be at a relative standstill until this government is replaced.


Mr. Jerry Pringle (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity provided by the opposition motion to comment on what I deem to be a deliberate attempt to weaken the natural and proper bond which has for many decades existed between Canada and our neighbour to the south. I do not know how many hon. members live as close to the border as I do, that is, two or three miles. I live in a great area where tourism is important. I live in an area where we mingle with our friends from the south. They come to our area and we travel back and forth. We have learned to understand each other.
I would like to say at the outset that I do not know of any man who has received as many compliments for being an out-and-out courageous individual, one who is really intent on being a statesman in our country. These are the statements that have been made to me by our American friends, statements directed at our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).


Some hon. Members:: Hooray!


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: He is not only a statesman, he is a United Statesman.


M. Ervin Pringle: This gentleman has not only received the admiration of the United States people but he has also received their respect.
I do not know how many members in the opposition are in business. The young gentleman from Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), of the NDP, has said, I do not know how many times, "We shall do this and we shall do that for the good of Canada". I do not know how many payrolls he had had to meet and how much he has contributed to the gross national product of Canada. I do not know how much he has added to the gross national product, to something that can be used and can create prosperity or at least some cash flow to the country. If he has been doing this, if he is really interested in the future of Canada, then for heaven's sake let him find out what is needed and what has to be done in order to create prosperity.


Gerald William Baldwin: Vote Conservative.


M. Ervin Pringle: You do not create it with words or with rhetoric. You create it with hard work to contribute to the gross national product with something that you can sell.
(Mr. Ritchie.]
We have not yet found a way to provide the standard of living which we have in Canada without selling something, without trading with people, without initiating a manufactured product or at least a type of product. True, our natural resources are basic. We know that mining, lumbering and farming are our basic industries. Out of this grows our gross national product, the service industries and everything else. This is all very well, but first we must have markets and, as we know, our problem in agriculture has never been production. We have in Canada the most efficient agricultural industry in the world, but our problem is markets. We must realize that without the United States we are confined so far as our markets are concerned.
I agree that a minority element in Canada is attempting to drive a wedge between us but I submit that they are not impressing our American friends, although they are treading a dangerous path, apparently supported by the NDP. The vast majority of Canadians and Americans who pass freely across the forty-ninth parallel know that the bond of friendship is strong and shall not be broken.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


M. Ervin Pringle: The opposition, through the speech of my very good friend, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), say that our Prime Minister, the first minister of Canada, should attempt to govern the U.S. from Ottawa.


Gerald William Baldwin: He should try to govern Canada first.


M. Ervin Pringle: What they say is utter nonsense. Now they attempt to condemn us for acting responsibly. They keep jumping from one side of the fence to the other, hoping the political climate will somehow improve and assist the lost cause of their party which has been searching in vain for ten years to find anything on which to hang a hope.
Of course, the Americans are tough traders. Those of us who have been involved in doing business with our American friends know full well that when one deals with an American one had better be careful, because they are pastmasters in the art of making a buck. That is what has made them great. This is not confined to Canada. Those who would suggest to the Canadian people that the Americans are simply interested in making investments in Canada for the purpose of taking it over should consider the fact that 52 per cent of the assets of the world are at least partly owned by the United States of America.
I can recall reading in history books of the time when England, that small island, sent out her merchant ships all over the world to take the products of the rest of the world back to England, from where they were traded to the nations of the world. They did a fine, a fantastic job. They opened the trade routes of the world. They created the necessary basis for trade, which is so essential to all of us. I wonder how many of us really know how much British investment there still is in Canada. Just a year or two ago the Hudson Bay Company decided it was time to transfer its head office to Canada, where the company's principal operation has always been and where its money has been made. I can recall that when I worked in the Bank of Montreal, every Thursday I had to send a state-
November 4, 1971

Division
ment to Threadneedle Street in London. I know that the CPR did not do that well just on Canadian investment; it needed the help of British investment.
Suddenly it is now suggested by the opposition, I believe for purely political expediency, that we are taking a whack at the United States of America. In reply I say that suddenly we have been confronted with a problem. Every day businessmen are confronted with these problems. Suddenly a good customer decides that he is too good a customer, or he is actually in trouble. He decides that maybe he has overextended. Anybody in business who has been in a position of overextension knows how difficult this can be.
I suggest that the Americans today could be rather overextended in their investments throughout the world and that their money is having a little problem because of that fact. They have been going out into the nations of the world investing their money, not entirely because they want to assist the rest of the world but because by investing in other areas they may find labour that is cheaper and raw materials which are easier to obtain. Any sound businessman investing in anything is not doing it for others, but for himself.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being 9.45 p.m., it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 58(9), to interrupt these proceedings and forthwith put every question in respect of the motion before the House.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. It being after ten o'clock, this House stands adjourned until 11 o'clock tomorrow morning.
At 10.16 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, November 5, 1971