1971-05-28

MESSAGES FROM THE SENATE

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill C-180, an act respecting the packaging, labelling, sale, importation and advertising of prepackaged and certain other products, with amendments, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.
Also, a message has been received informing this House that the Senate have passed Bill S-21, an act respecting the Canadian Pacific Railway Company, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.



PRIVILEGE


Mr. Frank Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege relates to a statement which the Solicitor General made in the House a few days ago and the effects of that statement upon the lives of a certain number of individuals.
On May 211 posed the following question to the Solicitor General:
With respect to the seven inmates who were transferred from Millhaven on the night of May 12, I believe, to Collins Bay Penitentiary where they are now being held in isolation, or, in other words, in the hole or in the dungeon, does the minister not consider that to be a form of punishment?
The minister, in his response, made some reference to the disturbance at Kingston and then added:
The choice was not ours, but that of the inmates. Up till now, no disciplinary action has been taken against the inmates and, recently, considering that further disturbances were expected-
Then he sat down without saying anything further. My question of privilege relates to the declaration by the Solicitor General that the seven men themselves chose to be placed in the dissociation cells at Collins Bay. The carelessness of that statement on the part of the Solicitor General should in itself have been sufficient to prevent his becoming Solicitor General in the first place, because it was irresponsible and destructive. The effect of that sort of looseness with the truth, if it is nothing else, has been reflected in the fear which exists in the minds of probably 30 to 35 inmates at Collins Bay, Kingston penitentiary and Millhaven who are in dissociation cells. I have two or three letters from inmates in support of this statement. Perhaps I could quote one of them to indicate the degree of fear which exists and the damage which has been done by this carelessness on the part of the Solicitor General. One letter says:
It has come to my attention that Mr. Goyer has made a frightening statement. He said that we have asked to be 24107-39
locked up for protection. If taken seriously by other inmates we may genuinely need that protection.
Another says:
Now we hear that Mr. Goyer says we "asked" to be locked up for our own protection. This is an outright lie and in so stating he has placed the lives of 33 men in dire danger. He has in effect called us "stool pigeons".
Anyone who is the least bit familiar with these matters, as obviously the Solicitor General is not, anyone who knows what goes on in a penitentiary will realize that this sort of accusation is the worst sort that can be made and does actually place the lives of these men in dire danger. Another letter says-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member indicated he would quote from one letter and now he is about to read from the third. I suggest that he indicate what his question of privilege is.


Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I was trying to point out that this was not an isolated instance and the view of one individual alone but the view of a number of people. On the basis of that view, if you find that there is a prima facie case of privilege in that the Solicitor General, to be generous, was careless and irresponsible in making a statement to the House that was not in accordance with the truth, I should like to move, seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters):
That this House express its dissatisfaction of the manner in which the Solicitor General has dealt with the disturbance at Kingston penitentiary and developments subsequent thereto.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Skeena gave the Chair the required notice of his intention to bring the matter to which he has alluded, and which he would like the House to consider, before the House by way of a question of privilege. I should like to refer the hon. member to citation 133 of Beauchesne's Fourth Edition which clearly states that circumstances such as those now before the House cannot be debated by way of breach of parliamentary privilege. Substantially, the matter involves a dispute as to facts, and that cannot be the basis or foundation of a question of privilege.
I might add that the motion proposed by the hon. member is a substantive motion. On the basis of well accepted precedents, that kind of motion, as the hon. member knows, can only be moved by way of a clear condemnation of the minister involving a substantive privilege motion. There is, of course, a procedure well established if the hon. member wishes to pursue the matter on that basis. However, on the basis of what is before the Chair at the present time I have to rule that there is no prima facie case of privilege and the motion therefore cannot be put to the House for debate at this time.

May 28, 1971
Aid to East Pakistan Refugees



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Seventeenth report of Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, in the two official languages.-Mr. Clermont.

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report on Standing Committee on Agriculture- Mr. Beer.

[Stage Direction]
Second and third reports of Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development-Mr. Watson.

[Stage Direction]
Sixth report of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. Hopkins.

[Stage Direction]
Third report of Standing Committee on Regional Development, in the two official languages-Mr. Bechard.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to table copies in English and French of the joint communique on the visit to the Soviet Union of the Prime Minister of Canada.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement I promised to make the other day about aid to the refugees from Pakistan now in India.
During the past several days a number of questions have been raised with regard to the nature of the government's response to requests from the government of India and the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees for assistance in providing relief for refugees from East Pakistan. The House will recall that on May 18 the Secretary General of the United Nations issued an appeal calling for urgent, humanitarian assistance to relieve the plight of these refugees and sought the cooperation of governments and private organizations in a
co-ordinated effort through the United Nations to alleviate their suffering.
The government accepts without hesitation that the financial burden of providing relief cannot be borne by India alone. To help meet the urgent human needs in West Bengal and other border states, the government is providing $2 million in relief supplies including foodstuffs, medicines, medical supplies and cash contributions. This $2 million is a supplementary contribution to the international emergency relief appropriation and will not affect the bilateral development assistance program for India.
It is most important that relief be provided in as effectively co-ordinated a manner as is possible. We are consulting closely with the United Nations in order to ensure that Canada's contribution will complement the contributions of other governmental and private donors who have indicated their willingness to contribute.
The longer-term needs arising out of the presence of the refugees in India are not yet known. This contribution is designed to help meet the immediate needs of the situation.
The government shares with members on all sides of the House and Canadians generally the urgent wish to help bring relief to the suffering in East Pakistan. Adequate funds, needed supplies, means of transportation and the right kind of experts are all available. We are continuing, through the World Bank and other international organizations, to seek a way to deal with the problem. Our High Commissioner in Islamabad is urging upon the government of Pakistan the need to admit relief supplies under proper international supervision and control. I regret that I cannot at this time report any significant progress.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, we have been asking the minister to make a statement of this kind, and I would be less than courteous if I did not say we thank him for it. I can also say that we approve of what has been announced today. We are glad that something has been done and would have welcomed it sooner. I am in no position to judge as to the adequacy of the amount of $2 million and how it relates to the magnitude of the problem which exists in that troubled part of the world.
I agree with the minister that the government of India cannot, of course, be expected to bear alone the high cost of meeting the problem which has been forced upon it across its frontiers. This is a very difficult situation. Surely we have reached a stage of civilization where the victims of a war, which is not an international conflict but is designated as a civil war, should not be insulated from the kind of humanitarian help which people outside that country seek to provide. It is obvious there has been terrible suffering in this area and I am sure this contribution is just one step along the road toward offering the kind of assistance needed for the restoration of the many people suffering in that land.
I note that the minister's statement concluded on a note of sadness. He indicated that no significant progress has been made in urging upon the government of Pakistan the need to admit relief supplies under proper interna-

May 28, 1971

tional supervision and control. I should like to say, through him, to the government of Pakistan that I implore it to do everything possible to open the situation to international scrutiny, because it is not at all pleasing that one of our Commonwealth fellow members should have such a very poor image, as seems to be the case throughout the world. I do hope that the Canadian government will do everything possible through its friendly relations with this sister Commonwealth state to urge upon it the kind of a course set out in the minister's final paragraph.


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin), speaking on behalf of this party, has been urging upon the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) that a statement such as this be made in the House of Commons. Speaking for this party I want to say that we welcome this announcement most warmly. We are sure that the people of Canada will approve of this contribution of $2 million. As the previous speaker has said, we here on the floor of the House are not in a position to judge the adequacy of that amount, but we trust that if events prove that an even larger contribution from Canada is required, the government will give favourable consideration to it.
I join with the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) in urging on behalf of members of this House that the government of Pakistan appreciate the world concern over this situation and that it find a way to permit these supplies to reach the people who need them, under proper supervision.
The only other comment I would like to make is that we feel the government of Canada should be studying very carefully the appeal of Prime Minister Ghandi of India to the nations of the world to realize that this situation in Pakistan or Bangla Desh, in that subcontinent, will have to be resolved by the finding of a political solution. The nations of the world will have to be involved and we think Canada should be giving its best thought to this important and pressing problem.


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, surely the government could not remain indifferent to the current situation in Pakistan and to the refugees from western Pakistan.
My colleagues and myself welcome the announcement made in this House by the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the effect that Canada is prepared to provide $2 million in relief supplies including food, pharmaceuticals, medical supplies and cash contributions.
We also welcome the fact that the government is acting to ask our High Commissioner to urge the Pakistan government to allow the access of relief under appropriate international control.
We must obviously help ease the hardships of these refugees and we commend the government for taking steps for this purpose.
North Sydney-Port aux Basques Ferry Fare



TRANSPORT


Mr. Walter C. Carter (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43 I ask the unanimous consent of the House to present a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. This matter concerns the 60 per cent increase in passenger and motor car fares on the government ferry service between North Sydney, Nova Scotia, and Port aux Basques, Newfoundland. This rate increase violates term 32 of the terms of confederation between Canada and Newfoundland. It is an unprecedented breach of the government guidelines aga nst inflation and a foul blow to the Newfoundland tourist industry at a time when 25 per cent of the Newfoundland labour force are unemployed. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Thomas):
"That this House resolves that the fare increase on the Nova Scotia-Newfoundland ferry service be suspended and that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for St. John's West. This motion requires unanimous consent of the House by virtue of Standing Order 43. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The motion cannot be put.
[DOT] [DOT] [DOT]



MISCELLANEOUS PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Mr. Victor Forget (Saint-Michel), seconded by Mr. Antonio Thomas (Maisonneuve-Rosemont), moved:
That the Canadian Pacific Railway Company and Royal Victoria Hospital petitions tabled after the delay prescribed by Standing Order 90 be referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders, with the fourth report of the Clerk of petitions submitted to the House on Friday, May 28, 1971, in order that the Committee be in a position to make the proper recommendations.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
May 28, 1971
The Canadian Economy


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: I have the honour to present a motion under Standing Order 43, subject to the unanimous consent of the House. The urgent and pressing necessity compelling the motion lies in the fact that, present unemployment-creating policies having failed to cope with inflation, there is an absolute requirement for Canadians to be informed as to the future intentions, if any, of the government in this regard. I would therefore ask unanimous consent to put the following motion: That in order to restore confidence in the public and to apprise industry and labour of its policies and intentions with regard to establishing a predictable and suitable price structure, the government should forthwith indicate with clarity and precision its target in this connection and the steps it intends to take to achieve it.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion brought forward by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). It requires unanimous consent of the House under Standing Order 43.

Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



FINANCE


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have a motion which I should like to offer under Standing Order 43. May I say to hon. members opposite that before they get ready their chorus of no's they listen to the motion because I am sure they will agree with it. In view of certain objections raised by members of the Liberal party, in particular the stand taken by the hon. member for Cochrane to the effect that government funds should not be made available to persons not acting in the national interest, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch): That the salary of the Minister of Finance be reduced to one dollar.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: This motion requires unanimous consent of the House.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is no unanimity. The motion cannot be put.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasiings):: I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the statement last night by the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission that "present moderation in inflation will not be enough, and some form of direct pressure on wage and price increases will be called for", is it the intention of the government, either itself or through the Prices and Incomes Commission, to announce in the immediate future price and wage guidelines to be adhered to by industry and labour, and is it also the intention of the government at the same time to announce that it is prepared to introduce mandatory price and wage controls if it becomes apparent that these guidelines are being ignored as they were a year ago?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, that was a very complicated question. Perhaps I should deal with it piece by piece. It is not the government's intention to introduce wage and price guidelines at the present time. Circumstances may change, but this is not our present intention. As for mandatory wage and price controls, as has been said many times in the House, the government has been looking at contingency plans which might be necessary, but in view of the fact that we have been among the most successful countries in the world in controlling inflation I doubt very much whether they will be needed immediately.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: In view of the fact that the index of industrial production shows a marked drop this week, confirming the high and rising unemployment figures of which we were made aware a short time ago, does the government not believe that now is the time to start giving serious consideration, as the chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission has indicated we should, to taking definite steps to face up to these twin problems of high unemployment and high inflation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby.



BUDGET ACTION TO DEAL WITH UNEMPLOYMENT AND PRODUCTIVITY RATHER THAN INFLATION

Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Following the submission by Professor Clarence Barber, Chairman of the Department of Economics at the University of Manitoba and past chairman of the Royal Commission on Farm Machinery, to the Senate yesterday to the effect that we are losing $5 billion in production annually because of the high level of unemployment, will the Acting Prime Minister assure

May 28, 1971

the House that in his new budget the Minister of Finance will come forward with a program to deal primarily with unemployment and productivity, and not with inflation?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman is pressing an opposition which is not justified. I do not think it is possible to improve the employment situation by following inflationary policies, and the government does not intend to follow them. What it is following now is a sound expansionary policy. I only wish we had as much support for this as we should have.


John Edward Broadbent: Is the Acting Prime Minister aware that virtually 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the economists in this country-


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



SUGGESTED REPEGGING OF CANADIAN DOLLAR AT FIXED EXCHANGE RATE

Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I preface my question by saying that under no circumstances would I support a move to reduce the salary of the Minister of Finance to $1. I do not want to see him made a goat, even though he has been made a sheep in following some of the government's policies. I want to ask the minister whether, having regard to all the circumstances set out by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings, and this being the first anniversary of the ending of the peg on the dollar, the government is giving consideration now to the restoration of the peg?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I really could not answer that question in the House at this time. If the government made a decision in this regard it would be announced in the normal manner.



INFLATION-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF PROPOSALS FOR CONTROL UNDER STUDY

Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In light of the admission of the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission that they are studying a variety of control systems, is the government going to table these proposals and provide them to the provinces for their consideration?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. If it became necessary to apply price and wage controls I should think it would be under circumstances in which the government would act in an emergency, and under such circumstances I do not think one could call one's shots very far in advance.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Does the Acting Prime Minister share the view of the Chairman of the Prices and Incomes Commission that the Canadian economy is now not manageable and-
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That question is not in order. I will recognize a few additional questions on this subject, but I suggest that following that we shoud move to the next subject. For the moment the Chair will recognize the hon. member for St. John's East.



INFLATION-FERRY FARE INCREASE, NORTH SYDNEY- PORT AUX BASQUES-APPROVAL BY GOVERNMENT OR PRICES AND INCOMES COMMISSION

Mr. James A. McGraih (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Prime Minister, and I ask it of him in the absence of the Minister of Transport. Has the government approved the substantial and extravagant increases in the ferry rates between Newfoundland and the mainland, which will have such a detrimental effect on the already critical economy of Newfoundland?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, this is a question that should be directed to the Minister of Transport who has primary responsibility. He will be in the House early next week.


James Aloysius McGrath: Then, Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Perhaps I might have a little more luck with him. The matter certainly falls within his area of responsibility. Has the Prices and Incomes Commission approved the extravagant increases in ferry rates on CNR ferries operating between Newfoundland and the mainland and, if not, will the minister assure the House that he will refer this matter to the commission?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, it is not the purpose of the Prices and Incomes Commission to approve rate increases or rate structures. Whether they are examining these particular rates or increases is something I will have to determine.



UNEMPLOYMENT AND INFLATION-EVIDENCE OF EMERGENCY-IMPLEMENTATION OF CONTINGENCY PLANS

Mr. John Lundrigan (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the government has any early predictions for the level of unemployment during the month of May, whether it has made any calculations itself, whether it can give the House an indication of its expectations, and whether in fact the government has evidence that the economy is in an emergency state of affairs and as a result of this fact, and because of the facts mentioned by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings, whether the government will introduce price and wage controls during the budget statement on June 17 or June 18?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it the unemployment survey is being taken this week and will not be reported until the second week or third week in June. With respect to what is going to be in the budget, of course the hon. member will have to wait until the budget comes.


John Howard Lundrigan: As a supplementary-

May 28, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member lor Gander-Twillingate for one last supplementary on this subject, and then recognize the hon. member for Broadview.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the fact that there is continuous reference to a number of contingency plans and control systems being studied by the government, and also by the gentleman running interference for the government, has the government evidence that the economy has reached a crisis situation of emergency proportions, in terms of unemployment and inflation, sufficient to justify this kind of talk, and does the government in fact plan to introduce these kinds of emergency measures?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite clear from the very words used by the hon. member that these are contingency plans. They are prepared for a contingency that may or may not arise. I think the hon. gentleman will agree that if circumstances should justify it we should have plans for this purpose, but we do not think these circumstances exist now.



PENITENTIARIES


Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Solicitor General. Have charges been laid against any of the inmates of Millhaven institution with regard to alleged offences committed at Kingston penitentiary?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Not to my
knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


John Gilbert: Are the guards against whom charges have been laid still performing their duties at Millhaven institution?
[Translation\


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, no disciplinary action has been taken against the guards in the light of the well known basic rule in criminal law to the effect that an individual is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
Besides, upon consultations with the local unit of the Public Service Alliance, we agreed that the guards would have no direct contact with the inmates of Millhaven.


John Gilbert: Why would inmates at Millhaven who have not been charged be transferred to another institution and the guards who have been charged with offences be retained at Millhaven institution?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I repeat that no criminal charges have as yet been laid against the inmates. I am still waiting for the Ontario Provincial Police to finish their investigation into the death of two inmates and the case of the ten wounded in Kingston when the inmates were in full control of the cell-block and of the dome.
We have taken no disciplinary action following the events at Kingston penitentiary.


Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Solicitor General whether, in view of the fact that he talks about a presumption of innocence so far as the guards are concerned, he is following that same presumption of law so far as the inmates are concerned? In light of his answer may I put this to him: is he going to make a statement to explain his warning or threat that there will be no prison reforms unless the prisoners act responsibly? What kind of threats is he making, and what response does he expect?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has asked quite a few questions, but I would think that basically he is asking whether a statement will be made by the Solicitor General. Perhaps the Solicitor General might reply to that question.


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, what I have said is that if reforms are in order, they will be undertaken. There is no other way to proceed. That is what I have said. It is very simple: to make reforms, we need the co-operation of the inmates, of the guards and of the public in general.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In view of the statement by the Solicitor General about the presumption of innocence which he applies to the guards, does he apply that same rule of law to the prisoners and inmates of the penitentiaries particularly in light of the threats he has made to them?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, we certainly respect the law and we do not intend deviating from total respect of the law as was done outside penitentiaries. In the penitentiaries we are subject to the law and respect it.
This having been said, I would mention that I have made my remarks on reforms after the events which took place in Dorchester, namely after the second outbreak of troubles and violence. And I am saying again that it is not possible to effect reforms amidst disorder.



KINGSTON RIOT-DISCIPLINARY ACTION AGAINST INMATES

Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. In light of the minister's statement that no disciplinary action has been taken, would he kindly explain to the

May 28, 1971

House how PSR 230, which I presume is Prison Service Regulation 230, has resulted in disciplinary action in the case of 30 prisoners as a result of the riot and to which the minister has alluded?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker. I have never avoided answering the question. What I said is reported on page 6039 of Hansard and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that, immediately after the disturbances in Kingston, there was not enough room for some inmates and we had to make use of all other premises available. The choice was not ours, but that of the inmates. Up till now, no disciplinary action has been taken against the inmates and, recently, considering that further disturbances were expected-
And then I was unable to go on with my remarks. [English]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It seems to me that we are entering into a debate over what was said and what was not said.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: He should resign.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is not the time or occasion for such debate. The hon. member for Temis-camingue. I shall return to the hon. member for Skeena in a moment.



INDUSTRY


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
Due to the rather difficult conditions prevailing at Canadair Limited in Montreal which has dismissed 5,000 workers, has the government or the department been approached by the Quebec authorities concerning the purchase of CL-215 aircraft to help control forest fires, since the building of ten aircraft or an order therefor would enable Canadair to hire 1,500 men for a year and a half? Has the minister been approached by the provincial government in this connection?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the situation is somewhat different. The Quebec government has already bought 15 such aircraft and apparently has more than needed. Quebec has been asked not to put its surplus CL-215 aircraft on the market at the present time in order not to endanger the production opportunities of the company.
However Canadair did ask the federal government to finance the production of additional aircraft and the request is under study.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Skeena had a supplementary to the previous question.
Inquiries of the Ministry PENITENTIARIES



RIGHT OF INMATES TO COMMUNICATE WITH MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT

Frank Howard: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, for the Solicitor General. With respect to the statements which the minister and Commissioner Faguy made before the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee to the effect that inmates would have the right to communicate directly with the commissioner, with Members of Parliament, and with the minister of course, on a confidential basis, can the minister say whether any change has been made in that situation? Do all inmates still have that right?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I think the Commissioner's statement dealt with written communications between an inmate and his member of Parliament or vice versa. We have changed the policy so that from now on, inmates may send their members of Parliament sealed letters which will not be submitted to the control of penitentiary authorities.
Besides, the measure was taken to answer a request by several members of Parliament. On the other hand, there has been no change to the practice of letting hon. members visit penitentiaries and talk with inmates. There is only one reservation; because of exceptional circumstances, visits to Ontario penitentiaries will not be allowed for the reasons I have already outlined, until the situation is back to normal.


Frank Howard: Would the Solicitor General mind checking into an allegation that on Friday, May 21, certain inmates at Collins Bay penitentiary were advised that they could engage in this sort of confidential communication which the minister has committed himself to accept and on Tuesday of this week, May 25, letters that had been written were returned to them by the administration, having been opened, and the prisoners were told that the policy had been changed?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I will surely investigate the matter. It may well be that the instructions have not yet been received by penitentiary wardens and that the Commissioner has not had the opportunity to give instructions. However, I will certainly see to it that the situation is corrected.



SUGGESTED APPOINTMENT OF OMBUDSMAN TO INVESTIGATE PRISONERS' COMPLAINTS

Mr. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton Centre):: I have a supplementary question for the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. In view of the recent riots in Kingston penitentiary and in Millhaven and in view of the unrest and unsettled state of affairs in other penitentiaries and penal institutions across Canada, would the minister consider appointing an ombudsman who would articulate the pris-

May 28, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
oners' reactions not only to administrative control but also to inappropriate programs?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I have already announced the steps which we have taken in that respect: they are different. There is no question of an ombudsman because I think that one man alone cannot handle that job. Our system and our means of communication with the prisoners must be improved, and it is to that end that our efforts are now being made.



WELFARE


Mr. W. B. Nesbiit (Oxford):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Since seasonal unemployment benefits will run out as of next Monday, does the government have any plans to provide financial assistance to the provinces to the tune of at least $40 million as the provinces will in effect have to pay these benefits in welfare measures?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the hypothesis upon which this question is based. The government is now paying 50 per cent of these costs through the plans already in effect.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, for the Acting Prime Minister as he does not accept the previous one. Has the government any plans to extend seasonal benefits so that people will not be on relief or do they plan to give more money for the benefit of pregnant elephants in Malaysia?


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: I have a supplementary or related question for the Minister of Finance. Has the minister two budgets prepared and is it his intention to introduce budget one if the government wins the by-elections and budget two if they do not?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



AIR CANADA


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: I had a question for the Minister of Transport but in his absence perhaps I could direct it to the Acting Prime Minister. Has the government given any consideration to providing separate seating areas on Air Canada planes for non-smokers in view of the fact that these facilities are available on most other types of travel accommodation?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder how urgent this question is. I suggest to the hon. member that it is the type of question which would normally be placed on the order paper.



PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDROELECTRIC PROJECT-ALLEGED STATEMENT BY MINISTER OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES ON USE OF FOREIGN CAPITAL

Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in connection with a statement he made about the $6 billion James Bay hydro project. The minister is reported to have said that "massive inflows of foreign capital" to finance power projects and other resource developments could disrupt the rest of the Canadian economy. May I ask the minister whether he has made these views known to the province of Quebec and, if so, what was the reply?


Hon. J. J. Greene (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: I am not sure, Mr. Speaker, where my hon. friend is getting these views of mine, but what I have said is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question is acceptable
only to the extent that the hon. member is inviting the minister to make a statement, but I suggest that he cannot comment or refer to a statement made outside the House. The rule is well known that such statements can be referred to only to the extent that a member may inquire whether the statement represents government policy.


Max Saltsman: May I direct the same question to the Acting Prime Minister and ask whether the statement made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding the danger of massive capital inflows in case the James Bay hydro project is proceeded with reflects government policy?


John James Greene: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member is alleging that I made some statement of which he has no evidence. I do not think he is entitled to do that.


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


Max Saltsman: Yes, Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member will resume his seat, I will suggest to him and to the minister that this is obviously not a question of privilege. I had the opportunity earlier today to indicate to hon. members that a dispute over facts cannot give rise to a question of privilege. This is a dispute between the member and the minister as to what was or was not said outside the House, and that should not be the subject of debate at this time.


Max Saltsman: In view of the report I have before me, which I presume is accurate unless proven otherwise, is the Acting Prime Minister in a position to answer the question I put to him?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I think it all rests upon whether or not the

May 28, 1971

statement is accurate. The minister has denied he made such a statement; therefore I have nothing to say.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal.


Max Saltsman: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member rises on a point of order. I apologize to the hon. member for Fundy-Royal. I will return to him in a brief moment, I hope.


Max Saltsman: I wonder whether I might ask the question directly of the Acting Prime Minister. Has the government taken a position regarding the development of the $6 billion-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is hardly a point of order. The hon. member for Fundy-Royal.



PROPOSED TAPS TANKER ROUTE-GOVERNMENT POLICV RESPECTING STRAIT OF GEORGIA-FORMAL EXPRESSION TO UNITED STATES OF OPPOSITION

['I generally depend, with reason, upon the Minister of Fisheries who is doing an excellent job of supervising our fisheries and seeing that our resources are conserved.']
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Mr. Speaker, I will try the Acting Prime Minister on government policy. Was the minister responsible for the environment speaking for himself or was he enunciating government policy when he recently said it will be necessary to "prevent oil companies coming into the Strait of Georgia?" If so, is the Secretary of State for External Affairs going to express Canada's formal opposition to the TAPS route at his meeting in Washington on June 10?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I join with the Minister of Fisheries, who will be responsible for the environment, in saying that our particular concern about the movement of oil down the Pacific coast relates to those narrow waters of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Strait of Georgia. This is the area about which we have the most concern and on which we will be making the strongest representations to the United States government.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary Centre):: I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister or the minister who will be in charge of the environment if this means that they are going to stop the present oil tankers carrying oil to the city of Victoria?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of tankers taking crude oil to the city of Victoria. There are no refineries there.



Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the
Inquiries of the Ministry
government has received requests from political exiles in East Pakistan for political asylum in this country? If so, what has been the response thereto?


Mitchell William Sharp: The answer is not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker, but I will make inquiries and report.


Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: My question is for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the general decrease in farm income in 1970, with the major part of that decline occurring in the Prairie provinces, will the government reconsider its proposal to discontinue payments under the Temporary Wheat Reserves Act and the Prairie Farm Assistance Act at least for this year or until the farm economy has a chance to recover from the present serious income decline?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, it is our intention to move ahead with the legislation to replace these measures. I think it will be much more valuable than anything that has been done in the past.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: My supplementary question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister give some assurance to the House that he will press the government to consider the very serious situation of agriculture in the prairie region?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minisler of Agriculture):: Yes, Mr, Speaker, and I have been doing that for many months.


Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North):: May I through you, Mr. Speaker, wish the Minister of Finance a happy birthday-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leonard Donald Hopkins: -and an extremely prosperous economy in the years ahead.



John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I have a serious question for the Acting Prime Minister. Can he report on the questions raised in the House on Wednesday with regard to the report of the presence
6162

May 28, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
of Japanese vessels off the coast of Greenland engaged in the harvesting of Atlantic salmon?


John (Jack) Davis: have not had any reports to this effect, Mr. Speaker, but I will certainly look into the matter.


John Howard Lundrigan: This matter was drawn to the attention of the Acting Prime Minister on Wednesday. I am sure he has had time to investigate it. Can we have his report?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I do not have my personal spies in the area.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: You have personal spies?


Mitchell William Sharp: I generally depend, with reason, upon the Minister of Fisheries who is doing an excellent job of supervising our fisheries and seeing that our resources are conserved.



INCOME TAX


Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: My question is for the Minister of Finance. I join my colleague in wishing a happy birthday to "gentle Ben". Has the government reached a decision on whether to remove the present tax concession to American academics? Will the minister make a statement in that regard now or do we, as he states, have to wait until the presentation of the budget?


Edgar John Benson: I have stated previously, for example, in the white paper proposals, that the exemption could be lifted; the particular advantage that is given to foreign teachers coming to Canada should be lifted. This will, of course, necessitate renegotiation of treaties in due course. I cannot say whether this remains our opinion until the budget is produced.



THE CENSUS


Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: My question is for the
Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce and it concerns the census. It is true that the pencils provided with the census forms cost the taxpayers of Canada between $100,000 and $200,000 and, if so, how does the government justify such an expenditure?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question could well be placed on the order paper in writing, with a pencil.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether any investigation was carried out with regard to the charge made in the House on Wednesday that there were Japanese involved in the salmon fishery off Greenland? The minister has treated this question very lightly. He gave a very negative response to a matter which is of grave concern in the Atlantic region.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister might reply to the first part of the question.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, at the present time our officials are meeting in Halifax with the Japanese and representatives of other countries. They should be able to provide us with up to date information. I am personally asking for a report on the matter.


John Howard Lundrigan: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday an urgent matter was raised in the House regarding a foreign nation involving itself in the salmon fishery operation, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I understand, undertook to make an investigation. I charge there has been a dereliction of duty on his part. If we continue to receive this kind of response from the Secretary of State for External Affairs he should get to heck out of it altogether.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should resume his seat.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: In view of the importance of maintaining our fisheries resources off our Atlantic coast, have quotas been established among the 15 nations of ICNAF, at the meeting in Halifax? If so, how many ICNAF countries have agreed to maintain national fishing quotas and how many have indicated they will not maintain fishing quotas?


John (Jack) Davis: Some quotas have been established for some species of fish in certain areas. Negotiations are continuing throughout this current week and into next week in the hope of extending quotas to other species in more areas.


James Aloysius McGrath: A supplementary question. Has Canada's position regarding a total ban on salmon fishing on the high seas met with support at the ICNAF meeting, apart from Denmark?


John (Jack) Davis: The subject of Atlantic salmon comes up next Wednesday. Our position continues to be that of a total ban of fishing for salmon on the high seas.

May 28, 1971




Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the declaration contained in the census questionnaire that the head of the household is the husband rather than the wife is inaccurate, misleading and undemocratic-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Winona Grace MacInnis: -to the point of insulting large numbers of people who must complete the form, would the minister say whether such an antediluvian description was made with his approval?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, the Bureau of Statistics has to go by appearances most of the time, and this is one such occasion. May I, however, invite members of the House who have any problems respecting the census to come to room 112-N this afternoon at 1.30 where their questions will be answered by officials of the Bureau of Statistics.


John George Diefenbaker: In connection with the meeting which is to take place this afternoon-and for which an invitation has been warmly given by the minister-does it mean that changes will be made and that, for instance, religion will be included in the short form from which it has now been omitted?


Jean-Luc Pepin: No, Mr. Speaker, but some of the mistakes made by the right hon. member for Prince Albert will be corrected at that time.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege, the minister says he is going to correct some mistakes that I made. Let me point out that there is no reference to the fourth largest ethnic group in Canada, the Ukrainian, in the short form, despite the falsification in which he participated in my absence last Friday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the right hon. member that what he has raised is not a question of privilege but a matter of debate.



PENITENTIARIES


Frank Howard: I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General. As his statement of May 21 about inmates being transferred at their own request from Millhaven to dissociation cells in Collins Bay and Kingston penitentiaries has resulted, to say the least, in misunderstanding and in a cloud of suspicion being placed over the heads of these people, would the hon. gentleman care to qualify that observation or apologize for the distortion which has taken place, if that is what did take place, in the statement he made?
24107-40J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, I have never said that the prisoners had chosen to be transferred from Millhaven to another place. I said that, as a result of the events in Kingston, we were short of accommodation, that the	prisoners	had	chosen	to
destroy the buildings in Kingston. That is what I said.
While the prisoners were in Millhaven, the commissioner was advised that trouble was brewing; as a precautionary measure, we chose to transfer some of the Millhaven prisoners to other	institutions.



FISHERIES


Mr. Jack Murla (Lisgar):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Can he tell the House whether the government has considered supporting the creation of a special compensation program and an early retirement program for some 207 fishermen who have lost their jobs through no fault of their own because of mercury pollution of Lake Winnipeg and surrounding lakes in Manitoba?


John (Jack) Davis: A program has been under discussion with the government of Manitoba and the details will be announced shortly.



EDUCATION


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lamblon-Kenl):: May I direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. It is further to a question I asked him last week, which he may recall, respecting the decline in enrolment in business administration courses at our universities. Will the government now give consideration to the recommendation of the Economic Council that joint programs in this area be developed with industry?


Mitchell William Sharp: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In general, the government is sympathetic to the need for more graduates in business in this country and we have been assisting indirectly in a number of ways, as well as directly, of course, by paying 50 per cent of the operating costs of all higher education. So I can give a positive answer to that question.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Will the government consult with the provinces on this matter as well as on the suggestion by the Economic Council that business administration programs, for instance, should be extended to such fields as public health, recreation and consumer protection?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member' supplementary is in the form of a proposition or suggestion to the government and he has to assume it will be considered.

May 28, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



SUGGESTED SUBSIDIZATION OF WAGES PAID TO STUDENTS WORKING ON FARMS

Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: I should like to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister. When the government is considering programs related to students, would it also give consideration to subsidizing the wages of students who wish to work on farms during the summer months? Many jobs are available on farms, but the agricultural industry cannot pay the rates which students feel they should be paid. Would the government consider a subsidy program in this regard?


Mitchell William Sharp: I do not
think we have any program under discussion now which would involve the subsidization of wages. This is a principle which has many implications and some of them, as the hon. member can see for himself, are rather undesirable.



POLLUTION


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: May I address a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Has a water quality management agency been set up for the Ottawa-Hull area under the Canada Water Act and, if not, are arrangements being made for the establishment of such an agency?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps while the matter is being pondered the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Edmonton West.



FINANCE


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: My question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the average interest on long-term government obligations, as announced by the Bank of Canada today, has increased by half a point compared with the low of a few weeks ago, will the minister advise the House whether he feels that the present monetary policy of the government is having the effect of lowering interest rates?


Edgar John Benson: It certainly has with respect to short-term interest rates. The treasury bill rate 18 months ago was 8 per cent. It is now less than 3 per cent. Long-term rates have not reacted to the same degree either here or in the United States; although they have declined somewhat, the decline has not been nearly as great.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: In view of the fact that there has been an increase of over half a point on long-term obligations in general, and in view of the fact that mortgage rates under CMHC and other loan programs of the government are related to this long-term rate, how can the minister say that the monetary policy of the government-[DOT]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. That is a matter for debate between the hon. member and the minister.



PROPOSED JAMES BAY HYDRO-ELECTRIC PROJECT-REQUEST FOR STATEMENT ON FEDERAL POSITION

Mr. Rod Thomson (Balileford-Kindersley):: I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. In view of the wide-ranging financial aspects of the James Bay power project, would the Acting Prime Minister be prepared to make a statement on motions as to the position of the federal government on this very interesting subject?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. I do not expect to be Acting Prime Minister for more than a few minutes.



HOUSING


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I have a question for the future minister of state in charge of housing and urban affairs. In light of the revealing information he gave the standing committee yesterday about Rochdale and the rather messy situation there, solutions for which are not readily available, and in light of the fact that the taxes are approximately two years in arrears and the mortgage-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time. Perhaps the hon. member would ask his question.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: In view of the fact that the preamble has been given, would the minister indicate what is the government's intention with respect to what he calls a very messy affair?


Mr. Speaker:: The minister's reply should be as brief as possible. If it is to be a general statement it should be made on motions. The minister might be allowed to reply briefly.


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciated knowing that the hon. member, speaking yesterday for his party, indicated his party's wish to see an immediate foreclosure on Rochdale. Since we have not reached that decision yet, I will not be in a position to give him a complete answer for another short time, anyway.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how the minister could come to such a conclusion. If he asked me personally, in view of the situation involving this very messy affair, I would suggest that perhaps he should think of foreclosing and give the place to senior citizens who could put it to better use.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.

May 28, 1971



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order, the usual Thursday afternoon point of order, which is being put on Friday. Could the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who is acting as government House leader, say what is the intention with regard to government legislation for next week.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Speaker, it is a great thrill for me to be acting as House leader.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: It is a great honour too. On Monday, the order will be, first, the Wheat Board amendment; second, the Post Office Act amendment and, third, the Clean Air Act. On Tuesday and for the remainder of the week the order will be, first, the Senate and House of Commons Act amendment; second, the Official Residences Act; third, the Post Office Act amendments, if not completed on Monday, and fourth, the Judges Act amendments. In any case Thursday and Friday will be opposition days.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister does a better job as house leader than as Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hope Your Honour will hear my point of order because it is very important. It relates to the tabling today of the third report of the Standing Committee on Regional Development. The Standing Committee on Regional Development held its last meeting on Friday, May 21. The committee was called together at 10 a.m. and did not have a quorum until approximately 10.25 a.m. Immediately a quorum was present, Mr. Speaker, I presented a motion to the chair asking that the salary of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion be reduced to $1. I did that as a result of the evidence that had been presented to the committee during the course of the examination of the estimates. Members of the committee, in my view, were not satisfied with the policies that the minister was pursuing. The evidence to which I referred had been presented to the committee by expert witnesses and supported this point of view.
Immediately that motion was put, one of the Liberal members of the committee left the meeting, thereby depriving the committee of a quorum. Hence it was not possible to proceed with my motion. Shortly afterwards, Mr. Speaker, approximately four members of the Liberal party arrived, including the hon. member who had left. I questioned the propriety of these hon. members having
been placed on the committee under the terms of Standing Order 65(4)(b) after the committee had been called together. In other words, after my motion had been placed before the committee, these members were placed on it with a view to having the Liberal party maintain its majority on the committee and, hence, to defeat my motion.


An hon. Member:: Surely not.


James Aloysius McGrath: I claimed at that time that this was clearly an abuse of Standing Order 65(4) (b). If Your Honour will examine the Standing Order, I hope that Your Honour will agree with that contention. In any event, debate proceeded on the contention that Standing Order 65(4)(b) was being abused as a result of members being placed on the Standing Committee after it had been called together and after my motion had been placed before the committee.
The debate continued, Mr. Speaker, until approximately eleven o'clock, at which time the bells started to ring to call the House together. At that time the six members of the official opposition who were on the committee quite properly rose and left the committee, because the bells were calling them to their place in the House. Consequently, the motion, in our view, was still before the committee. In our view no vote had been taken on the estimates and, indeed, a vote could not properly be taken on the estimates because the bells had begun ringing to call members to the House for the day's sitting. I therefore contend that the third report of the committee should be withdrawn because it is not, in my view, properly before the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Aloysius McGrath: The third report states that votes 1, 5, 10, L15, L20, L25 and L30 relating to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and vote 35 relating to the Cape Breton Development Corporation were passed. The report states that, "your committee commends them to the House". That is not so. The committee did not commend those estimates to the House. The committee did not vote on the estimates. I would, therefore, ask you to direct that this report be withdrawn and properly drafted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will look at the matter brought to the attention of the House by the hon. member for St. John's East.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat. The hon. member may have another point of order but the hon. member for St. John's East has submitted his point and I said I would look into the matter. I can assure all hon. members that I will look into the matter in all its details and give a ruling as quickly as I can.

May 28, 1971
U.S.S.R.-Canada Protocol



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: That this House regrets the refusal of the government to bring before the House for consideration and decision the U.S.S.R.-Canada protocol in order that all aspects of this relationship can be considered before implementation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, we have accepted the invitation of the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp) which was delivered yesterday to devote an opposition day to the discussion of the Soviet-Canada protocol. I can tell him that we did not choose this topic because there was any shortage of items on which we could criticize the present government. Indeed, the shelf which contains our potential and future motions of criticism is larger than that which contains the white papers, task forces and letters of resignation from the present government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: So, Mr. Speaker, we are not short of topics. Although, Sir, we are bringing this matter to the attention of the House, and glad to do so in the performance of our duty, we should not be the ones to do this. The government itself should have brought this matter to this chamber. It should have brought to this House for discussion this very important document, as it has described it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Time was when we had foreign policy debates in this place initiated by a government; now, however, in the age of participatory democracy, such inhibitions as parliamentary discussions have been sloughed off. Press releases are much simpler and visits to distant lands with press entourages are obviously much more dashing and exciting. We have grown accustomed, not to innocents abroad but to professionals abroad. Perhaps it is considered valuable for Canada's Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to become the tourist of the year. Nor should we be critical if the Prime Minister desires to escape from time to time the troubles which his administration has visited upon this country. We have no quarrel with the glamourized publicity-kissing orangoutangs or sliding down banisters is all right with me. If this be descending charisma, so be it. Showmanship is fine but I become concerned when showmanship is taken for statesmanship. So I shall leave aside the frills, frivolities and furbelows of the Russian and other visits and try to examine such things and statements as might be considered serious and significant and beyond the range of the travelogue or public relations field. For such scrutiny there is at least one document which demands our attention, and that is the protocol referred to in the motion now under discussion.
This protocol was signed on May 19 after the Prime Minister's first full day in Russia. One might describe it as almost "instant diplomacy", or was it an item held in freeze from last October when it was thought that a visit to the Soviet Union would be made? According to Time magazine of May 24, and this is a journal not unloved by the government:
Such are the formalities surrounding an official visit to Russia that the communique summing up the full and frank discussions between Trudeau and Kosygin was, in fact, drafted before Trudeau even left Ottawa.
This interesting revelation is to be found at pages 4 and 5 of the latest issue of Time magazine. We received it today so Time must have had this information much earlier, and that is not surprising. In the light of this revelation, the narrowly prosaic or frugal might ask in the wartime expression "was this trip really necessary?"
The protocol document was signed with much fanfare and many press statements, but without such mundane things as consultation with or reference to the Canadian Parliament or the Canadian people. We are told that because it was a protocol such inhibiting developments as Parliamentary discussion need not be forthcoming. This is a matter which requires examination, but not much examination before one comes to the conclusion that the naming of this particular testament as a protocol does not by any means avoid the requirement and the propriety that it be discussed in this place and before the Canadian people. Whatever the name used, whether it be called a treaty, an agreement or a protocol, the intent and effects of documents of this kind may be far-reaching for both countries and should have been discussed in Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Going back to 1926, Prime Minister W. L. Mackenzie King-at times I think he still lives- moved a resolution which set out the procedure governing the negotiation, signature and notification of international agreements and treaties. He stated that:
-before His Majesty's Canadian ministers-
That is now an archaism!
-advise notification of a treaty or convention affecting Canada or signing acceptance of any treaty convention or agreement involving military or economic sanctions, the approval of the Parliament of Canada should be secured.
That is to be found in Hansard at page 4759 for the year 1926. It refers to a treaty or a convention affecting Canada. Now, we move on past the day of Mackenzie King and come to some of the luminaries of our governmental services. One of these is Mr. A. E. Gotlieb, a well-known international affairs expert and one of our best international lawyers who, in his book "Canada Treaty-Making" at pages 16 and 17 stated:
A study of Canadian precedents over the years tends to confirm that governments of the day have, as a general rule, considered that the important categories of treaties for which parliamentary approval should be sought prior to ratification fall roughly into four general groups involving:
(1)	Military or economic sanctions:

May 28, 1971

(2)	large expenditures of public funds or important financial or economic implications;
(3)	political considerations of a far-reaching character.
Surely, if the words of the Acting Prime Minister are to be taken at face value, that this protocol is an historic and important agreement, it would fall clearly within the category set out in paragraph 3 of Professor Gotlieb's book. He is now the Deputy Minister of Communications. If this document, signed in the Soviet Union, is to be taken at face value it is surely one involving political considerations of a far-reaching character. I would say that regardless of the terminology and the designation by the press of this agreement between two countries, any measure into which Canada enters with one of the great powers of the world-the superstate of the Soviet Union -would have to be treated as a major move and should deserve the consideration of this Parliament.
Some hon. Members; Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: To do less with any agreement or negotiation with one of the great powers of the world is clearly a contempt of Parliament or a denigration of the importance of the document. So to find out, since the document was not put before us, we have to go to that usual source, the lyrical Lynch of the Southam chain, and his associates who have been following the Prime Minister from south to north and from east to west during his latest tour. We must turn to them for information and evaluation, and God knows that is a hazardous enough undertaking for any of us. There have been fullsome and sometimes fanciful reports of what went on, and efforts at judgment and description which, if nothing else, are interesting and readable. Some see the Russian trip as a new bridge of understanding, and some regard it as a buttress to Canadian independence from the United States. I say that this suggestion is unworthy, if not contemptible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: The United States is not above reproach but anyone, especially in the Soviet Union, who reflects upon the state of the borders with that country and its ne ghbouring states, and reflects upon the many generations of our peaceful, open border with the United States and makes the suggestion that it is necessary to call in the Soviet Union to sustain us from the pressure of the economy, culture and military-I use the word "military" as it was used in the report from which I read-is again making a contemptible, unworthy, improper and totally unrealistic statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: As I said, the lyrical Lynch saw the Prime Minister calling in the old world to redress the imbalance of the new, recalling the great George Canning. Charles Lynch also said of the protocol:
That may be one way of saying that Canada can have Washington's cake and eat Moscow's caviar, with Peking's duck as a main course.
U.S.S.R.-Canada Protocol
To this suggestion, Mr. Speaker, I reply, that is quite a meal if you can get it.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: All we have is a goose.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: How significant in the field of international affairs is the protocol? What does it mean to public relations between the two signatories and other states which have important international commitments? It is in this area we face a great problem. Is this grandstanding, is it windowdressing, or is it something else again? I looked for some quotation from the Prime Minister and I came up with something very reminiscent of Humpty Dumpty, as quoted in the Globe and Mail of March 21:
But Mr. Trudeau himself said that the protocol will be what the two countries choose to make of it.
But what do we mean? Is this another development on the international scene of the famous grandstanding techniques which were so long successful in this country domestically? Is it another case like the great Commonwealth initiative which was to have saved the Commonwealth at the Singapore meeting, but which was in ashes and ruin almost before the Prime Minister returned to Canada to read his own press releases concerning how well he had done.


An hon. Member:: Read the paper and find out the truth.


An hon. Member:: Or make your own speech.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Or is this something fundamental? Is this an important and historic agreement? I say if it is it is outrageous that it should be entered into through the back door, through secrecy and without reference to the Canadian people or before discussion in Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: If this is important, if this is a watershed, if this is a great triumph in touristic statesmanship, then it has been very badly handled. The people shoud be consulted. This government has not made many moves in the field of foreign affairs. Usually, it reveals the withdrawal syndrome reminiscent of the 1930's and Mackenzie King. In its few moves in the realm of foreign affairs, this government has been distinguished for its unilateralism. The dropping of the Commonwealth sugar rebate in the Caribbean is one example of this. But if this is an important document, it should not only have been preceded by consultations here or followed by consultations here but also with consultations with our allies who are very much involved.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: One is beginning to be concerned about the place of our friends of long standing and the priority of values in this government's foreign policy. One wonders why the head of the Canadian government,

May 28, 1971
U.S.S.R.-Canada Protocol
so ready to go to far away places with strange sounding names, has so little interest in on the on-the-spot conversations with the leaders of Great Britain, West Europe or the United States. Is it now thought that these areas are of diminishing interest or concern for Canada or for the people of the world? I fear that the people of this country must be among the first to suffer because of the downgrading of our interest and concern for West Europe and Britain.
The government, despite constant warnings by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) and others, has not made meaningful adjustments to the likely trade outcome of Britain's entry into the European Common Market. The flurry of last minute interest by ministers would almost lead one to believe that they first heard about the British contemplation the week before last. Perhaps history may judge that the Prime Minister of Canada might better have been in Brussels rather than in Tashkent or even Samarkand. This House has taken up for discussion this day a matter of international concern because the government did not choose to make its secret document a subject for House discussion. We were without access to its contents beyond the mere statement which has been tabled. We do not have the information necessary to judge all its ramifications. So we face an important document in a very casual way. But we can, without hesitation, deplore the method whereby this protocol was adopted. I should like to say, Sir, that the denigration of Parliament becomes no more acceptable just because it becomes more and more common as month follows month.
Now, of course, any improvement in our contact with the Soviet Union and its people is welcome. I was not one of those who relished the brittle era of the cold war, nor would I aid or abet any of those who would wish to return to the narrow and rigid diplomacy of that period. Of course, we welcome detente. I was proud to be a supporter of the government of the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) in its great extensions of trade, not only with the Soviet Union but with the Peoples Republic of China, which I believe had profound effects for good not only in this country but in the other countries as well. There is no reason there cannot be fruitful discussion with the government of the Soviet Union, but this must not be at the expense of others upon whom in the final analysis we must depend for such security as is vouchsafed to anybody in this insecure world of tension and trial.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: I would say again that we must be ever watchful lest the postures of popularity leads us away from the perceptions of reality. We are anxious to appear open-minded. Nobody wants to be called a red-baiter or narrow-minded nowadays. We must also always be broad in outlook. In fact, it is dangerous to oppose anything that is considered different. But in all this, we cannot forget the realities of the world situation. There was the event in Hungary in 1956. There is the Berlin
wall; we did not build it and the United States did not build it, neither did Great Britain build it. All of us here can remember the grim tidings of that summer morning in 1968 when that proud little country Czechoslovakia was brutally crushed and its flourishing new socialist freedom was obliterated. We cannot forget that the Baltic States are in thrall. These are people who had aspirations and hopes for development and countries which, for brief periods, flourished as sensitive democracies.
Can we ignore the plight of the Soviet Jew? Is there not an extension of Russian naval strength in the Mediterranean, in the Red Sea and in the Indian Ocean? Was there not such a thing as the Brezhnev doctrine announced a while ago and was it a pleasant thing to contemplate for those who knew of its dangers. In our desire for scientific talks and for ameliorated conditions let us not be totally bemused by the jubilation of the visit and the social harmony of the situation. Let us not forget to ask whether or not the hard questions were discussed. Were there really serious discussions about the deprivations of the fishery on the east coast which affect the livelihood of many decent Canadian people who make their living from the sea. Were there meaningful discussions about the future of the captive peoples? When the right hon. member for Prince AJbert was the Prime Minister of this country, the Canadian delegation to the United Nations General Assembly took up the question of the people who were held in bondage by the Soviet Union. Should these things be forgotten? I hear very little reference to this in the House. Just because freedom is long suppressed it does not mean this issue should be forgotten.
What of the Ukraine? How fully was that situation discussed? What about the fishing in the troubled waters of the Middle East and the involvement there? There is a long list of serious matters which will remain on the table after the banquet hall is cleared and the guests have departed. Even a small contribution to the solution of some of these problems would be infinitely more valuable than grandiloquent exercises in self-congratulation on ephemeral accomplishments in an attempt to claim that, by one stroke of a prime ministerial pen, the world has been turned upside down and new eras have been entered into and old values kicked out.
I should like to say in conclusion that if this protocol is as important as designated by the Acting Prime Minister, then it should properly have been presented to Parliament and to the Canadian people as an important document rather than taken secretly out of the brief case and flourished before the people of the Soviet Union.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: If it is more public relations froth, it should not be deceptively presented to the Canadian people with over-exaggeration as to its import. I say to the government that on a question of such vital and

May 28, 1971

sensitive consequence, they had better be careful to present this to the Canadian people for what it is and for nothing more.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie) said, I welcomed the action of the opposition in putting this motion on the table on one of the opposition days because I was very anxious to find out what views the opposition might have on the protocol that had been signed by the prime ministers of Canada and of the Soviet Union. I listened with great interest to what the hon. member for Hillsborough had to say, and I must say I remain very confused as to the views of the Official Opposition on the subject that they have raised.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: At one point I began to be encouraged when I listened carefully to the phrases near the conclusion of the very witty and good speech of my hon. friend. It seemed to me that he said-I think this is the position of the Official Opposition, and if it is not, perhaps I can be corrected-that he favours this protocol. I think that was the position he took. He then went on to try to get on the other side of the subject, if he could so that those in his party who oppose the protocol could say that he had in fact not endorsed it. However, perhaps the party itself can clear up its own confusion.
So far as the government is concerned, it is strongly in favour of this protocol. Indeed, one of the principal reasons it is in favour is exactly the reason put forward by the hon. member at the conclusion of his speech when, in speaking about the trip of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the Soviet Union, he said that there will remain on the table problems of great importance. That is precisely the reason it is important that we should have improved methods of consultation with the Soviet Union. That is why I have no question in my mind about this protocol, its purpose and what it will do to the future. As for the comments that the hon. gentleman has made about what the Prime Minister said in the Soviet Union, of course the Prime Minister himself will deal with these questions.
Let me direct my attention to the terms of the motion itself which says that we should have brought this protocol before the House of Commons for discussion before it was signed by the Prime Minister. As the House knows, it is clear under our constitution that the power to make arrangements with other nations resides in the Crown, that is to say, in the government. I do not believe there is any dispute about it, and my hon. friend proved that fact. It has always been Canadian practice to table documents of an important nature in the House as soon as it may conveniently be done. In this case, as hon. members are aware, the protocol was tabled on May 20, a day after it was signed in Moscow. This protocol envisages consultations on a wide range of issues between the
U.S.S.R.-Canada Protocol
government of Canada and the Soviet Union. It does not stand alone, but is the latest in a series of arrangements for consultation entered into by successive Canadian governments, of which one of the first was with one of the great powers referred to by the hon. member for Hillsborough, namely, the United States.
Let us look at what happened on that occasion. That was entered into in 1953 by an exchange of notes between the two governments. I do not think that hon. members question the importance of that document. If I had been the secretary of state for external affairs at that time, I would have referred to it as an important and historic document, exactly the words that I used the other day with respect to the protocol for consultation with the Soviet Union. I do not think that hon. members either will question the value to Canada of this joint committee which, with few exceptions, has met annually to discuss matters of substance. There was no debate whatever in the House of Commons prior to the exchange of notes. It was reported to the House, as I have reported on behalf of the government, the signing of the protocol with the Soviet Union.
Now, I come to one that is perhaps of even more significance in the light of the fact that the Official Opposition has taken exception to the procedure that was followed. I refer to the Canada-Japan Ministerial Committee which was established on June 26, 1961 by the government of which the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was the prime minister. This committee has met regularly since and has proved to be a valuable instrument in the conduct of relations with our neighbour to the west. Indeed, among the instruments that provide for consultation, and we have very few of these, this was the second to be established. It was also an historic and important document. In this case, there was not even an exchange of notes. The committee was set up and a joint communique issued in Ottawa by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, then prime minister, and Mr. Ikeda, then prime minister of Japan. They did not even sign a protocol; they issued a joint communique. The most careful perusal of the official record fails to disclose that the right hon. member for Prince Albert found it necessary or appropriate to consult Parliament before taking action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mitchell William Sharp: Arrangements of this kind are enabling in nature and do not necessarily impose obligations upon either side. A Mexico-Canada Joint Committee was established by exchange of notes on November 22, 1968, without prior debate in the House. I bring these facts to the attention of the House because they show the flexibility that is possible within these arrangements. In fact, the joint committee that was established has not yet met. This does not suggest that the government does not attach great importance to our relations with Mexico or that the committee will not meet. As a matter of fact, I expect that it will meet this year, but it has been a matter of convenience and therefore these kinds of

May 28, 1971
U.S.S.R.-Canada Protocol
arrangements are very flexible. They are as useful as we want to make them. In effect, it is for this that these arrangements provide.
As I have suggested, the form used to establish arrangements of this kind can vary depending upon circumstances. Informal consultative arrangements also exist with France. We have a commission mixe. These arrangements were brought into being without any written exchange and without debate in the House, and have proven no less useful and effective for those reasons.
I do not intend to rehearse today the circumstances in which all our arrangements similar to the Canada-U.S.S.R. Protocol were worked out. In addition to those I have dealt with, we have consultative arrangements with Britain, Australia, New Zealand and Tunisia. In no case was any of these arrangements reached after debate in the House.
It cannot be argued that the signing of the Protocol augurs any change in the direction of our foreign policy. The Prime Minister has stated publicly in Moscow that Mr. Kosygin signed the Protocol in the full understanding that Canada intends to continue its full membership in the North Atlantic Alliance and as a close ally of the United States in the defence of North America. The Prime Minister and I on a number of occasions have stated in this House and elsewhere Canada's firm intention to increase its bilateral contacts with the nations of Eastern Europe. A definitive statement of government policy on this matter is there for all to read in "Foreign Policy for Canadians."
The North Atlantic Alliance, in its search for detente, has urged upon its members, including Canada, the advantages to be gained by the multiplication of contacts and consultations between its members and members of the Warsaw Pact, so that far from doing anything that is suspicious to our allies we are in fact carrying out what has been decided upon as sound policy in the interests of promoting peace and stability in the world.
In this connection hon. members will recall that a protocol providing for consultations on a wide range of issues was signed in Moscow last October by President Podgorny of the Soviet Union and President Pompidou of France, one of our NATO allies. And apropos of the point made by the hon. member opposite that we did not consult with our allies in advance of our signing this Protocol with the Soviet Union, I can assure the House that France did not consult her allies before signing that protocol with the Soviet Union. We took no exception to it. We welcomed it, and I hope that today the hon. member has welcomed our signing a similar protocol. I know that our Protocol with the Soviet Union will be welcomed by our allies as carrying out a firm and declared policy of NATO.
The development of Canada's bilateral relations with the Soviet Union has been steady and positive, although there have been a number of setbacks. After the euphoria

that characterized the immediate post-war period our relations might have been described as correct. The cold war thawed briefly in the period 1955-56 and a trade agreement between Canada and the Soviet Union was signed at Ottawa on February 29, 1956. This was followed by a visit to the Soviet Union by the right hon. Lester B. Pearson, then Secretary of State for External Affairs. This was the first visit made by a Canadian secretary of state for external affairs to the Soviet Union.
The present phase of our relations with the Soviet Union can be said to date from 1965 which saw the first academic exchanges and the first posting of Canadian newsmen in Moscow. These moves stemmed from the first large sales of Canadian wheat, from the detente arising from the settlement of the Cuban crisis, and the signing of the test ban treaty. Continuing wheat sales and the growing Soviet need for western sources of technology encouraged the Soviet Union to seek closer relations and wider exchanges, cultural, technological and scientific, with Canada. Soviet participation in Expo 1967 brought Deputy Premier Polyansky to Canada in 1966 and 1967. A number of other Soviet ministers also visited Expo 1967, as did some 6,000 other Soviet citizens. In the same year Senator Martin, then Secretary of State for External Affairs, visited the Soviet Union, as did other ministers.
The Soviet Union, after the freeze in east-west relations brought about by the invasion of Czechoslovakia, moved quickly to re-establish contact with a number of western countries, including Canada. In July, 1969, Mr. Gromyko, the Soviet Foreign Minister, stated that:
The Soviet government attaches substantial significance to our relations with Canada. In recent years, a widening of mutually beneficial links have developed in the economic, technical, scientific and cultural fields-


Winona Grace MacInnis: Would the minister accept a question?


Mitchell William Sharp: -and a good basis laid for political contacts between our countries. We are for a further development of relations with Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond seeks the consent of the minister to ask a question at this time.


Winona Grace MacInnis: I wonder if the minister realizes the synchronization between himself and the three members in the gallery was slightly off on the turning of that last page. One fellow was a little slow.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I compliment the hon. member for Hillsborough. His witticisms were far superior.


Mr. McBride:: That isn't hard.


Mitchell William Sharp: This was closely followed by Mr. Gromyko's visit to Ottawa in October, 1969. This visit gave
May 28, 1971

renewed impetus to negotiations toward the Agreement on Co-operation in the Industrial Application ot Science and Technology, signed on behalf of Canada by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) in January of this year. Canada has responded and is continuing to respond to these Soviet initiatives carefully, after due thought, and in pursuit of our own national aims and objectives.
At the same time we have not hesitated to let the Soviet Union know, in the clearest possible terms, when we disagree with them. This was done, for instance, in the cases of the invasions of Hungary and Czechoslovakia and the trials of Soviet Jewish citizens in Leningrad. Hon. members should not assume that consultative arrangements like the Protocol are useful only with nations with whom we are basically in agreement. Indeed, they can be more useful where there are fundamental disagreements. By signing this Protocol, Mr. Kosygin has indicated Soviet willingness to discuss with us matters of Soviet policy that may be causing us trouble and distress.
This review of the development of Canada-U.S.S.R. relations since the war has been sketchy and selective. It is not my purpose today to give a history lesson, but to remind the House that despite setbacks there has been a steady, if slow, improvement in our contacts with the Soviet Union. The House knows this. It is difficult for me to understand how hon. members opposite can suggest that the signing of a protocol providing for more systematic consultations is a sudden act, a surprise to them, or a departure rather than a development in east-west relations.
Although it is an important and historic development, as I have said, we share some very basic concerns with the Soviet Union. As the two principal circumpolar powers we both have a special responsibility for the Arctic. We both have endless tracts of tundra, rich in mineral resources but presenting developmental and ecological problems of the greatest magnitude. In this area there is a great deal that we can learn from the Soviet Union. In the field of technology and secondary industry there may be something they can learn from us.
It is not by an accident of history that Canada has entered into a series of arrangements for consultation in the last decade. It is the working out in practice of the new dynamic diplomacy that has been made possible by the great development in the means of communication. Ministers and officials of governments need no longer rely only on written and telegraphic communications; they can meet regularly, at short notice, and discuss face-to-face problems of bilateral or worldwide concern. It is my hope, Mr. Speaker, that in this new era of dynamic diplomacy we can avoid the misunderstandings and miscalculations that in the past have led to global conflicts.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock I do now leave the Chair.
At one o'clock the House took recess.
Regional Development AFTER RECESS
The House resumed at 2 p.m.



REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps hon. members might want me to refer at this time to a point of order raised earlier today by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). I appreciate that the hon. member is not with us at the moment, although he was in the House until the last minutes of this morning's sitting. Because of the urgency of the matter to which he referred in the course of his submission to the House, I thought I should give my ruling at this time before we resume debate on the motion now before the chamber.
The hon. member for St. John's East rose on a point of order in relation to proceedings on the estimates of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the Standing Committee on Regional Development. The hon. member suggests that there was some impropriety in appointing members to a standing committee after that committee was seized of his motion, and that the naming of members in that way was an abuse of Standing Order 64 (4) (b).
If the hon. member's proposition is valid, I suggest that it would be exceedingly difficult to ever effect a change in the membership of a committee. It does seem to me that there are innumerable occasions when a question is under consideration in a committee, on a continuing basis, from one meeting to another; indeed I am reliably informed that some committees sit for weeks on the same question. If this is the case, as 1 believe it is, then it would seem to be most impractical for the House to adopt the position that the membership of committees should not be altered while a motion is under debate or under consideration in the committee.
The hon. member also went on to suggest that a vote could not be taken in that committee because the bells had begun ringing to call members to the House for its daily sitting at two o'clock in the afternoon or at 11 a.m. on a Friday. I am wondering whether that suggestion will bear up in view of the provision of section (8) of Standing Order 65 which provides that standing Committees may sit while the House is sitting. It may be that the hon. member's point is to the effect that a quorum was not present when estimate number (1) of the department in question was carried in the committee. That is a very difficult question for the Chair to decide with the particulars now at hand. It does seem to me that the question of a quorum should have been resolved in the committee and I might point out that the hon. member has stated that he, himself, withdrew from the committee.
It may be that the report in question could be returned to the committee, but there is the question whether any useful purpose might be served in doing so. Hon. mem-

May 28, 1971
V.S.S.R.-Canada Protocol
bers know that, pursuant to the provisions of section (14) of Standing Order 58 all estimates will be deemed to have been reported back to the House in any event not later than next Monday. At any rate, I suggest that our supply proceedings provide other opportunities to bring under review either the report of the committee or vote number (1) of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion.



BUSINESS OF SUPPLY


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Macquarrie:
That this House regrets the refusal of the government to bring before the House for consideration and decision the U.S.S.R.-Canada protocol in order that all aspects of this relationship can be considered before implementation.
Mr. Speaker;: When the House rose at one o'clock the hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) had the floor and I believe he still had a few minutes of his time left. I see he now indicates that he had completed his remarks. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, Shakespeare had a title for one of his plays which I think characterizes this debate, "Much Ado About Nothing".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Indeed, I am tempted to use a modern expression and say to my friends of the official opposition as well as to those on the government side of the House, "Cool it".
When one examines the motion that is before us, although it is couched in certain technical terms, it boils down to a complaint against the government for the steps the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has taken in trying to establish friendly relations with the Soviet Union. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if there is one thing we need in this world, it is all the bridges we can build between and among our various peoples and nations. There is really no place for a sophisticated form of red baiting. There is no place for decrying the attempt to establish good relations with people in any part of the world.
* (2:10 p.m.)


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The technical wording of the motion which is before us in the name of my good friend, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), is to the effect that Parliament should have had a chance to consider and make a decision on the so-called protocol which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of this country and Chairman Kosygin signed in Moscow a few days ago. The hon. member for Hillsborough and I are strong advocates of Parliamentary supremacy and the responsibility of the executive to this House of Commons. However, I think that principle has to apply when there is something of substance. I ask the hon. member for Hillsborough and the members on the government side, what substance is there in the protocol that the two gentlemen signed in Moscow and in the lengthy joint communique, a copy of which was tabled in the House this morning?
The hon. member for Hillsborough referred to a statement made many years ago by Mr. King concerning Parliamentary supremacy in these matters. I listened to that statement. It clearly referred to any documents or agreements dealing with any kind of substance. In my view, there is nothing in either the protocol or the communique. It is like a couple of juveniles who met at a summer camp and who decided to be penpals and write letters back and forth. To make a big fuss and suggest it should not be done without a prior debate in Parliament, is using this day in a less useful way than has been the case with some of the motions that my friends to the right have brought before this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I welcome the applause from the government side of the chamber for the friendly remarks that I have been addressing to my associates on this side of the House.


An hon. Member:: And now you are associates.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Associates in the sense that they are fellow members of the opposition. I hope I will get the same kind of response from the goodly band of Liberals we see here this afternoon. I would like to think they came in to hear me speak.


Murray Arndell McBride: That is the reason.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The applause makes me hope that maybe that is true, but there is a rumour that the Prime Minister is coming into the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gerald William Baldwin: He is in the pressure tank now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suppose that rumour has something to do with the attendance of such a large number of Liberals on a Friday afternoon.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Nineteen is quite a few.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There are many remarks being made, some of which I am getting and some of which I am not. Perhaps I had better move on. I say to the Liberals that they are just as guilty of making a big fuss over nothing when they think this protocol is a forerunner to the millennium as are my friends in the Conservative party in thinking that it spells some sort of doom.

May 28, 1971


Mitchell William Sharp: We never claimed that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friend, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), who is no longer Acting Prime Minister, shows his sense of relief. He says "We never claimed that". I suggest that the sorts of things he has been saying in reply to questions in the past few days, and the kinds of statements we have been getting from the press and will get from the Prime Minister this afternoon are along that line. Maybe it is not the millennium, but the Liberals think that somehow the world is going to be better because of this historic, important document.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder whether Your Honour has had time to read either the protocol that was signed in Moscow or the communique that was tabled this morning. I read each of them two or three times to try and find something in them. As I said, it is like a couple of juveniles who became friends at a summer camp and said to each other "Let's keep on being friends. Let's be penpals. Let's write back and forth and agree to meet each other sometime in the future." This protocol really amounts to nothing more.
There is no change in foreign policy on the part of the Canadian government implied in these documents. There is certainly no change in the foreign policy of the Soviet Union in either of these documents to which Premier Kosygin is apparently a party. They are just expressions of how important our two peoples are, how our problems are alike, how nice it would be to consult with each other if there is any problem which concerns us both and how nice it would be if we would do our part to strengthen the United Nations and make for a more peaceful world.
I had the privilege of visiting the Soviet Union in 1946, 25 years ago. They did not give me the same kind of red carpet treatment which they gave the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: Just a pink carpet.


Stanley Howard Knowles: They treated me courteously and cordially. Mind you, it was rather a dramatic experience. While I was in the Soviet Union in February, 1946, the news about the Gouzenko situation came out in Canada. The warm hospitality which I had enjoyed for two or three days was suddenly interrupted. On a certain day, there were no guides to take me anywhere. I had to walk around Moscow and ride the subway by myself. In any event, I was impressed by the friendliness and how much the Soviet Union is like Canada, especially in February. Moscow and Winnipeg in winter, la meme chose. I returned from that trip, which was before the cold war really got going, feeling that there was value in having friendly relations with that country and in trying to develop those relations. On March 19, 1946, I stood in my place in this House and suggested to the then Prime Minister, Mr. King, that he should visit Moscow in order to receive the same kind of friendly reception. Nobody thought the world would come to an end because I suggested that kind of friendliness. I am not trying to say that very much came of it.
U.S.S.R.-Canada Protocol
The only reason I mention that trip, the plea I made for friendship and how little came of it, is that I do not think there is much more before us at the present time.
I say to my friends on both sides of the House, don't get too excited. It is a Friday afternoon. If we do not want to do anything very heavy or serious, it is all right to have this discussion. I say this in particular to the Progressive Conservative members who may follow later in this debate. Please do not indulge in red baiting and please do not complain about building bridges of friendship. I say to those on the government side of the House, if you want to do something constructive in the field of foreign relations, you will have to do a lot more than has been done during this week's Cook's tour of the Soviet Union.
The rumour about the Prime Minister coming in this afternoon is interesting. I do not intend to try to keep speaking until he gets here. In any event, I am under a time limit. If the Prime Minister does come, I hope he will not just rehash what is in the communique. I hope he will not just give us a travelogue and tell us how much he enjoyed the friendliness and so on. I hope he will tell us whether there were any discussions about the Berlin wall, the problems relating to fisheries and whether there were discussions with Premier Kosygin about the trials and persecutions of Jewish citizens in the Soviet Union. In other words, let us deal with a few concrete things. I hope he may tell us what progress was made in terms of furthering disarmament and also in terms of what kind of contribution we might make, our two countries and any others, toward strengthening the United Nations as an instrument for world peace and human accord.


An hon. Member:: That is what you are going to hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member across the way says that is what we are going to hear. Normally on a Friday attendance in the House dwindles. Sometimes we get below a quorum and have to wink at it. Well, this afternoon there is the prospect of the Prime Minister coming in, and there is also the prospect of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) making a speech. It promises to be a good afternoon in terms of histrionics, in terms of the dramatic. But if the government wants Canada to play a constructive and vital role in external affairs a lot more is called for than the kind of trip which the Prime Minister, Mrs. Trudeau and the members of his party have just made.
Something really substantial should be done to play our part in the bringing to an end of the war in Viet Nam. Serious attention should be given to the situation now facing the world in East Pakistan or Bengla Desh. It was good to hear the announcement this morning that there would be a contribution of $2 million made toward aid and relief for those who are suffering because of the civil war but there is a festering sore there which will require a political solution. We have got brains in the Department of External Affairs. I suggest the govern-

May 28, 1971
U.S.S.R.-Canada Protocol
ment put those brains to work on a problem of that kind instead of using them on these various Cook's tours.
There is also the whole question of the situation in the middle east and the terrible need by all parties in that area, the people of Israel, the Arabs and the refugees who are lost in between, to gain the confidence of countries like Canada and other countries in the world. Let us put our efforts into that. There are plenty of solid questions which call for solution and it is these things about which the government should be concerned. I wish the hon. member for Hillsborough had been himself today and put down as an external affairs motion one calling upon the government to pay attention to the real and solid problems.
I turn, now, to some observations I have been saving until the end of my remarks in case the Prime Minister came in. Of course, if he did come in there would be such a round of desk-pounding that I should probably not be heard. If the right hon. gentleman wants to express the view that there is too much domination of this country by the United States, I would agree with him. However, I think the place to say so is here or in the United States rather than in the Soviet Union. Now that he has broken the ice and has said it I hope he will say it back here as well as in the United States if on his next foreign visit he goes to that country.
I also wish to complain about some of the indiscreet statements the Prime Minister made while he was in the Soviet Union. If he made a statement in Kiev that the government of this country was like the government of the Soviet Union, I suggest this was not only an offence to many Ukrainians in this country, but an offence to us. It may be the Prime Minister is trying to make the government of this country like the government of the Soviet Union-perhaps that has just leaked out-but in any case I suggest it was an indiscreet statement.
If the Prime Minister comes in this afternoon he will get the floor. There will be lots of applause. He will get the press on today's debate and nothing anybody else says will be heeded at all. But I hope he will give us not just a travelogue, not just reminiscences of how delightful it was to be at the Bolshoi or at Samarkand. I hope he will tell us about some of the real, solid issues he discussed with Chairman Kosygin. I hope he will tell us that he is now prepared to give this country leadership in tackling some of the real problems which have to be solved if our world is to be held together.


Mr.   C.-A. Gauthier@Roberval: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to make a few remarks on the motion moved this afternoon by the Progressive Conservative party, and which reads as follows:
That this House regrets the refusal of the government to bring before the House for consideration and decision the USSR-Canada protocol in order that all aspects of this relationship can be considered before implementation.
Mr. Speaker, this famous protocol had not caught my attention in any particular way, because knowing the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), I was aware that in the

course of his journeys to India and the USSR, he would tend to sign all kinds of papers and agree to all sorts of things which may not have any great substance, just through tactfulness. This is somehow the impression I had gathered from this protocol.
But upon considering the motion thereon, I realize that the Progressive Conservative party may have given too much importance to the protocol unless the responsibility lies with the press. Indeed, with this government you always come to learn of the ministers' statements through the press which often says a few words too many.
The May 20 edition of Ottawa's Le Droit mentions a new Soviet-Canadian agreement. They should have written "protocol on consultations" and not a formal agreement on principle as the one signed with Red China. In my view, it is merely an arrangement providing for consultations on the best way to live together as good neighbours. We cannot ignore the fact that we are living between two giants-the Soviet and the American. The question is: Who will be the first to swallow us?
Being a small country, I think we should better go at it intelligently. From what I read in Le Droit it would seem that consultative meetings will take place frequently. The article goes on to pinpoint the objectives of the protocol, and I quote:
The protocol of agreement provides-
-well, I do not like the word "agreement" here-
-for close co-operation between our two countries in areas such as pollution control in the Arctic, northern development, science, technology and culture.
Both governments would now proceed to rapid exchanges of views in case of a world crisis, to see what could be done to improve the situation. As regular contacts are foresen, the agreement states that the Foreign Affairs ministers or their representatives will meet if need be and, in principle, once a year.
Further on one can read the following:
Although the Soviets had dismissed the idea of their eventually participating in an international conference on Arctic pollution, put forward by Mr. Trudeau, it is believed the Canadian Prime Minister let Mr. Kosygin know that the Ottawa government had appreciated the Kremlin's understanding attitude last year when Canada unilaterally decided to control water pollution 100 miles off the Arctic archipelago.
The Soviet attitude in this respect is that Canada and the USSR obviously have in that part of the world responsibilities and special rights other countries should recognize.
Mr. Speaker, if a group of Canadians and the Department of External Affairs are able to influence in any way the Soviet government, in trying to enter into certain friendly agreements, in short, if the government could succeed in establishing a genuine dialogue with the Soviet Union, a further step toward world peace would have been accomplished. However, I rather doubt it will succeed because considering the Russian government attitude toward all the countries which placed confidence in it we can rightly doubt its sincerity.
May 28, 1971

When one considers the situation of the countries dealing with Soviet Union, particularly after traveling through Germany and seeing how the Soviet Union has signed friendly agreements by such means as the Berlin "Wall of Shame" for instance, I think one can rightly contend that the Soviet government alone has had the nerve to undertake such a monstrosity in the twentieth century.
As I said earlier, this is why our government should be most careful before negotiating with a country such as the Soviet Union since a country should always be judged by its past and that of the Soviet Union is not quite reassuring in the light of what happened in Hungary, in Poland and in all the other countries which have had dealings with it.
I think-


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Should you be judged by your past? You were a Conservative before being a Creditiste.


Mr. Gaulhier:: I beg your pardon? Mr. Speaker, we were speaking of relations between countries and not between individuals. Someone is asking me personal questions. This is not our subject at the moment. I will not be diverted from it and I only want to make a few remarks without directly blaming the government. This is only a warning because we must be careful. In he Devoir you can read, and I quote:
Trudeau might displease U.S.A.
Earlier I mentioned two giants. I keep on quoting:
Canadian Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau might displease the United States and his other Atlantic alliance partners in his efforts to reinforce the Ottawa-Moscow relations. This is what some Canadian leaders hold.
But, they add, Trudeau considers political risk a necessity for Canada which must assert its independence against the almighty influence of Washington.
During a press conference in Moscow last Thursday, the Prime Minister stated that his strategic "diversification" of political contacts was necessary to overcome the overpowering pressure of the United States on Canadian business.
The United States is Canada's most important trade partner and probably exert on it the most powerful cultural influence. Both countries also have concluded a mutual defence agreement within the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Several trade interests in Canada belong to American corporations.
The Canadian people are quite aware of this situation. Trudeau wants to do something about it. More than ever, Canada carries on commercial exchanges with communist countries. Last year, Trudeau established diplomatic relations with communist China, against the wishes of the United States. He also withdrew Canadian troops from NATO Command.
These matters are quite thorny. The Prime Minister, for instance, suggests that he will invite the Soviet Union to reduce the size of its troops in Europe, while Canada has already begun such a move. The Soviet Union, as always, puts forward a beautiful image, says that it will try to do it but does nothing. It will keep its troops in Europe as long as a single American or other soldier remains in Europe.
U.S.S.R.-Canada Protocol
This is why I stated at the beginning that we should distrust the Soviet Union while trying to gain its confidence, but I think that in every field Canada should pay greater attention to the United States than to the Soviet Union. We must realize that we are in North America and not in Siberia. Our normal relations must be on the North American continent.
This is why we feel that this debate on the protocol deals with an agreement which is not definitive nor concrete. It is only an act of courtesy by the Prime Minister in Russia as are the gifts made to all other countries at the taxpayers' expense. This is not too bad, if it can incite the Soviet government to hold a frank and sincere dialogue with Canada. This is specifically the aspect of the matter which interests us and we urge the government, when it will eventually have some discussions, to ask the advice of the House before signing agreements.


Mr. Alasiair Gillespie (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest and amusement this morning to the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie). His was an entertaining speech which had all the flourishes of a Shakespearean passage, and by the end of it I wondered whether it had not really turned out to be all sound and fury, signifying nothing.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, get something new.


Alastair William Gillespie: It was a speech that entertained rather than informed. But what did he say? Let us examine the record in order to see if we can find out what he tried to tell us this morning. Did he say that he is against information exchanges with the Russians? It seemed to me at one time he flirted with the idea. He approached the subject tentatively but he backed off before embracing it.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Alastair William Gillespie: It seems to me that he came to a decision-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Maclnnis) rising on a point of order?


Winona Grace MacInnis: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order at this time to draw your attention to the fact that this House should not be subjected to this hon. member reading a speech again.


An hon. Member:: Oh, sit down.


Winona Grace MacInnis: This is a practice he has followed in this House before. I trust that the Chair will keep him in order by not permitting him to follow a text prepared by somebody else.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

May 28, 1971
U.S.S.R.-Canada Protocol


An hon. Member:: Throw your notes away.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Table your speech.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: This point has been raised many times in this House. While there is a Standing Order that prevents hon. members from reading speeches, it is very difficult to prevent members from referring to notes, as is done very frequently in this chamber. It is also very difficult for the Chair to rule on this point. The mere fact that this practice is brought to the attention of the Chair and hon. members on different occasions is, I think, a favourable reminder and of some use to the House and hon. members.


Gerald William Baldwin: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, I should just like to say that if the hon. member does read he should read scientifically.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the intelligence level of the interventions is perhaps a good reflection of the amount of homework hon. members have done on this subject.


Mr. Danforlh:: Tell us who wrote your speech.


Alastair William Gillespie: As I was saying in reference to the speech of the hon. member for Hillsborough, it seems to me he approached his subject with interest but at the critical moment he backed off. He was not prepared to really deal with the question: Are we against information exchanges with Russia? He suggested, I think to his discredit-he did more than that he insinuated-that in some way this protocol which Canada signed with the U.S.S.R. was downgrading the relationship between us and our good friends. I think this was contemptible and unworthy of him. I do not think he has to stoop to this kind of tactic in this House.


Winona Grace MacInnis: You are reading again.


Alastair William Gillespie: I suggest, Mr Speaker, that his leader would not share his views. Let me read from some remarks his leader made, as reported in the press, about a year ago following a one week trip to Russia. Perhaps it is worth-while pointing out in this connection that Mr. Nixon, President of the United States, on an earlier occasion took only 10 days. I refer to an article by Robert Stanfield which appeared in the Ottawa Journal on Saturday, August 1, 1970, in which he said:
There is, however, room for co-operation between us in such things as the exchange of information concerning this area-
He was referring to a recent visit he had made to the Arctic Institute in Leningrad. He went on to say:
Beyond politics, questions of international trade patterns and Canadian-Soviet trade relations frequently come to the fore. I am convinced that the door is far from closed to imaginative and sustained Canadian activities in this field in the Soviet Union.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Alastair William Gillespie: The Leader of the Opposition then posed this thought to himself, having stated that he recognized some means were necessary:
-the U.S.S.R. and the western countries must work out a means of peaceful co-existence no matter what name we may choose to call it.
I suggest the protocol which was signed between Canada and the U.S.S.R. very recently is precisely the kind of means the Leader of the Opposition had in mind. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), in his response to the hon. member for Hillsborough, challenged him to say that he or his party were not in agreement with the protocol. The hon. member for Hillsborough did not accept the challenge, so, we can only assume that he does accept the protocol to which I have referred.


Winona Grace MacInnis: You are reading again.


Alastair William Gillespie: The question we must ask ourselves-


An hon. Member:: At least you can read.


Alastair William Gillespie: -is whether there is any language in the protocol which the hon. member does not accept? He has given us no evidence in his speech today that he repudiates any of the language of the protocol. Instead, he stated that in some way the protocol should have been presented to Parliament before it was signed. The Secretary of State for External Affairs made it quite clear in his remarks that there is ample precedent for signing protocols before presenting them to this House. In fact, he cited an occasion when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was the Prime Minister and a protocol was arranged or signed between Canada and the Chinese.


Winona Grace MacInnis: And the Liberals called it criminal.


Alastair William Gillespie: I would ask the right hon. gentleman, who I believe will be speaking in this debate shortly, if he would refute the fact that this protocol was not tabled in Parliament before it was signed.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to point out that there never was a protocol with China.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Get your facts straight.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the right hon. gentleman will have ample opportunity to elaborate on that point during his remarks.


Winona Grace MacInnis: You had to put that page away without reading it.


Alastair William Gillespie: Let me clear up a point which may be bothering hon. members opposite as to what a Protocol actually is.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh, here we go.

May 28, 1971


Alastair William Gillespie: It seems to me that it is an arrangement regularizing normal diplomatic intercourse.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Shame, shame.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, the preoccupation of hon. members opposite is pretty obvious.


An hon. Member:: It is an agreement or a declaration.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: But he can't read.


Alastair William Gillespie: A protocol is an important social exchange between two countries. This protocol provides an opportunity for Canadians, on the one hand, to learn something of the problems of a northern people and how to deal with them, and an opportunity on the other hand for the Russians to learn how we have dealt with some of our problems.


Winona Grace MacInnis: "So it says in my notes".


Alastair William Gillespie: But more than that, one of the most important aspects of the protocol, of this relationship, is the opportunity it provides for the Russians to have access to the western point of view.


Mr. McIntosh:: They have six spy rings now, or is it seven?


Alastair William Gillespie: We have a number of common interests. We are a northern people and we have similar types of resource problems, as I understand it.


An hon. Member:: Both have the American problem.


Alastair William Gillespie: Some of my colleagues who were with the Prime Minister on his recent visit to Russia are in the House with us now. We welcome them back. We are pleased to see them and assure them that we followed their progress in Russia with a great deal of interest.


An hon. Member:: How are things in the salt mines?


Alastair William Gillespie: They will be able to speak at a later date from firsthand knowledge of the problems there, and how the Russians are or are not dealing with those problems. They will be able to speak from firsthand knowledge of some of the things the Russians are doing in Arctic navigation.


Winona Grace MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


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


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order because of the information given to this House on the Prime Minister's trip to Russia. When he was dealing with northern problems he referred to a point one hundred miles north of Montreal, Mont Tremblant.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I should mention to the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond that this point of order does not meet the
U.S.S.R.-Canada Protocol
requirements of the Standing Orders of this House. I think the Chair should say to the hon. member that, although the Chair appreciates the good mood of the House this afternoon, hon. members should not go so far as to prevent the member who has the floor from speaking.


Alastair William Gillespie: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think another aspect of the common interest we have with the people of Russia is the native people of the north. We have Eskimos and they have Eskimos. They have other native peoples, namely the Chuck Chee. Perhaps the hon. member opposite might learn something if he listened.


John (Jack) McIntosh: If he listened to whom?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, they have a land which is under-populated. They have boreal forests. They have to deal with the question of permafrost. They have done such things as build dams in permafrost. I suggest these are things we as Canadians might learn from them.
I should like to refer to the recent report of the Senate committee on Science Policy for Canada, Mr. Speaker. At page 122 the report states that Canada spends about 2.5 per cent of the total research and development dollars of ten of the industrialized countries of the world. These are all OECD countries and do not include the U.S.S.R. The report goes on to say that we obviously cannot be selfsufficient in technology and we may not even be able to compete successfully in research and development programs that involve huge expenditures.
Obviously it is in the interest of Canada to gain what it can from the experience of others and to learn from the science and technology information of other countries. This is precisely what the protocol said. I shall quote from one of the preamble paragraphs:
Endeavouring to improve and further develop relations between the two countries by means of high-level contacts, expanding ties and exchanges in the fields of economy, trade, science, technology, culture and northern development.
The preamble also "notes with satisfaction the conclusion of the Soviet-Canadian agreement on Co-operation in the Industrial Application of Science and Technology, and the development of trade on the basis of the 1956 Trade Agreement". Mr. Speaker, various steps have been taken by this government and other governments to gain for Canada the advantages of the research and development of others. I should like to trace some of these in the few minutes remaining to me. In 1959, under the government of the right hon. gentleman opposite, the National Research Council formed an agreement with the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences. This agreement opened up for Canadian and Russian scientists an opportunity for exchange visits. Over a period of slightly more than ten years, more than 100 Canadian scientists have undertaken research projects in Russia and a comparable number of Soviet scientists have pursued their research work in Canada. The agreement signed by the then president of the National Research Council of Canada was renewable. I should like to read one particular paragraph of a letter from the president of the NRC dated October 28, 1959

May 28, 1971
U.S.S.R.-Canada Protocol
addressed to the President, Academy of Science of the U.S.S.R.:
I suggest we commence the exchange with the 1960-61 academic year and agree to review the program after a complete year of operation.
That has been renewed since then. It covered fields of endeavour such as research into electrical engineering-I am speaking of the sort of thing the Canadian scientists did in Russian institutes and universities.


John George Diefenbaker: What year was that?


Alastair William Gillespie: This is a sampling over a ten-year period.


John George Diefenbaker: What year are you quoting from?


Alastair William Gillespie: A schedule of April 26, 1971 in respect of the NRC-U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences Exchange Agreement. It covers, as I said, over one hundred Canadian scientists in genetics, electrical engineering, mining engineering, plant pathology, geological sciences, insect pathology, oceanography, metallurgical chemistry, earth science and so on. The point is that this was one of the first, and perhaps the first, regularizations, if you like, of contact between professionals in Canada and professionals in the U.S.S.R.
We have also signed similar agreements with France. One was an intergovernmental agreement signed in 1969. Another was between the National Research Council and Centre National de Recherches Scientifiques in Paris. There are agreements with Czechoslovakia and Brazil, again covering the area of science and technology. On no occasion were these agreements first presented to Parliament for ratification.


Winona Grace MacInnis: Still reading.


Alastair William Gillespie: If the hon. member opposite is interested in learning the source of my material he should listen.


Mr. Mahoney:: He better listen because he could not read it himself.


Alastair William Gillespie: I have referred to intergovernmental agreements and agreements between the National Research Council and other agencies. I should like to now refer to an agreement which the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources made in 1965 on an interdepartmental basis with the State Committee of the U.S.S.R. Council of Ministers for Science and Technology. This is a letter dated June, 1970, written by the deputy chairman of the U.S.S.R. committee. I shall quote only parts of it. He says:
The State Committee of the U.S.S.R. Council of Ministers for Science and Technology considers it possible to extend the agreement concerning co-operation with the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources until June 23, 1975, and wants you to consider this letter as an official confirmation of the extension of the term of validity of the above mentioned agreement. It appears to us that if an intergovernmental agreement of scientific technical co-operation is to be concluded, the realization of the agreement between our committee and your department
will be apparently carried out in accordance with the conditions of the general agreement between the Soviet Union and Canada.
There are many other agreements of a similar nature that I could mention. I could mention those with Atomic Energy of Canada Ltd., and there are several with countries such as Japan and Italy. There are others.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary, but his time has expired.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, my first words are to congratulate my friend, the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), for the manner in which he presented his views in connection with the matter before us. As I listened to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) discussing his regard for the United States, I could only come to the conclusion that the Waffle group has come very close to him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: Then I listened to the hon. member for Etobicoke (Mr. Gillespie). I understand he was preaching for a cause, and for that reason he received a very warm welcome throughout the House for his remarks; indeed, it was so warm that it became necessary for Your Honour to ask for order because those who were listening to the speech the hon. member read wanted to keep up with the various pages as they were turned.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: We are here for the purpose of discussing a question having to do with our relations with the U.S.S.R. In all of us hope springs eternal. We can only hope that in the next few weeks, regard being had to what has taken place in the last three months, the U.S.S.R. has come to a position in which it has decided that in co-operation the world can continue in peace, and only by co-operation can peace be achieved. If it is sincere in the expressions that are being voiced by the two leaders of the U.S.S.R., then of course we are entering a new sphere of world peace and understanding.
I point out, however, as one who was in San Francisco in 1945 and came back to this House in November of that year and spoke of the foundation of the United Nations, that I was so wrong in the conclusions to which I had come. I believed that there had been achieved, in the United Nations Charter, agreement among those who had stood together during the days of war, and that never more-to paraphrase the words of Molotov-would dictatorship raise its head anywhere in the world, and that for all time to come the nations of the world which were joined in war would be joined in peace.
I can only hope that the straws of wishfulness in the hearts of mankind brought about what we hope are apparent changes in the winds of international affairs. But again, in the experience of 26 years of duplicity on the part of the U.S.S.R. in connection with its agree-

May 28, 1971

ments, we at this time must not become overly optimistic or overly hopeful that the millennium has been attained in international affairs. We hope for it and we can only look forward with anticipation, but we have to realize that in the last few months the U.S.S.R. has been increasing its military strength. Had I the time, I would give particulars in this regard. It is known, however, that they are increasing the number of sites for the launching of intercontinental ballistic missiles.
What is being done is contrary to every representation that is being made today by the leaders of the U.S.S.R. that they have indeed changed their view. Is this another detour on their part in order to lull us in the western world into a false sense of security, or does it indeed represent an about-turn on the part of the Kremlin to the end that peace in our time will be assured?
I followed the trip of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with a great deal of interest. I read the accounts of some of the pressmen which led me to believe that only a Messianic arrival could possibly equal the effect of the visitation of the Prime Minister. I must conclude that two or three of those pressmen will not be ruled out for an early appointment to the other place, a place of rest. Today, in the members present on the government side of the House I can see the brightness in some of their eyes as they look forward in the next few days to the opportunity that has been provided by the passing of the legislation on government reorganization. They can see themselves in the position of being just outside the precincts of greatness in the very near future.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister is going to be here this afternoon. While my first name is John, and I am a Baptist, I will not go further in this regard.
I have been interested, as has the hon. member for Etobicoke, through the years in bringing about relationships between our country and other countries. He was kind enough-and I appreciate that fact-to refer to the agreement of 1961 made during the period of my administration. I appreciate his having done so. I have been tremendously interested in those who today look into the north and see its potentialities but who did not see them in 1957 and 1958. Some who today sit opposite used to ridicule the views that I was expressing about the future of and the need for action in the north. Indeed, the Right Hon. L. B. Pearson said that I had in mind the building of roads and railroads from igloo to igloo.
That "heresy" on the part of the Conservative party in 1957 and 1958 carried into effect to a degree that is only today being realized and has become the cornerstone of the present government. Now they are suddenly realizing the needs of the north and, as the hon. member for Etobicoke said, the need for the fullest co-operation between our country and the U.S.S.R. in reference to the development of the north.
I was rather surprised at the Prime Minister's statement concerning northern cities. He saw cities that no
U.S.S.R.-Canada Protocol
one else from the western world had seen, cities far in the north. In one of his moments of sophisticated musing he stated that he could see in northern Canada cities of
100,000	population. I wondered where they would be, and a few days later he cleared this up: he said he was not thinking further north than Mont Tremblant. This just shows the effect, even on a person like the Prime Minister, of the generous hospitality which was extended to him. I can speak of this, having been a recipient of that hospitality-of course, to a much lesser degree and unaccompanied by an entourage-two years ago when I was received by members of the Presidium. I was shown, not what they wanted to show me but what I wanted to see, particularly in the Ukraine and around Moscow.
I have read the communique in detail. It is a massive document. But what does it say? I am not here to argue the question as to whether protocols are to receive consideration by Parliament, but I do say that the means taken by my hon. friend to bring this matter before the House were the only way in which we could possibly get a discussion on the subject of what happened in the U.S.S.R.
Mackenzie King, in the days when he was minister of external affairs, did not want anyone to look into those matters; Parliament had no right to discuss them. I recall when he came back, having met Hitler in 1938, and the general feeling that he expressed, "There will be no war. I met Hitler. We talked together intimately and frankly and I am convinced he is a man of peace." Even Mr. King, who had extraterrestrial powers of communication, was not able to see through the intricacies of the mind of Hitler when as he chose to pretend, as he did to Chamberlain, that what he was endeavouring to do was bring about a new world of peace.
So far as the contents of the protocol are concerned, I have no criticism of it. The words of the protocol represent a viewpoint that will be generally acceptable. But, Mr. Speaker, I have seen people before who signed agreements but who did not read between the lines. What the Prime Minister said can be interpreted. What has particularly shocked me, although viewing with approval many of the things that took place, are some of the expressions of the Prime Minister in the U.S.S.R. which have placed Canada in a position that is completely at variance with the attitude of Canadians. I refer to some of the interviews he gave. I do not have them here in detail, but I picked up a few coming into the chamber.
I ask you, Sir: Have we in Canada forgotten that our two closest neighbours are the U.S.S.R. and the U.S.A.? I have disagreed strongly with the United States of America when it has interfered with Canadian policies-but have we forgotten that if it were not for the United States of America, that if the U.S.S.R. were in the same position as the U.S., geographically speaking, you and I, Mr. Speaker, would not be here? Some of the statements made by the Prime Minister in the U.S.S.R. will become part and parcel of the propaganda used by Communists all over the world. Some of the words he uttered are unbelievable to me. To the men of the Kremlin he pointed out "the danger to Canada's national identity from

May 28, 1971
U.S.S.R.-Canada Protocol
American cultural, economic and even military influences."
I remember the days of 1914 to 1917 when we were virtually alone within this empire and Commonwealth. The United States came into the war in April, 1917. If it had not come in, all of us were beginning to fear, with millions of men having died on the field of battle. And in the last war, if it had not been for the Americans coming in when they did, pressed in by reason of what happened at Pearl Harbour, we can only visualize today the darkness to our freedom. I want to know, when has there been any subservience to military influences? I want to find out when there came about a growing consciousness among Canadians of a danger to our national identity- and I refer particularly to military matters. I want to know what the Prime Minister meant when he said that this protocol will affirm Canada's independent foreign policy in the face of the overpowering presence of the United States of America.


Mr.   De Bane@: Hear, hear!


John George Diefenbaker: There is one young man, without experience, who applauds. Sir, if he can be identified, 1 immediately recommend him for consideration as a parliamentary secretary. What I object to is the interpretation that can be placed upon the Prime Minister's words, that we are in military danger or that we are subject to military interference from the United States. That kind of thing represents loose thinking and, what is worse, when uttered by the Prime Minister of Canada it will become the cornerstone of Communist propaganda against the United States all over the world. I had my arguments with the United States. They tried to push me around, and the Liberal party said I was anti-American because I dared to say that this country's policy should be made in Canada by Canadians.


An hon. Member:: The Liberals called that criminal.


John George Diefenbaker: They dared say I was anti-American. But the Prime Minister has made his statement which he will regret over and over again. It will take its place among those expressions that have been uttered over the years and have had to be withdrawn.
I see my hon. friend, the member for York North (Mr. Danson), Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, over there. Since he assumed the responsibility of office he has ceased to be one of the wits of Parliament, and we miss that. Is it not a strange thing that the only Jewish member in the group that went to the U.S.S.R. was one with a diplomatic passport, the parliamentary secretary? The U.S.S.R. would not give a visa to one Jew who applied to go as a press representative. I ask, what was said over there either publicly or in whispers about the diabolical treatment now being handed out to the Jews? What about the Ukrainians and those-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the right hon. member, but unless he gets the unanimous consent of the House his
time has expired. Does the House agree to allow the right hon. member to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Som hon. Members: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The Chair feels that there is not unanimous consent.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, could we have the identification of the hon. member who does not allow me to finish the sentence concerning the Ukrainians and all the other captive peoples of whom nothing is told?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair is always willing to understand the feelings of hon. members, but it should also abide by the rules.


Mr. Reid:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) rises on a point of order.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I think if you were to ask if there is unanimous consent to hear the right hon. gentleman, you would probably find that there is.


An hon. Member:: What about the fellow over there?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please.


An hon. Member:: He is not even in his seat.


An hon. Member:: He is out of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member knows that by the rules of the House he cannot have the floor unless he sits in his place. The hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane).


Mr.   De Bane@: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Matane on a point of order.


Mr.   De Bane@: Mr. Speaker, I would certainly like to allow the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) to continue, but I did not like at all his personal attack on the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Danson) and I think that this type of allegations-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. The Chair cannot accept this kind of argument. The question is whether the House would now agree to the right hon. member for Prince Albert continuing his remarks. The hon. member for Matane may only state that he will not allow the right hon. gentleman to pursue his speech. I now recognize the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt).


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: The hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt).

May 28, 1971


An hon. Member:: I never saw such treatment of a former Prime Minister.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Perrault:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Has the hon. member been given the floor by the Chair?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Yes, the hon. member for Oxford has been given the floor.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a great pity that this House did not have the opportunity of hearing the concluding remarks of the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who probably has more experience in foreign affairs over the years than anybody in this House. Be that as it may, I should like to say that like the right hon. member for Prince Albert and the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), I am glad to hear of any treaty, protocol or arrangement that will help reduce tension directly or indirectly between the super powers or any other powers in the world.
As I see it, the prime objective of Canada's foreign policy is to do everything possible to prevent a major war from breaking out between the two super powers. The fate of Belgium and the Netherlands in the last two world wars would be nothing to what would happen to us if war broke out between the Soviet Union and the United States, or China and the United States. We would be the ham in the sandwich; there is no doubt about that. All our foreign policy and objectives should be directed toward prevention of such an outbreak.
As has been said by the right hon. member for Prince Albert, the protocol itself is very innocuous; it is an expression of hope for the future, nothing else. We know that it is not what is done in this world that is important so much as what appears to be done. It is not the importance of the protocol itself that concerns us; the accompanying words and the extraneous remarks made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in referring to it have caused unease in Canada and apprehension on the part of some of our allies. According to press reports, the Prime Minister said that the protocol is what we make of it, that it is elastic. We heard the right hon. member for Prince Albert point out the dangers of American military domination and political involvement. This apparently is very much in accord with the views of the hon. member for Matane (Mr. De Bane) but he was not anxious to hear any further remarks from the right hon. gentleman.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) mentioned the occasion when the right hon. Prime Minister said to the Ukrainians in Kiev, "After all, there are people in Canada of Ukrainian descent who are just the same as Ukrainians in the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic." I cannot help recalling at this point that I had the honour of representing Canada for a number of years at the United Nations and sat next to the representatives of Byelorussia, one of the states of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics.
According to the charter of the United Nations, all member states should be independent, but any time a speech was delivered by a member of this delegation it
U.S.S.R.-Canada Protocol
was brought over by a member of the Soviet delegation and handed to him. There was no secret about it. On one occasion when nothing particular was taking place, it was the duty of the member of the Byelorussian delegation to commence the vote and he did not know how to go about it. The president of the assembly, who was Irish, leaned over to him and said, "Your are supposed to vote 'Yes'". Nobody laughed louder than the Soviet Union delegates. This is the kind of thing we have to face.
When the Prime Minister tells the people of the Ukraine that they are living in the Soviet Union in the same way as the people of Canada, it is either a reflection on the government of this country or a forewarning of what is to come during the next year or two. We had better take careful note of this. I hope the Prime Minister will clarify the remarks he made about the United States of America when he speaks this afternoon. I would not have been surprised had these remarks been made by my colleagues to the left. Over the years that I have been here, and for many years prior, they have been openly distrustful of the United States, if not harbouring an absolute hatred of that country. There has never been any doubt about that. This is rather singular of them.
Seeing the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre here this afternoon reminds me of a similar debate in this House in 1955. As I recall, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre took part in the debate, as I did. The subject was the same as today, foreign affairs. One or two members, myself included, pointed out that the foreign policy of the former CCF, the successor of which is the New Democratic Party, had-as a peculiar coincidence-always been identical with that of the Soviet Union. I am not imputing any motives; it may be an accident.


An hon. Member:: You are kidding.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: In a jocular way one hon. member has said, "You are kidding". I presume this means he agrees. Look back to see what has happened. The Marshall plan was introduced. It rebuilt and saved Europe. Who in this country opposed it? The CCF of the day. During the United Nations expedition into Korea to contain Russian and Chinese aggression in that country, who opposed it? Again it was the CCF. There are many incidences I could quote. That party opposed NATO. Anything built or designed to prevent further Russian expansion in Europe in the post-war days was always opposed by members to my left. What their motives were, I do not know. There may be a few among them who did not do this.
I have followed this matter very closely. The only time I can recall any member of the NDP or their predecessors opposing anything that the Russians did was when Czechoslovakia was invaded. As I recall, the then leader of the party said something like, "Naughty, naughty; you must not do it". That was about it. On every occasion when the United States does anything that is entirely popular, it appears that Satan himself and all the legions from the lower region are involved and that our main danger and enemy is the United States of America. I am

May 28, 1971
U.S.S.R.-Canada Protocol
not surprised to hear this from the NDP, but when we hear it from the Prime Minister and some of his colleagues there is cause for alarm. No wonder there is apprehension in the United States and elsewhere.
The Prime Minister has the habit of expressing himself in riddles, similes or metaphores. Not too long ago he said that being next to the United States of America is like sleeping with an elephant. If nothing else, an elephant is rather pleasant, although it can show a temperate nature and be a bit clumsy occasionally. We all agree with that. Perhaps it might be well to remind the Prime Minister that there may be difficulties getting into bed with an elephant, but getting into bed with a Russian bear with rather carnivorous habits is quite another matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Watch your chastity-belt.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Some members of the House, including the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and others on the government side, have had some experience in dealing with the Russians. If nothing else, the Russians are very practical people. They do not spend vast sums of money on entertaining and huge, spontaneous demonstrations unless they have something in mind. It is well known that one of the prime objectives of Russian foreign policy is to drive a wedge between Canada and the United States. This is not because they give a hoot about us: to them, we are just another Belgium. It is because they wish to damage American defences on the continent and American influence and prestige abroad. That is the main objective of the Russians. When the Prime Minister of our country is wined and dined, receives flowers, huge groups and the works, it is not because the Russians enjoy spending money and putting on shows. It is for one purpose. If one can pay any attention to the reports on the remarks of the Prime Minister, they have certainly succeeded.
As the Prime Minister said, protocol is very elastic; it is what we want to make of it. From what we have seen and heard so far, it is apparent what he wants to make of it. I hope we get an explanation when his eminence arrives this afternoon. I presume that he will be here very shortly. It should be remembered that the Prime Minister-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I do not think anyone in the House is more pleased than me to welcome back the right hon. gentleman from his trip to the Soviet Union. Perhaps the right hon. member has not yet heard about it, but as has already been pointed out we have a lot of questions. We would like a lot of information about his observations of the Soviet Union. I hope that the Prime Minister, who has now rejoined us, will be able to give us some of his observations on what he did there, and what the indications are vis-a-vis the Soviet Union and the United States. I am happy to give the floor to the Prime Minister.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Canadian businessmen, scholars, artists, athletes and tourists are visiting the Soviet Union in increasing numbers and with considerable success. While my party was in Leningrad yesterday a ship unloaded a valuable cargo of sophisticated, heavy-tracked vehicles purchased by the Soviets from a Calgary manufacturer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Earlier in my visit I was delighted to be told that an Edmonton girl, Miss Elizabeth Carruthers, had placed first in one of the events at a championship diving meet in Riga and that two of her Canadian teammates came third and fourth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Against this steadily developing background it was only natural that steps be taken to place Canadian-Soviet relationships on a more structured and orderly basis, and this was the purpose of the protocol which was signed in Moscow last week and tabled in this House by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) on the same day.
This document, which I believe to be an important one, goes some distance toward placing Canadian-Soviet consultations on the same basis as has existed for a number of years with the United Kingdom, the United States and Japan. Hon. members will recall, Mr. Speaker, that a similar arrangement was entered into with Mexico as part of the work of the ministerial committee which travelled to Latin America, and that agreements for regular consultation with both New Zealand and Australia were reached during my visits to those countries last May.

This process of broadening Canadian relationships is an ongoing one and was spelled out in the foreign policy review. The principles of that review have been discussed widely in Canada and were studied at length by a parliamentary committee. The foreign policy of this government has been to contribute where it can to a peaceful world and to strengthen our relations with a number of countries. In both respects this policy is designed to serve basic Canadian values and interests. The Canadian-Soviet protocol is a natural manifestation of that policy.
As the communique which was tabled this morning reveals, the protocol will ensure continuing consultations at a variety of levels on matters of the kind discussed by me and the Soviet leaders, President Podgorny, Premier Kosygin and Secretary General Brezhnev. The communique refers to the desirability of relaxation of international tensions and of stability and detente in Europe; economic, scientific and technological cooperation; Canadian-Soviet trade; Arctic and northern development includ ng the safety of navigation and the prevention of pollution; the significance of the forthcoming U.N. Conference on the Human Environment; the conviction that international issues be resolved in accordance with the principles of the United Nations Charter and that the effectiveness of the U.N. be enhanced; satisfaction at the
U.S.S.R.-Canada Protocol
conclusion of the nuclear non-proliferation treaty, and the treaty prohibiting placement of weapons of mass destruction on the ocean floor.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative party cannot be suggesting in its motion that discussions on subjects of this importance to Canada should not take place with the Soviet Union. Nor, surely can the opposition now contend that the government's policy of widening and strengthening relations with a selective number of countries is not known to them or is not desirable.
If the purpose of the motion and of this debate is to make known to Parliament and to Canadians the constructive and imaginative foreign policy initiatives of this government, then I welcome the opportunity. And I remind the House that the foreign policy review stated that we would seek actively opportunities to further Canadian interests; that wherever possible we would not wait passively for events to occur and then to react to them; that, in sort, we would pursue in as judicious and advantageous a way as possible the broad range of policies which are permitted to Canada as a country which is well-respected abroad.
These things we have been doing, and these things we shall continue to do.
While in no way diluting our friendship or our contacts with those countries such as the United States, Britain, France and others with which we have had traditional and friendly relations, we have taken a fresh look at the world and at the Canadian interests in it. Areas of the world which have not in the past figured prominently in Canada have been sought out consciously as friends, as prospective trading partners, as sources of information and advice, as contributors to an independent Canada; a Canada not overwhelmingly dependent upon or dominated by any one state or group of states; in short, a Canada with a singular identity and well recognized as such both by Canadians and by citizens of other countries.
We have been active in the world in those areas where we could contribute positively and usefully: economic and technical assistance, through the creation of the Canadian International Development Research Centre; fresh juristic concepts for the prevention of pollution in waters off our shores and for the conservation of fisheries; studies and proposals in the fields of disarmament and arms control. We have looked to Latin America and are seeking permanent observer status in the Organization of American States; we have expressed our many-faceted interest in the countries of the far rim of the Pacific; we have adjusted our defence posture to remove from it any elements that could be regarded as provocative, and to ensure that our policy adequately but truly reflects the needs of Canada for national defence; we have been successful in establishing useful and official contacts with the most populous nation in the world, the People's Republic of China; we have entered wholeheartedly the new Francophonie organization.
All this has been done, Mr. Speaker, while retaining Canadian membership in NATO and NORAD, while strengthening our relationship with such economic associations as the OECD and GATT, while contributing

May 28, 1971
U.S.S.R.-Canada Protocol
in an effective and constructive fashion to the U.N. and to the Commonwealth.
These activities are good in themselves, are good for Canada and, I am convinced, are supported strongly by the majority of Canadians.

It is in this context that my visit to the Soviet Union should be viewed. As we have looked traditionally south to the United States and east to Europe and, more recently, west to Asia, so should we not disregard our neighbour to the north. The relations between Canada and the Soviet Union in the post-war years have not all been of a wholesome or a desirable nature. I harbour no naive belief that as a result of this protocol our two countries will find themselves suddenly in a relationship which will reflect nothing but sweetness and tender feelings. As I stated in my speech in the Kremlin, there remain many fundamental differences between us; differences relating to deep-seated concerns springing from historic, geographic, ideological, economic, social and military factors.
But surely, Mr. Speaker, the only way to resolve these differences and eliminate these concerns is by increased contact and effort at understanding. That is what the protocol proposes. That is what, in a different way, is achieved by prime ministerial visits. Through them an opportunity is created by the pens of journalists and the cameras of photographers for the people of both Canada and the Soviet Union to learn much more about one another-their respective histories, their sufferings, their aspirations.
No one can travel in the Ukraine and not absorb the instinctive and passionate desire for peace on the part of a people who lost nine million of their countrymen during World War II, a number approaching in magnitude the entire population of Canada at that time. No one can walk through the cemeteries of Leningrad and view the mass graves of tens of thousands of residents of that city who died of starvation during the cruel 900-day siege and not understand that the Russian people fear desperately the repetition of an experience which no Canadians, fortunately, have ever suffered. The death of half the people of a city-600,000 of them women, children and civilians-did not spare a single Leningrad family. The survivors of that cruel conflict do not regard war as an abstract concept, as a glorious pursuit or as a credible means of resolving disputes. War to them is the loss before one's eyes of loved ones, of home, of possessions, of hope.	,
To achieve a satisfactory, just and continuing peace requires a climate of confidence, a climate in which men of differing social and economic systems trust one another. There is no simple way in which this can be done, but neither is there the slightest doubt that it must be done. Equally, confidence can be engendered only by increasing contact of governments and of people. In this way, gradually, and sometimes painfully, can we continue and accelerate the slow progress toward a world-in which the foremost goals of every government of every country must
be the attainment of social justice, fundamental human rights and the dignity and worth of all human beings.
Because tolerance and good will are nowhere so evident as they are in Canada, Canadians are possessed of an uncommon opportunity to urge all men everywhere to pursue these universal goals. I attempted to do so while in the Soviet Union, where I expressed to Premier Kosygin the widespread concern in Canada over the alleged refusal of the Soviet government to permit its Jewish citizens to emigrate to Israel or to other countries of their choice. I was assured by Mr. Kosygin that these allegations were not well-founded and that, in particular, his government had permitted to exit to Israel for many months of significant numbers of Soviet Jews. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that Mr. Kosygin's statement has been corroborated by the Canadian government from other, independent sources.
I seized the opportunity to urge Mr. Kosygin to permit persons of all ethnic origins with relatives in Canada to come here and thus reunify the many families which have been split tragically for many years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He assured me that his government would not place unjustifiable barriers in the way of those persons and he promised that he would give personal attention to the list of names of such persons which I took with me to Moscow.
In another area entirely, I was able to discuss with Mr. Kosygin the concern and fear expressed by our east coast fishermen over the practices of the Soviet Atlantic fishing fleet. I pointed out to him the immense increase in recent years of the Soviet catch, the decrease in the Canadian catch and the vital need for conservation of this important food resource in the interests of both our countries. Mr. Kosygin observed that the Soviet Union was a party to the North Atlantic fisheries convention and had a profound interest in a long-lasting and healthy fish stock. We agreed that this issue was deserving of further talks.
Only time will tell, Mr. Speaker, whether the warm welcome which was accorded me in the U.S.S.R. reflects the commencement of an era in Canadian-Soviet relationships as advantageous as we all hope will be the case. I prefer to be optimistic and I am urging all government departments to exploit these new openings. I urge Canadian businessmen to accept the new challenge. For our part as Canadians, I assured the Soviet leaders that there was no impediment in our desire for better and more mutually beneficial relations. In the pursuit of those benefits I am happy to report to the House the exceedingly high reputation and the impressive competence of the Canadian ambassador to the Soviet Union, Mr. R. A. D. Ford, and his conscientious and professional staff.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As the House is aware, Mr. Speaker, I invited Premier Kosygin to visit Canada at a time convenient to each of us, and he accepted with pleasure. I am certain that on that occasion Canadians will respond to the Soviet leader with the same warmth and conge-

May 28, 1971

niality as was shown to me by persons in every city I visited. I am particularly grateful to Mr. Kosygin who spent some 20 hours with me and whose daughter acted throughout the visit as the hostess for my wife.
I am happy, Mr. Speaker, that I was given the opportunity to make the trip. I am happy to be back. I am happy at what appears to be the favourable results of the visit.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I join the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) in welcoming the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) back from his journey. As he may have surmised from this debate, we have followed with interest his peregrinations through the various parts of the Soviet Union. I regret that he was compelled, upon landing in this country, to come to the House of Commons for this debate. I assume that he has learned by now that it has arisen as a result of the regrettable refusal of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) who in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister refused what I consider to be our very reasonable request that the government should set aside for debate and discussion the treaty and surrounding, connected matters which were entered into while the Prime Minister was in the Soviet Union.
My own preference would have been for the Prime Minister to have reported: then suitable arrangements could have been made among the various parties to set aside one or two days to debate this important issue and the surrounding circumstances flowing from this trip and treaty. The Secretary of State for External Affairs refused this and challenged us, in effect, to bring this subject forward on the first available opposition day in the House of Commons. We had no alternative to so doing. That action has brought the Prime Minister here. I am glad he is here, and I was glad to hear what he had to say.
Let it not be said, Mr. Speaker, that this party or anyone in it objects to discussions, negotiations and consultations between this country and any country in the world, including the Soviet Union.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: That has not been the issue in this debate. The right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) when speaking indicated the extent to which this practice has been followed in the past. The practice was initiated to a large extent by the government he led when he was Prime Minister. What concerned us and what impelled us to bring about this debate were the circumstances surrounding the institution of the so-called protocol, what was said in Russia and what was said here. I am quite sure that if this protocol had been executed without the fanfare which accompanied it, and without the proud claims and boasts made in this country and in the Soviet Union, there would have been discussions and there would have been a statement made by the Prime Minister on motions. We must look at the surrounding circumstances. Hon. members have quoted the Prime Minister's statements and I will
U.S.S.R.-Canada Protocol
not repeat them, but they referred to the historic nature of this particular arrangement.
The Secretary of State for External Affairs, in his capacity as Acting Prime Minister, made a report to the House in which he emphasized this. The only impression we got in this House, which I am sure the country got, was that the government was embarking on a completely new course, in a new direction, and was engaged in charting a voyage in new waters.


Mitchell William Sharp: That was your interpretation.


Gerald William Baldwin: That was the impression derived in this House and in this country. The hon. gentleman cannot deny that. I will have some references to establish that point before I conclude. Something has been said about whether this is a protocol or a treaty, and what should be done about it. I do not care what you call it-it is what is in the document that is important. The important thing is what was said at the time of its execution and what was said by the apologists who accompanied the Prime Minister and reported on it. There can be no doubt at all that the impression created by the Prime Minister, his entourage, his staff here and the Acting Prime Minister was that this was something new, substantial and different.
It is true that this document reduces certain proposals to writing, but there is nothing in the protocol with regard to the future which could not have been, and was, done in the past.


Mr. Bigg:: It was done before he went there.


Gerald William Baldwin: The impression which must remain indelibly in our mind is that this is intended to be something new, significant and tremendously important. It is for this reason we asked for this debate. Having listened to the Prime Minister, I must say we are not much wiser than we were before he returned.


An hon. Member:: You didn't listen.


Gerald William Baldwin: Something has been said about the tremendous approval surrounding this document.


An hon. Member:: His speech was a good travelogue.


Mr. Laing:: Are you sorry, or are you glad?


Gerald William Baldwin: There are varying opinions about this document throughout Canada and it will take time for the dust to settle. Let it be said that there are grave misgivings in certain parts of Canada, not with regard to the mere existence of a protocol but because of the surrounding circumstances, its execution and statements made in Russia and in Canada. Let me put a few comments on the record. I have here a letter dated May 26, 1971, addressed to the then Acting Prime Minister from the Ukrainian Canadian Committee. The first paragraph reads:
Ukrainian Canadians received with great appreciation the remarks made by the right hon. Prime Minister Trudeau in his state dinner speech in Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, in which he emphasized the important contribution Ukrainians have made to the development of Canada while preserving their Ukrainian identity within Canada's cultural mosaic.
6186

May 28, 1971
U.S.S.R.-Canada Protocol
He might as well have mentioned the pitiful amount of money this government has contributed to the cultural betterment of these people as compared to moneys contributed in respect of biculturalism and bilingualism.


Mitchell William Sharp: Are you opposed to bilingualism?


Gerald William Baldwin: Let me read the next two paragraphs.
However, we must strongly object to the Prime Minister's statement in which he made comparison between Canada's federal and democratic form of government and the totalitarian colonial system by means of which Soviet Russia rules over some 125 million people of non-Russian nations, of which Ukraine is the largest with a population of 47 million.
Under no circumstances can the democratic and federal system of Canada be equated with the one-party Soviet Russian dictatorship which uses secret trials, forced labour camps and other means of police rule for political and imperialistic purposes. The U.S.S.R. is in fact the only and the greatest colonial empire in the world today.
These are the views of the people. I put this on record to show that there is not the universal approbation in this country which the Prime Minister and others of his party suggest exists. Let me read from an editorial which appeared in the Winnipeg Free Press last Thursday under the heading "Historic Indeed":
The Canadian-Russian treaty signed in Moscow is officially described as a "protocol". By insisting on this distinction the Trudeau government achieves two purposes of political importance. Protocol is a somewhat antiseptic term and hence useful to ministers preparing to pretend, when not preening themselves on their achievement-
These are not my words, but I adopt them.
-as world statesmen, that they have entered into a simple agreement for the encouragement of cultural, environmental and scientific exchanges. Moreover, their diplomatic stroke is a fait accompli; they do not have to seek ratification of a "protocol" by the Canadian Parliament.
In fact, the treaty is another significant step in the reversal of long-established Canadian policy. Mr. Sharp in Parliament called it "historic," as it may well be. The cordiality of the Soviet leaders is not surprising. Will you walk into my parlour, said the calculating spider to the innocent flies. And in walked Messrs. Sharp and Trudeau.
The people of Canada have been hoodwinked, in company with their allies. First, we had the elaborate foreign policy exercise which was intended to weaken our NATO ties under cover of professions of loyalty. Doubters were reassured by pointed references to the text of the Prime Minister's announcement of April, 1969, which emphasized our continuing membership. Now that the dust has settled we have the second move, a Moscow agreement creating a special relationship between Canada and the Soviet Union.
Without adopting in toto the principles of the suggestions contained in this editorial, I put this on record to add to the growing list of pronouncements and statements made by many people in Canada who have doubts about the statement of the Prime Minister on what he has done or signed, accompanied as it was by all the surrounding statements. This action was not accompanied by the wholesale approbation of the people of Canada.
Finally, hot off the press today, in the Toronto Star we have this article. You will notice I am quoting from papers which are not entirely unsympathetic to some of the very few reasonable proposals this government
makes from time to time. This editorial is headed "Scene of the Crime" and it reads:
Honestly, we wouldn't have mentioned it, if he hadn't raised the subject himself. It was a sickening, disgusting and frightening affair, that brutal Soviet crackdown on Czechoslovakia in August, 1968. But people did nothing about it at the time, and there's been a tacit agreement since to let it alone.
But this week, Russian Communist party boss Leonid Brezhnev went, fresh from the Trudeaus, to Prague, where he boasted about his 1968 dirty work, and carefully repeated the nauseous "Brezhnev Doctrine," meaning he'll do it all over again, if he ever feels he has to. Since Mr. Brezhnev has been so tactless, we incline to being outspoken ourselves. There are 80,000 Russian troops still in Czechoslovakia. The deposed and disgraced Czech leader, Alexander Dubcek, is their butt. In his place, put there by Soviet brute force, is Gustav Husak, who saved Dubcek's life, but only by licking Brezhnev's boots. And 300,000 Czech Communists have been purged.
The obsequious praise that Husak heaped on Brezhnev in public when they met this week would have turned a normal man's stomach, but Mr. Brezhnev lapped it up.
An ear less tin might have detected an odd little note in the paean. Husak affirmed the need to defeat "right-wing opportunists, revisionists and anti-social forces". But these are precisely the terms the Chinese employ for abusing the Russians. Husak may not be quite the toady Mr. Brezhnev thinks. The Czechs have a long tradition of quietly needling their conquerors. Ever hear of "the good soldier Schweik," Mr. Brezhnev?
I have a great many of these quotations which I could place on the record. Hon. members might fall over themselves praising everything they have done, but I believe it is up to them and the people of the country to examine with care and caution what has been done and what is being done. Good things we accept, however, and there may be some good come out of this. We hope this will be the case. We will check into it as time goes by.
The right hon. gentleman said today that he had mentioned to the Chairman certain problems which now exist between Canada and the U.S.S.R., such as the question of the Jewish people trying to leave Russia, the fishery problem which exists and which has been the subject of speeches by many members on this side of the House, the question of immigration, and so on. We will watch with care and interest what comes out of this. If in fact there are compensating features and improvements which take place, we will be prepared to give credit to the Prime Minister even though these might take place in any event.
However, this does not alter the fact that the right hon. gentleman fled Canada because of the problems he faced domestically. We have heard of the retreat from Moscow. Now we hear about the retreat to Moscow of the right hon. gentleman and his friends. Napoleon went one way and the right hon. gentleman went another way. We will watch with care and we will file a caveat in respect of the development which is taking place.
We have exercised our responsibility as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition because of the dismal failure of the government to set aside appropriate time to discuss this matter-because it is either an historical and important event, as has been suggested, or it is nothing. If it is as important as the Secretary of State for External Affairs

May 28, 1971

says it is, then it justifies proper debate and discussion in this House. The refusal of the government to do this has compelled us to bring about this debate. The problems which we envisage certainly have been brought to hand by what we have seen today. On the government side there has not been one speech of substance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: I regret having to include the right hon. gentleman in that. There has been nothing to explain, justify and rationalize not only the protocol but the accompanying statements. Let us make sure that before we throw aside old friends, old agreements and old alliances we know where we are going. I suggest to the right hon. gentleman that if he has not already done so, he should read "Pilgrim's Progress."


Raymond J. Perrault: Mr. Speaker, all of us listened with a great deal of interest to the speech of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) a few minutes ago. In the view of most of us, he demonstrated beyond any argument the present and potential value of the arrangement signed the other day with Russia. He demonstrated beyond question the fact that there is no basis at all for the proposal contained in the resolution under discussion that the protocol should be brought before the House for consideration and decision.
Precedent after precedent has been cited in the House this afternoon by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), by other members and latterly by the Prime Minister who indicated that the procedure followed was perfectly in order and consistent with the action of this and other governments. Beyond that, however, I think it is most disturbing that we have heard such narrow, petty criticism of what can only be regarded as an important piece of progress in the development of Canada in respect of its external relations policy. A few moments ago we heard the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), the House leader of his party.


John James Greene: He used to be a big man.


Raymond J. Perrault: Did he comment on the announcement of the increased Canadian wheat sales? There wasn't even adequate recognition of the sales. There is a complete ignoring of this important fact and just a recitation of the arguments resurrected from the cold war. I believe it is a disappointing type of treatment from a man in his position. Shortly before that we heard from the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) who formerly was granted the great privilege of leading the government of this country. Yes, other Privy Councillors have journeyed to Russia at other times and have expressed their deep pleasure in the warmth of the Russian reception. The right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert played a different tune on his balalaika a few years ago. The Toronto Star of October 17, 1969, states:
Former Canadian Prime Minister John Diefenbaker has a dream and he hopes the Russians will help make it comee true.
U.S.S.R.-Canada Protocol
The report continues:
Diefenbaker said later that they agreed that Canada and the U.S.S.R. should co-operate in a scientific exchange program aimed at developing the Arctic areas.
In another article Mr. Diefenbaker is reported to have said that the meeting could not possibly have been more cordial and friendly. In the Toronto Star of October 14, 1969, we find these words:
Former Prime Minister John Diefenbaker checked into the room used by Lenin in Moscow's National Hotel today and prepared for a meeting with Dimitry Polyanski, deputy premier of the Soviet Union.
When he was asked about the arrangements made for him, he said he was obviously pleased. He said he was given the ornately furnished hotel room with the balcony from which Lenin addressed the revolutionaries in 1917. It must have been a great experience. The Toronto Star goes on to say:
Occasionally he talks mysteriously to the walls in his room of honour in the National Hotel where Lenin lived and from which he addressed the revolutionary hordes in 1917. The RCMP warned Diefenbaker before he left Ottawa that his room would probably be bugged.
Apparently he must have been talking to the microphone on that occasion. But when the former Prime Minister of this country was in Russia he talked in terms of the necessity of co-operation between our two great countries. He insisted that there was a place for Canada to play a very important role. He talked in terms of the value of Canada's efforts to bring about a rapprochement between the United States and the Soviet Union. This is also from the Toronto Star of October 14, 1969:
He seemed to startle the Intourist guides by quoting former British Prime Minister Lloyd George to them. I remember George said 'That God chooses small nations to carry the sweetest wine of democracy to the world.'
Perhaps at least here we are brewing a batch of wine which may bring good results. Possibly there are some who in this debate would like to perpetuate the dreary era of the cold war and who cannot conceive that the world can change and that conditions can change. There are those in this House with dark and lingering fears in their minds that any time Canada achieves an agreement of any kind, that agreement represents a so-called sellout or betrayal of Canada's interests and that somehow or another Canadians are unable to negotiate any international agreement which will confer benefits on this nation.
Yet there are other, enlightened members of this assembly who know all too well that this is not 1947, 1957 or even 1967-it is 1971 when throughout the world a certitude exists that unless we open more doors between nations we risk not only a military cataclysm but ecological and environmental disaster. It is to the credit of this government that it is a government willing to work with other nations, willing to undertake initiatives and willing to assist in the resolution of internation-

May 28, 1971
U.S .S.R.-Canada Protocol
al disputes and misunderstandings. Despite the suggestions of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that we have lacked in our efforts to promote international understanding, Canada's record is one of the finest in the world. I am sure the hon. member is aware of that fact. There are countless issues where Canadian initiatives have conferred a benefit on the entire world. Those who advance their narrow criticism of the recent agreement between the U.S.S.R. and Canada should remember that Canadian initiatives to keep the seabed free from nuclear weapons, to reduce armaments in the world and to protect the world's environment have involved extensive consultations with those whose political ideologies we cannot support.
Projected to its extreme limit, the argument advanced by certain hon. members would have us only conduct our external relations with politically acceptable governments. Such a policy would be foolish in the extreme and it would be foolhardy. Here we are, one of the world's largest nations with one of the world's longest coastlines, bounded on the north by our unique Arctic and beyond that the Soviet Union. Our geography makes mandatory relations with both the United States and the U.S.S.R. in a number of critical areas. In a war we could be another Belgium, the no man's land where nuclear warheads land. No wonder Canada is so active at the Geneva disarmament talks; no wonder Canada is a leader of the small nat.ons in efforts to bring about disarmament- because there are now nuclear warheads capable of drop-ing a million tons of t.n.t. or its equivalent should a war be conducted overhead.
In the fight to protect the world's environment, together with our two vast neighbours we could be a key to protecting the biosphere of the earth. So we have this agreement, we have this accord because we have a great interest in'all efforts, unilateral, bilateral and multilateral, to protect that real estate which we share with our two giant neighbours, the United States and Russia. Yet some of those in the opposition continue to look into the glass darkly and tell us that we have no business attempting to construct a better and more efficient way to discuss with our neighbours a range of problems common to us. Common sense Canadians know where their best interest lies-not in a narrow, introverted chauvinism but in a healthy, positive approach to our international relations.
The House has been assured that this agreement is not a treaty but a means whereby we can conduct normal diplomatic relations on a more regular, systematic basis. It is, in a sense, a protocol to eliminate, paradoxically, the need for even more protocol, an arrangement to render unnecessary the construction of new and totally separate arrangements for issues which arise between our two governments. If similar arrangements can be achieved with other nations of special importance to Canada, then we should proceed to establish these similar arrangements as well.
The opposition has questioned the benefits which are expected to flow from this arrangement, and some of the points have been reviewed. Discussions will take place

under this arrangement about the preservation of the environment, Arctic conditions and navigation, the status of minorities and on matters which, hopefully, will lead to a reuniting of families.
I want to say something about the first of the possible advantages to flow from this new arrangement with the U.S.S.R. We have an immense amount in common with the geography of northern Russia. Canada for years, quite understandably, has been very interested in the Soviet Arctic, particularly the eastern areas. We have in common with Russia a vast area of permafrost, a boreal forest, a sparse population and peoples some of whom have a very similar ethnic background to some Canadians. Canada wants to know more about a range of considerations relating to the Arctic, wherever that Arctic area may lie. So far, far eastern Siberia has been closed to the west. Hopefully, that area can be opened to our scientists.
This flow of knowledge and information cannot be a one-way street. It is wrong to assume that Canada is the only possible beneficiary of such an exchange. We have done some unique things in our own Arctic and this information is of interest to our Soviet neighbours. There is a possibility, then, of a sharing of information which may well be of substantial benefit to both nations. They build dams in permafrost in the U.S.S.R. It would be good for our scientists to discuss dam-building techniques in our permafrost.
How does the vast Soviet forest industry cope with pollution? Do we have technical knowledge which can be shared in this area? If it helps the Soviet Union, then it helps the environment of the world and our youngsters and people will benefit just as much as young people and citizens in any other part of the world. How are natural gas pipelines constructed in permafrost? Surely there are opportunities to share information and knowledge with respect to community and social development and ways in which the capabilities of our respective native peoples can be brought to full development. Surely there are ways to share information with respect to the education of our respective native peoples and the ways in which their rich heritage of life, language and customs can be retained, while offering these peoples an opportunity to realize their full potential.
In the Northeast Passage, within the area under Soviet jurisdiction, a remarkable system of navigation has been established by the Soviet through 40 years of development. Surely Canada has an interest in sharing with the U.S.S.R. and all other countries knowledge which may ensure safe and efficient navigation in the dangerous Arctic waters. We have a common interest in Arctic ecology and in methods involved in preventing pollution of these waters.
In other words, those who heap scorn on this agreement and attempt to read into it all sorts of dark implications must be unaware of the world in which we live, a world where a diplomatic thaw already is under way between China and the West. For 22 years since the Communists came to power in China scarcely a constructive word has been exchanged between the United States
May 28, 1971

and the People's Republic of China. Some dramatic events occurred over a table-tennis tournament a few weeks ago-incredible events. A great deal of credit for this unexpected and most hopeful development must be given to the U.S. government, and yet the suggestion was contained in the speech of one of the members of the opposition today that the United States would be offended by our action. Let me quote from an editorial of the Christian Science Monitor, a reprint of which appeared in the May 24 issue of the Globe and Mail. It reads:
But there is no real basis for objection and Washington itself has just paid Trudeau foreign policy the supreme compliment of imitation. After all, he did open up the road to Peking which Washington is now trying to travel.
So we are living in a new world, a world which is apparently beyond the comprehension of the external affairs critics who reside in the official opposition. A few days ago the President of the United States announced a step to move the world to an era of negotiation so far as a de-escalation in the arms build-up is concerned. He declared that the deadlock at the strategic arms limitation talks with Russia is now over. Hard bargaining lies ahead before the nuclear super powers can actually slow down the lunatic arms race. But they have now agreed, after 18 months of negotiations, to work out simultaneously the limitation of defensive and offensive missiles. The breakthrough at SALT must not be regarded as an isolated development. Where there is progress in one area, it can be matched in another area. Fortunately, that is the philosophy of the government of this nation.
At Geneva, Canada's representative, George Ignatieff, continues with some success his efforts to achieve a ban on underground nuclear testing. He has persuaded the 25-nation conference to listen to scientists who claim that the latest seismological instruments will detect even small nuclear explosions 4,000 miles away. If scientists can prove it, that ought to lead to the signing of a treaty banning all nuclear tests-again a Canadian initiative, again a demonstration that wherever the vital interests of this nation are concerned we will sit down with any government, whatever its ideology, if we think the Canadian people can be thereby aided and the betterment of the world advanced. That has to be our philosophy.
There is much evidence to support the view that the nations of the world regard foreign policy as an extension of their own domestic self-interest. It may be that today the world's nations are interested in detente because, among other considerations, they can see no long-term future in the world for a build-up of armaments and a deterioration of the environment and they have come to realize, at least in part, the need for co-operation.
No one should be naive enough to assume that closer co-operation between Canada and the U.S.S.R., closer co-operation between the United States and the People's Republic of China or closer co-operation between any two other countries in the world represents an abandonment by them of their long-held goals or political ideolo-
U.S.S.R.-Canada Protocol
gies. For our part, we would be guilty of a monstrous disservice to the Canadian people if we ignored, abandoned or neglected any initiative which may serve to improve the lot of our people and the world. It is in this spirit, a spirit of hope and optimism, that Canada has achieved the agreement with the U.S.S.R. which we are discussing today-and fortunately the vast majority of the Canadian people will hail it and will not support the narrow criticisms we have heard from the official opposition.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of our party I welcome the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) back to Canada and express the hope that he fully enjoyed his trip through the U.S.S.R. In fact, I am sure he did. I believe that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) expressed the sentiments of this party when he said it was a worth-while effort on the part of the head of the Canadian government to make personal contact, to talk to the people who rule the U.S.S.R. and to see that country.
I have read the protocol. It seems to me that there is a general understanding or agreement between our two nations to talk to one another, to consult on matters that are of mutual interest, probably to agree where we can agree and to disagree where we do not agree. Is there really any other basis upon which good relations can be established between countries? After all, countries are made up of peoples, and is this not the basis upon which individual people and groups operate?
I am pleased the Prime Minister pointed out that considerable discussion was undertaken in regard to trade between our two countries. Trade has been important. We have sold large quantities of grain to the U.S.S.R. Incidentally, one dealer in my constituency has half a dozen Roumanian tractors on display which he is selling to farmers in Saskatchewan. This is the kind of trade which all westerners are pleased to see because, being fairly practical people-and I take it that the citizens of the U.S.S.R. are the same-we are well aware that we cannot proceed on a one-way street so far as trade is concerned. We are aware that it must be two-way trade, that we must open our doors to the products which the U.S.S.R. has to sell and they in turn will be prepared to purchase from us the things that we have to sell.
I had the privilege of being in Geneva at negotiations on two occasions on the International Wheat Agreement. The negotiators for the U.S.S.R. approached the matter precisely as did the negotiators for Canada-on a practical, hard-nosed and workmanlike basis. So I think that the agreement which was concluded in 1956 and the second one which was signed in January this year will facilitate more trade between our two countries.
So far as consultation is concerned between our two nations in regard to the Arctic and to fisheries, if we can protect not only our interests but the ecology and the fisheries a lot will be gained. I understand that this kind of arrangement was being developed and was well under way before the Prime Minister undertook his journey, but it may very well be that further contact will be helpful.

May 28, 1971
U.S.S.R.-Canada. Protocol
Mention has been made by the Prime Minister of representations he made on behalf of people in Canada whose ancestry goes back to the Ukraine and to Russia. I have received representations from such groups. I went to school with the children of those people, know many of their families and have some idea of what it is all about. If the Prime Minister was able to make representations which may make things a little easier for them, I for one will be very pleased.
As Canadians, we must take the view that we are being realistic when we expand our relations with other countries through contact and consultation. When he was attempting to become President of the United States I remember Wendell Wilkie saying that we would have one world or no world. Of course, that is an absolute statement and probably not all that profound. But certainly we will have to learn to live together, particularly with the present state of technology in the world. We have no other alternative. Aneurin Bevan, the great British Socialist, in his book "In Place of Fear" published after the war-about 1946 or 1947-said it would be essential to the peace and welfare of the peoples of the world that contacts and working relationships be established between the two great ideologies which had emerged from the nineteenth century and which had taken up opposing positions after the Second World War. He was quite right; we did not do it. Instead, we went into opposing positions and have carried it through almost up to this time.
We cannot claim that the process has been an outstanding success but surely through gradual contact with other peoples we might learn to tolerate what we cannot accept because that is the only alternative. We certainly will not be prepared to accept the ideologies and the form of government of all other peoples in the world any more than they will be prepared to accept ours.
The war in Viet Nam, which has been carried on with terrible ferocity for many years, has not succeeded in changing anything. It has caused the death of a great many people and has devastated the countryside, but it has not convinced the people over there to change their ways. We have to recognize the facts. Times change, and it may happen that over the years we can find better ways of developing human relations throughout the world. Wendel Wilkie and Aneurin Bevan held two entirely different philosophies but they agreed that we must develop ways to live together. It must be the hope of people that we can do so.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes remaining I should like to ask some questions in connection with the very successful trip just completed by our Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). First of all, I should like to welcome h m back. While I have not had much personal experience, I am told that travelling through many time zones is exceedingly tiring. I hope the "awkward squad" he left behind to look after things in Ottawa has not got them in such a mess that he will not
be able to have a weekend of rest before being involved in affairs of state.
Any right-thinking person would applaud efforts to broaden the scope of personal and national contacts. This afternoon the Prime Minister mentioned things which are worth while-the exchange of information relative to Arctic technology, including navigation, prevention of pollution, exchange of educational and cultural ideas and increased trade. All this is a step in the right direction, but I submit that most of these things are already in effect. They were in effect before signing this protocol. Over the years Russia had loosened travel restrictions. We had trade relations with them and they bought products from us when it was in their interests to do so. We were getting along fairly well and situations were improving. But we were dealing, as I suggest we should, at arms length which was not a bad thing. We have not really accomplished anything new. The Prime Min ster mentioned fishing, and that is fine. Representatives of the Soviet Union have been sitting in on the discussions at Halifax, so this is an improvement.
The question uppermost in the minds of most Canadians is, who instigated this protocol? Was it the Russians or was it Canada? I think this is important, but we have never been told. Who started negotiations, and who stands to gain? I think all Canadians were delighted that the Prime Minister was so warmly welcomed in Russia. I hope it was a genuine demonstration of affection, but remembering events as recent as those of 1968 in Prague I cannot quite accept that. I sincerely hope that I am proven wrong but I have a nagging suspicion that this great event may have been largely staged in order to embarrass and drive a further wedge between Canada and our closest and sincerest friend.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. McCuicheon:: I mean our NATO allies, and in particular the United States of America.


Mitchell William Sharp: That is nonsense, sheer fabrication.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: I cannot forget that the stated Soviet foreign policy is to discredit the United States of America in the eyes of the world. Sincerely, Mr. Speaker-and I cannot stress this too much-I hope that we have not been hoodwinked.
An kon. Member: Yes, we have.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Let me refer for a moment to paragraphs 2 and 3 of the treaty, which I should like to read into the record:
2.	In the event of a situation arising which, in the opinion of the two governments, endangers the maintenance of peace or involves a breach of the peace, the two governments will make contact without delay in order to exchange views on what might be done to improve the situation.
3.	The provisions set forth in paragraphs 1 and 2 above do not affect obligations previously assumed by the parties in respect of third states and are not directed against any of them.
This simply means that nothing Canada has to say will have any effect on the behaviour of the U.S.S.R. or her
[Mr. Gleave.l
May 28, 1971

Warsaw Pact activities in the event that any of the subjugated nations become restive. Surely Canadians will not be so naive as to assume that this provision is designed for our benefit. Surely our relationship with the United States and our NATO allies would be affected. This is really nothing, except that Russia still wants to have the best of both worlds. In the May 20, 1971, edition of the Toronto Telegram, the Prime Minister is quoted as saying:
"Canada might risk losing her personality because of the overpowering United States neighbour, for which reason we have to diversify our relationships with other countries."
What a play on words! What a perversion of fact! We should have a complete debate in this House on the threat to which the Prime Minister has referred.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: If the government was really sincere, wanted meaningful discussion and wanted to take the Canadian people into its confidence, I suggest that this matter might have been handled differently.


Mitchell William Sharp: How?


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Are you still the Acting Prime Minister or are you-


Mitchell William Sharp: The Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: The Secretary of State for External Affairs asks, "How?". This minister would not permit the matter to be brought before the House in government time. The Prime Minister was to arrive on Monday with a prepared speech and each of the opposition parties was to be given a few minutes in which to reply. Nothing would have come out of that except of five-minute exchange.
1 wish to comment on the remarks made this morning by the then Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Sharp). In my humble opinion he made a very specious argument. He compared this protocol with certain agreements made by previous governments. He referred to 1961 and other years. He was really comparing apples and watermelons, if we are to believe what the Prime Minister said this afternoon. These previous agreements, which were made without approval of the House-and he referred to that- do not have anything in common with this one. I make that statement having regard to the fact that the other agreements did not contain a change in policy or direction.


Mitchell William Sharp: Nor does this.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: The minister says "Neither does this," but this is not the inference that is being carefully put across to the Canadian people.


Mitchell William Sharp: By the opposition.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: I believe there are others who wish to participate in this debate, so I will not take any more
U.S.S.R.-Canada Protocol
time. I will conclude by saying that I am disturbed by certain developments in this country, some of which were alluded to last night on television by the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Stewart). He referred to certain Marxist students who were receiving government largess. I have in my hand an article which appeared in the Toronto Telegram pointing out the irony of the Canada Council awarding a $3,500 grant to Mrs. Phyllis Clarke, former chairman of the metro Toronto Communist Party. Bearing that in mind, I wish to quote as follows from one of the nice little books entitled "Foreign Policy for Canadians," put out by the Department of External Affairs:
External activities should be directly related to national policies pursued within Canada, and serve the same objectives.
Perhaps this has passed unnoticed by many Canadians, but I suggest it is time that they were reminded. I repeat:
External activities should be directly related to national policies-
If our national policies are to support Marxists, where are we being led?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bell:: Mr. Speaker, a member of the Creditiste party has been waiting to speak for some time. With the unanimous consent of the House, perhaps we could continue for another five minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair is very pleased to accept the suggestion. I know the hon. member would like to have a few minutes. Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the House for its great courtesy in allowing me to say a few words on the trip of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to the U.S.S.R.
We are pleased to see that the Prime Minister did not do things by halves. To my mind, the trip was timely and Canada should benefit from it.
Mr. Speaker, as it is five o'clock, I do not want to keep the House too long, but I should like to congratulate the Prime Minister for the account he gave us of his beautiful trip; I also thank him for supplying us with a copy of the protocol and the report on the discussions he had with the representatives of that country.
We have to keep in direct contact with all countries of the world, regardless of their ideologies, their political philosophy and their economic system.
We must realize that there is something to be said for the economic policy of other countries even if we disagree with their ideologies. We are facing two great ideologies: capitalism and communism.
The capitalist system is good in some respect, even if it has serious deficiencies which should be corrected.
There are also deficiencies in the communist system, as unlike capitalism it deprives certain citizens of their freedom.

May 28, 1971
Business of the House
The communist system involves certain administrative principles which give good results in the countries which live according to its principles.
So even though we might not adopt the communist system as a whole, we could perhaps consider its principles in matters of financing. It is said that what is materially possible should be financially feasible.
If this principle is valid for Russia, it is probably valid also under a capitalist system such as ours provided we proceed to reform such a system.
On the contrary, one must hope. Having respected the two systems, our contemporaries must unite and get organized to force a confrontration on the only level where agreement is possible: the higher level of moral values, in brief, the very highest level of all. Instead of fighting them, we should reform them internally through patient, constant and determined efforts.
We must humanize capitalism and liberalize communism in order that the two may meet in the world of man, so that it may become what it should be, so that man may recover his rights and his privileges. Respect for the human being must be paramount. If we respect nations, we may come to respect individuals. Today, nations should have plenty of respect for one another, because we are all in the same boat. If we do not learn to know one another, to better appreciate one another, to live like citizens, like human beings, then if the boat is sunk, we shall all perish together, the victims of nuclear armament. In such circumstances, if we wish to be practical, we must show some consideration for one another and make use of all our resources for the greater good of the human race.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, might I seek the unanimous consent. of the House to deal with a matter which I understand has been discussed through the usual channels? I believe there is agreement for the following order to be passed by the House:
That if the day appointed for the next budget presentation by the Minister of Finance be a Friday, the House shall not adjourn that day at 5 o'clock p.m., but the sitting shall be suspended until 10 minutes after 5 o'clock p.m. and shall at that time be resumed in order to permit the said budget presentation and the preliminary remarks by the member speaking first on behalf of the opposition;
And that, immediately upon completion of the budget debate, the House shall take into consideration any Ways and Means motions presented in relation to the said budget and shall not adjourn until it has completed its consideration thereof, and has given first reading to any bills thereon.
I understand there is agreement among the parties that this motion shall be put and that it become an order of the House.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, this "protocol" has just been placed before us and we have not had much time in which to examine it but I am sure the Minister of Agriculture, outside of agricultural matters, would be sure to give us the facts as they are. First, we give our consent to revert to motions. Basically we are in accord with the provisions of the proposed order, but I wish to make it plain that our understanding is that the Friday in question is a Friday in June. If it should happen that we get into July, there would be some disposition not to accept this arrangement.
The understanding is that we start on the budget at ten minutes after five. There would be some comment by the speaker for the opposition, the debate would continue in its usual way and there would be an opportunity to bring forward a bill or bills based on the budget, for first reading, despite the fact that there might not be enough time under the Standing Orders. That is our understanding and I take it this is what the minister intends. On this basis we are perfectly prepared to agree with it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, as has been indicated by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), this proposed order represents an agreement which has been reached among the House leaders. Like the hon. member for Peace River, I think that one or two other parts of the package should be on the record. I may say that these negotiations are carried out in a friendly and co-operative spirit; we do not have any trouble about them-but it is useful to have these points on the record.
Like the hon. member, we are agreeing to this order only if it is put into effect during the month of June. If the month of June goes by without this expected budget, the order is spent as far as we are concerned. There is agreement among us that if the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) makes his budget presentation on a Friday, the debate on that motion will not be resumed until the following Tuesday. If the budget is on the day we expect it to be, there will be enough days to get the six-day debate in.
The package includes a little more than is contained in the order. It is one we have all agreed to. I confess I asked myself a few minutes ago about those mysterious ten minutes, why the House should suspend at five o'clock and come back ten minutes later. I understand this would provide an opportunity to escort members of the press out of their locked-up cells to the press gallery to hear the minister's speech. Anyway, the order has our approval.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: If I might comment on the questions which have been raised, I would suggest that neither of the hon. gentlemen who spoke were asking that the proposed order be changed. They wanted these things on the record. While I was not a party to the discussions, I have the same understanding respecting the month of June as has been expressed by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) and by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).
[Mr. Latulippe.l
May 28, 1971


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the order and the remarks of the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Oslson). It would seem to me the references to the month of June might call for an amendment. However, if hon. members are agreed that the proposed order be presented as drafted, subject to the remarks of the hon. member for Peace River and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I will put it on that basis.
Is it agreed that an order be made in those terms?
Business of the House


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is so ordered. It being five o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 58(11) the proceedings on the motion previously before the House have expired.
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
6195

Monday, May 31, 1971