June 1, 1978

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-APPOINTMENT OF AMBASSADORS TO AND BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES

PC

Heath Nelson Macquarrie

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):

Mr. Speaker, on February 22 I asked the minister about the prospects of the establishment of embassies in Amman and Damascus. While congratulating him on his announcement of the opening of a Canadian embassy in Kuwait, I questioned him as to when the Kuwaiti government would be sending an ambassador solely accredited to this country.

As my learned and most respected friend the parliamentary secretary knows, I have urged repeatedly the improvement of contacts between Canada and the peoples of the Arab world. Commercial, social, cultural and diplomatic ties could be strengthened with a group of nations with which there are no reasons for anything but cordial relations with Canada. The economies of many of the countries of the Arab Middle East are developing in such a way as to offer major opportunities for Canadian investment and technical co-operation. It is my experience from frequent visits to these countries that Canada often lags behind other more alert and aggressive trading countries. Considering the slack state of our own economy I think it would be shocking neglect to miss opportunities in the outside world.

While much can be done and must be done by the private sector, the government can assist in strengthening government-to-government contacts, in obtaining information, and by using agencies such as the Canadian Export Development Corporation in reference to those Arab countries not wealthy through an abundance of petro-dollars. Not all Arab countries are facing grave problems of what to do with their money! Some need assistance in infrastructure and especially technical aid.

I fear we have not taken advantage of an opportunity offered by the Kuwaiti fund for development whose director 1 met here in Ottawa a few years ago. It was his suggestion that,

Adjournment Debate

through a marriage of the fund's finances and CIDA's technical know-how, much could be done. I believe it was a most useful suggestion and I would have been happier had the Canadian response been more fulsome and interested.

If I recall aright, when I came to the House of Commons in 1957 we had embassies in the Middle East only in Lebanon, Israel and Egypt. I many times called for exchange of diplomatic missions with other areas of the Arab world, notably Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf Emirates. Over the years this has been done and one can see clearly that improved trade and investment contacts have followed. Canadian businessmen are involved in major projects in Saudi Arabia. One of these is the construction of what will be one of the most splendid and costliest universities in the world. I am happy that we have missions in those beautiful Magreb countries, Tunisia, Algeria and Morocco.

But there are two countries whose importance in the Middle East, and more specifically in Middle East tensions, cannot be overestimated. These are Syria and Jordan. They are confrontation states vitally concerned with the future of the Palestinians whose status, as is now almost universally agreed, is the core of the Middle East problem.

As a founding member of the United Nations which created Israel, as a member of the Security Council and as the provider of peacekeeping forces in the area, Canada must and should be vitally interested in the establishment of a just and durable peace in the area. I do not think we can do our job or play our part without close contact with Jordan and Syria. We need a presence, a listening post, a place for regular dialogue with those pivotal countries. For the immediate and urgent requirement of the current troubles and tension we should be there. Beyond that exist many reasons for strengthening our ties with those two countries who are working out their destiny under different forms of government but to whom peace today and prosperity today and tommorow are vital.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-APPOINTMENT OF AMBASSADORS TO AND BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES
Permalink
LIB

Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend my hon. colleague and friend, the distinguished member for Hillsborough (Mr. Macquarrie), for his great interest in the Arab countries, more particularly Jordan and Kuwait. Since we are going to establish a new embassy in Kuwait it goes without saying that we would be delighted if Kuwait would create a mission in Ottawa. Nevertheless, nothing at present indicates that Kuwait intends to open a mission in Ottawa in the immediate future.

Needless to say, Mr. Speaker, no state has unlimited funds for the purposes of diplomatic representation. Still I am sure that the presence of the resident mission of Canada in Kuwait would improve our bilateral relations in our best respective interests and it is not unreasonable to hope that as a result of closer relations, the government of Kuwait will one day open an embassy in Canada.

June 1, 1978

Adjournment Debate

As for Amman and Damascus, I agree that it would be most desirable to have an embassy in one or even both those very important capitals. We do not have the necessary resources to do so now or in the near future. It was possible to do it in Kuwait following the closing of our mission in Johannesburg. As we do not anticipate the closing of other missions, we must be satisfied with multiple accreditations from Beyrouth which is fortunately well located to deal with those two important cities of Amman and Damascus. I regret to disappoint my hon. colleague.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-APPOINTMENT OF AMBASSADORS TO AND BY FOREIGN COUNTRIES
Permalink

INDUSTRY-CANADA-U.S. AUTO PACT-EQUITABLE SHARING OF BENEFITS

NDP

Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn

New Democratic Party

Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):

Mr. Speaker, two weeks ago I directed a question to the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Horner) concerning the government's plan to subsidize the construction of two new auto parts plants by General Motors and Ford Motor Company of Canada to the tune of $116 million. I asked how the government could contemplate subsidizing these two multinational conglomerates when, according to the spirit of the 1965 Auto Pact between Canada and the United States, these firms are already committed to investing in Canada.

The minister was evasive. He quoted from the Auto Pact and he also replied that we had a surplus of $2 billion in automobile manufacturing in Canada last year. What the minister forgot to mention is that Canada had an auto parts deficit of more than $3 billion last year, which completely erases our surplus in assembled vehicles shipped to the United States and leave us with a deficit of over $1 billion.

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, that Canada is not getting its fair share of the automotive trade. The Auto Pact has become a joke. Canada has had a deficit in ten out of the 13 years since the Auto Pact was signed, a deficit that has totalled more than $7.5 billion. The deficit in our auto parts trade is even worse. Since 1965 we have had a deficit on parts trade with the U.S. of just under $19 billion. At the present time there is a shortfall of about 25,000 jobs between what we should have as a fair share of the total employment in the auto industry and what we actually have.

The auto industry is now planning for its biggest re-tooling since the 1920's. Ford and GM have announced they will be spending at least $20 billion each between now and 1985 to re-tool for new emission and fuel economy standards. Within the spirit of the Auto Pact, this commits each of them to a level of investment in Canada in the range of $275 million each and every year for the foreseeable future.

Canada cannot hope to get a large share of the investment in the auto industry that is going to be made over the next few years, and the jobs that go with that investment, unless the federal government exerts pressure on the auto manufacturers to spend more of their investment budget in Canada. The major auto manufacturers have been remarkably reluctant to

spend a fair share of new investment in plant and equipment in Canada. Just looking at the past few years, our share of the new car market has been between 9 per cent and 10 per cent. Our share of new investment funds has been down around 5 per cent.

Pressure must be put on the auto industry right now to make sure the auto manufacturers live up to their investment commitments in Canada. I would like to know what the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is doing to ensure this, besides offering $116 million of the taxpayers' money to Ford and GM to invest in Canada when they are bound by the Auto Pact to invest anyway.

The government must immediately begin negotiations with the auto industry regarding the Auto Pact. We must have guarantees that the number of jobs, the amount of new investment, and the research and development expenditures will be commensurate with Canada's share of the auto market.

The government has so far failed to offer a credible response to our growing auto trade deficit. Most of the planning for the conversions to smaller, more energy efficient cars is being made now. I would like to impress upon the government that we are running out of time. Decisions will be taken in the next two years that will affect the auto industry for the rest of the century.

In Ontario, one in seven jobs is directly or indirectly related to the auto industry. These jobs must be protected. The former minister of industry, trade and commerce has admitted that our current auto trade deficit is "too big to swallow". I would agree with that. The only question that remains is, when will the government insist that the auto makers do something about it, and why has it not begun to insist already?

What we are looking for as far as the Auto Pact is concerned is a fair deal. We do not say we should have more than the American workers. The Canadian workers are agreed upon this. As far as the Auto Pact is concerned, auto workers in Canadian subsidiaries of American auto corporations, particularly in the parts manufacturing industry, are well aware of the fact we have been sold down the river since 1965. We have a tremendous deficit vis-a-vis the United States. It is time that jobs were created in the automotive industry in this country and that there is parity between the cost of cars made in this country and cars made in the United States. I see no reason why any model of car should cost $100, $200 or $300 more in Canada than in the United States if that car was made in Canada. I do not understand why consumers in Detroit can purchase an automobile manufactured in St. Thomas, Ontario, for $100, $200 or $300 less than someone in Canada.

The minister is not here this evening. I do not expect him to be here at this late hour. Not even his parliamentary secretary is here. It is a damned shame there is no one from his department here tonight for the last three minutes of this period to rebut what I have been debating. There is no one from the cabinet here to answer the question I have put forward regarding bringing the Auto Pact up to date, so that we have more investment and jobs in this country, jobs that will create more money, and so that Canadians can buy more

June 1, 1978

cars. That is what it is all about. As I say, it is a damned shame there is no one here to reply. There is only one member of the entire Liberal party on the other side of the House tonight.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   INDUSTRY-CANADA-U.S. AUTO PACT-EQUITABLE SHARING OF BENEFITS
Permalink
LIB

Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs)

Liberal

Mr. Maurice Dupras (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):

Mr. Speaker, I wish my distinguished colleague would not judge the interest of our party in the automobile pact question by the absence of most of my hon. friends. The minister and his parliamentary secretary have made a commitment which they could not break and they could not be here to speak tonight. Nevertheless, I shall attempt to answer the observations of the hon. member with regard to the automobile agreement.

First of all, Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer to the main points mentioned in his presentation, namely a fair share of the auto production, the loss of 25,000 jobs in the automobile industry, and finally the payment of subsidies to the industries in that sector.

First, the fair share. Paragraph (c) of the Auto Pact reads as follows: Development of conditions allowing the market forces to interact efficiently for the most economic development of investments, production and trade. No mention is made of the automatic right to a "fair share" of jobs, production or investments. In fact, no mention is made in the agreement of jobs. The fact that one country or the other gets more or less than of its fair share should be determined, according to intent of the agreement as I understand it, by such factors as the relative cost of production in the two countries and the relative return of new investments.

The attainment of a "fair share" of production and investment is obviously the objective. We achieved and surpassed

Adjournment Debate

this objective in the early 1970's when production costs and returns on investment were in our favour. The route to reachieving this objective is not to require companies to invest in less than economic propositions in Canada. It is to recreate conditions in which it is in the interests of the industry itself to invest in Canada.

We are working with both the vehicle industry and the parts industry to demonstrate to them that, in large measure, these conditions have been recreated and that it is in their interests to invest in Canada.

The number of jobs that we are reputed to have been shortchanged under the automotive agreement keeps escalating. I assume that the 25,000 number has been taken from a report prepared by the treasurer of Ontario. We have trouble with the arithmetic contained within that report. Almost 6,000 of the 25,000 jobs we are reputed to be short are in vehicle assembly. Statistics Canada reports that we have a trade surplus with the United States of over $2 billion in completed vehicles and that we exported almost $600 million of North American vehicles to third countries. It is beyond me how the treasurer could conclude that we are short of jobs in vehicle assembly when in fact we have a substantial surplus. Were we to achieve automotive agreement trade balance, which would be my definition of fair share, we would have additional automotive employment of about 5,000.

I see, Mr. Speaker, that you are about to rise to tell me my time has expired. Perhaps I might simply add that I know the minister is about to make an important announcement in the field of automotive parts.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   INDUSTRY-CANADA-U.S. AUTO PACT-EQUITABLE SHARING OF BENEFITS
Permalink
LIB

Gérald Laniel (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order, please. A motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m.

At 10:25 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Topic:   PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION
Subtopic:   INDUSTRY-CANADA-U.S. AUTO PACT-EQUITABLE SHARING OF BENEFITS
Permalink

APPENDIX


On May 4th, engineer Alexander Treu was sentenced to two years in prison after a lengthy trial held in camera under the provisions of the Official Secrets Act. Some members of parliament, under the protection of parliamentary privilege, have taken the liberty of questioning and criticizing the way in which the trial was conducted before Justice Luc Trudel of the Sessions Court. Although it is admissible to make comments about a judicial decision and to disagree with the Official Secrets Act or with the fact that authorities do not use the notion of national security with enough reservation, the Judge himself cannot be blamed for his obligation is to apply such a law. It is up to the citizens to place pressure on the legislators in order to change the law or on the cabinet in order to change its attitude. This Official Secrets Act places the Judge in a real dilemma. Once he has ordered that the trial will be in camera, after the presentation of arguments and representations, since the evidence would constitute a hazard to the security of the state, it is not possible for him, in the name of national security, to publicly justify his decisions and to provide his reasons to the news media. Once the "in camera status" has been ordered, the logic and the law force him to respect it to the limit. In fact, the Appeal Court has followed the same rationale by demanding that the accused refrain from making comments about this matter, for any consideration, while waiting for the final decision of the Appeal Court, as it had been also ordered by a judge of the Superior Court while he was revising the terms of bail during the trial. In the name of the respect of judicial independence, we cannot tolerate the remarks of Mr. Gerald Baldwin, M.P., who was wondering whether the law had not been well understood or had been wrongfully applied by the judges. We respectfully advise him to content himself with doing his own work, that is with the drafting of a better Official Secrets Act, if he feels the present one is unjust and abusive. The Member of Parliament, Mr. Baldwin, should not pose as an Appeal Court to study the conduct of the Judge of this trial, especially since he is totally ignorant of the facts presented as evidence and of the consent of the lawyers, both for the defence and for the prosecution, since the trial as well as the preliminary hearing were held in camera. In any circumstances, public interest and the preservation of individual liberties demand that we strictly adhere to the principle of separation of the three powers, that is the executive, the legislative and the judiciary; each citizen must respect their rights and privileges and especially those who hold a position with great responsibilities as is the case for a Member of Parliament. It seems to us that it would be preferable to leave to the Courts the delicate task of drawing the line between the rights of the individual and the rights of a nation in the application of the law.


TEXT OF STATEMENT PURPORTEDLY MADE BY JUDGE MAYRAND


Le 4 mai dernier, I'ingenieur Alexander Treu etait con-damne a deux ans de penitencier, au terme d'un long proces tenu a huis clos, sous le regime de la loi des secrets officiels. Certains deputes, sous le couvert de leur immunite parle-mentaire, se sont permis de questionner et critiquer la fa9on dont le proces s'est instruit devant le juge Leo Trudel de la Cour des sessions de la paix. S'il est permis de commenter une decision judiciaire et de ne pas etre d'accord avec la loi des secrets officiels ou avec le fait que les autorites recourent trop souvent a la notion de securite nationale, il ne saurait etre question de blamer le juge qui a l'obligation d'appliquer une telle loi. II appartient alors aux citoyens de faire pression sur le legislateur pour qu'il modifie la loi ou sur le cabinet pour qu'il modifie son attitude. Cette loi des secrets officiels place le juge dans une veritable impasse. Une fois qu'il a decrete le huis clos, a la suite d'arguments et de representations, a l'effet que la revelation de la preuve constituerait un danger pour la securite de l'fitat, il ne lui est plus possible, au nom de cette meme securite nationale, de justifier publiquement sa decision et d'en donner les raisons aux media d'information. Une fois le huis clos decrete, la logique et la loi l'obligent a le maintenir jusqu'a la derniere limite. D'ailleurs, la Cour d'appel a suivi cette logique, en exigeant que le prevenu s'abstienne de discuter de cette affaire, sous aucune consideration, en attendant le jugement final de la Cour d'appel, comme l'avait d'ailleurs decrete un juge de la Cour superieure, en revision de ses conditions de cautionnement durant son proces. Au nom du respect de l'independance judiciaire, nous ne pouvons tolerer les remarques du depute Gerald Baldwin, qui s'inquietait de voir la loi mal comprise et mal appliquee par les juges. Nous lui conseillons respectueusement de se contenter de faire son travail, soit l'amelioration de la loi des secrets officiels, si cette loi lui apparait injuste et abusive. Le depute Baldwin n'a pas a s'eriger en Cour d'appel pour etudier la conduite du juge presidant le proces, d'autant plus qu'il est dans la plus complete ignorance des faits mis en preuve et du consentement des avocats, tant de la defense que de la poursuite. A ce que le proces se redoule a huis clos, comme le fut l'enquete preliminaire. En toute circonstance, l'interet public et la sauvegarde des libertes individuelles exigent que soit rigoureusement observe le principe de la separation des trois pouvoirs, soit l'executif, le legislatif et le judiciaire; chaque citoyen devant en respecter leurs droits et privileges et a plus forte raison, ceux qui occupent un poste de responsabilite comme un depute. Il nous apparait souhaitable que demeure reservee a la magistrature la delicate tache de tirer la ligne de demarcation entre les droits d'un individu et les droits d'une nation dans l'application de la loi.



Friday, June 2, 1978


June 1, 1978