1971-02-24

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cole (Minisler wilhoul Portfolio):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with a request made by the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski), I wish to table, in French and in English, the complete text of the offer made by the government last December to the former employees of G. Lapalme Inc.



TABLING OF REPORT ON INTERNATIONAL WHEAT CONFERENCE

Hon. Olio E. Lang (Minisler of Manpower and Immi-gralion):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to lay on the table copies in both official languages of a report on the outcome of the international wheat conference.


Mr. Korchinski:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Today the Minister of Manpower and Immigration, who speaks in this House for the Wheat Board, tabled a statement on events that have transpired, or a statement of policy, and did the same thing on Monday last. It has customarily been the practice in the House when such statements are short that ministers of the Crown deliver them orally, thus providing an opportunity for one spokesman for each of the opposition parties to comment on the particular proposals.
I do not know whether this new practice is going to be followed by the rest of the cabinet ministers, but I want to emphasize that, although the rules provide for the tabling of such statements, common usage has been that this is done only in the case of lengthy documents that cannot be incorporated in Hansard.
On both Monday and today the statements were short, and the minister's action did not provide an opportunity for other hon. members to comment. Furthermore, on
Monday last following the question period the minister raced for the television cameras to set out one side of the particular question involved.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley James Korchinski: It is not always the case that objections are taken to such statements by members of the opposition. In fact, the statement tabled on Monday was one that would have elicited some support. I have just now been handed the statement that the minister tabled today. I have not had an opportunity to study it. I would think that out of common courtesy members of the cabinet in future should have the decency to present statements in the normal fashion.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move a motion under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the announcement within recent days by Massey-Ferguson of projected closedowns of production facilities in Canada with a lay-off of 2,700 workers, and yesterday by Chem-cell Limited of the closedown and sale of chemical production facilities in Cornwall, Ontario, and Two Hills, Alberta, and the shutdown of such facilities in Edmonton with a lay-off of 350 highly skilled workers, I move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale):
That there be referred for examination and report to this House by the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs the question of the impact on Canadian industry and the level of employment therein of:
1.	The continued unpegged state of the Canadian dollar;
2.	The acceleration of the negotiated Kennedy Round tariff adjustments as a tool to fight inflation;
3.	The restrictions on economic activity in Canada resulting from action taken under the monetary and fiscal policy adopted by the government to counter the wave of inflation that has bedevilled the Canadian economy in recent years;
4.	The uncertainty in industry caused by the original proposals contained in the white paper on taxation.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members have heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Edmonton West. Under the terms of Standing Order 43 this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
February 24, 1971

Possible Takeover of Home Oil Company


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. Therefore the motion proposed by the hon. member cannot be put.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask leave of the House under Standing Order 43 to refer the question of the proposed sale of Cygnus Corporation Limited and Home Oil Company Limited to Ashland Oil Company to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
The purpose of the referral is to examine the circumstances surrounding the financial relationship between Mr. Robert A. Brown, Junior, the Bank of Nova Scotia and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, with regard to both the interests of the shareholders of Cygnus Corporation Limited and Home Oil Company Limited, to ensure that Home Oil remains under Canadian ownership and control. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis):
That the proposed sale of Cygnus Corporation Limited and Home Oil Company Limited to Ashland Oil Company be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs for consideration and report.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Waterloo. This motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. The Chair will inquire whether there is unanimity.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimity the motion cannot be put.



TABLING OF REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON DENTAL AUXILIARIES

Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it was obvious from the statements of hon. gentlemen opposite the other day that they thought that I was going to table a document relating to the ad hoc committee on dental auxiliaries. I had sent the House Leaders copies of the report prior to my statement. I should like to table the document now. I wish to table the report of the ad hoc committee on dental auxiliaries

in both official languages. This is the report to which I referred on Monday last.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

[Stage Direction]
(Question answered orally are indicated by asterisk.)

Mr. Godin: 1. Since January 1969, has the government called for tenders for heating system improvement and air conditioning installation contracts in Canadian post offices and, if so, in each province, how many post offices henefitted from these programs and what was the cost?
2. Are similar improvements how many?	projected	for 1971 and, if so.
[Translation]


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes. The number of post offices that benefited from such		
installations since January province are as follows:	1969 and	the costs in each
	Number of	
Province	Post Offices Cost	
Newfoundland	Nil	$ -Nova Scotia	12	29,729Prince Edward Island	Nil	-New Brunswick	2	3,500Quebec	131	2,584,239Ontario	58	397,962Manitoba	9	20,265Saskatchewan	2	600,333Alberta	4	6,243British Columbia	1	2,800Yukon Territory	Nil	-Northwest Territories	Nil	-
2. Yes, 216.


AIRPORT AND FACILITY STATISTICS
Mr. Nielsen: 1.	What is the percentage increase from 1965 to 1968 of the number of (a) aircraft registered in Canada (b) hours being flown by aircraft in Canada (c) passengers being carried (d) landings and take-offs utilizing DOT controlled airports in Canada (e) IFR flights being conducted in Canada (f) pilots in Canada?
2.	What is the percentage increase from 1965 to 1968 of the amount spent by the government for improvements on (a) airports (b) navigational aids and facilities at DOT controlled airports?


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. The percentage increase from 1965
February 24, 1971

to 1968 is: (a) +32.23%; (b) +19.05%; (c) Canadian airlines only +40.15%; Canadian and Foreign Airlines +49.98%; (d) +50.59%; Ce) +62.57%; (f) +46.08%.
2.	The percentage increase from 1965 to 1968 is (a) +34.9%; (b) The following represents the actual capital expenditures on radio aids and associated facilities throughout the fiscal years 1962-63 to 1968-69: 1962-63, $8,168,774; 1963-64, $8,621,000; 1964-65, $14,913,512; 196566, $14,980,732; 1966-67, $12,548,282; 1967-68, $12,600,000; 1968-69, $15,512,000. While there was an over-all increase from 1965 to 1968, there was no percentage increase.


VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT-RESUMPTION OF TRAINING FLIGHTS
Mr. Goode: Has CP Air resumed Sunday training flights at Vancouver International Airport and, if so. is this in contravention of Department of Transport regulations?


Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, CP Air conducts training flights on a continuous basis any day of the week between the hours of 07:00 and 22:00 subject to their training program requirements. They are now conducting an accelerated training program which should continue to April 1971.
The training flights are not in contravention of the Department of Transport regulations.


POLLUTION-ACTION TAKEN BY STATE OF OHIO AGAINST DOW CHEMICALS OF CANADA
Mr. Caouette: 1.	Have the Minister of Justice or the Secretary of State for External Affairs received representations concerning the legal action taken in the Supreme Court of the United States by the State of Ohio against Dow Chemicals of Canada which is being accused of polluting Lake Erie?
2.	Is it known whether the Joint International Water Board is aware of this situation and, if so, what was its reaction?


Mr. J. A. Jerome (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: I am informed by the Department of Justice and by the Department of External Affairs as follows: 1. The Department of Justice has been consulted by the Department of External Affairs regarding the action taken in the Supreme Court of the United States by the State of Ohio against Dow Chemicals of Canada, but the Minister of Justice has not received outside representations regarding this action. On December 9, 1970 the Department of External Affairs received a formal inquiry from Mr. V. K. McEwan, Legal Counsel for Dow Chemical of Canada Limited, in the lawsuit before the United States Supreme Court, seeking information regarding what position and steps, if any, the Canadian Government proposed to take in this matter. On
Questions
December 21, Mr. McEwan was advised by letter that the Government of Canada considers the lawsuit instigated by the State of Ohio to be a United States domestic matter. There is, therefore, no basis on which the Government of Canada can or should intervene in any way, be it by representations before the United States Supreme Court or by representations to the Government of the United States. The Government of Canada is, however, very concerned about pollution of the Great Lakes generally, and is working closely with the Government of the United States and the Government of Ontario towards finding solutions to these problems. The Federal Government remains interested in the developments in this case in the context of the general pollution problem and is following them closely.
2. The International Joint Commission is aware of the court case, but since this matter is before the Court it has expressed no restriction in relation to this lawsuit.


SKAGIT VALLEY
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 695-Mrs. Maclnnis: Supplementary answer
How many letters, telegrams, briefs, representations or other communications have been received concerning the Skagit Valley in the period from June 30 to December 31, 1970?
James Alexander Jerome: I am informed as follows: Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, 3,786; Department of External Affairs, 36; Department of Fisheries and Forestry, 357.


AUDITING OF PUBLIC AGENCIES
Mr. Fortin: 1 During the past five years, what was the annual cost of auditing the following public agencies (a) CNR and Air Canada (b) Bank of Canada (c) Industrial Development Bank (d) CMHC (e) Canadian Wheat Board?
2. Are there any plans to appoint the Auditor General as co-auditor for these agencies and, if not, for what reason?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of Transport, the Department of Finance, the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, the Canadian Wheat Board and the Treasury Board as follows: 1. (a) Pursuant to Order in Council P.C. 1967-563 the firm of Touche, Ross, Bailey and Smart, appointed independent auditors by Section 13 of the CNR Financing and Guarantee Act, 1965-66, was paid $137,500 plus certain disbursements for each of the years 1966 and 1967, apportioned $115,000 CNR and $22,500 Air Canada. Pursuant to Order in Council P.C. 1969-141 the same firm, appointed independent auditors by Section 13 of the CNR F. & G. Act 1967 and Section 15 of the CNR F. & G. Act 1968, was paid $152,000, plus certain disbursements, for each of the years 1968 and 1969, apportioned $125,000 railway and $27,000 airlines. Pursuant to the CNR F. & G.

February 24, 1971
Questions
Act 1969 the firm of Touche, Ross and Co. was appointed independent auditor for the year 1970. The amount to be paid that firm is under discussion.
(b)	Bank of Canada
Fees and Expenses
1966	$	83,0001967	$	83,0001968	$	85,0001969	$104,000	1970	$105,000	(c)	Industrial Development Bank


WABUSH AIRPORT
Mr. Peddle: 1.	When wUl the new ILS equipment be installed at Wabush Airport?
2.	What are the plans for construction of a new air terminal at Wabush to replace the present facilities?


Gérard Duquet: 1. It is planned to instal new ILS equipment at Wabush Airport late in the 1971/72 fiscal year, subject to the availability of funds.
2. The Ministry of Transport has no plans for construction of a new air terminal at Wabush Airport.


POST OFFICE CLOSURES
[Stage Direction]
1967
1969
Fees and Expenses
[Stage Direction]
(d)	The costs of auditing the accounts of CMHC during the past five years are given in the table following:
Payments for the Year
1966
1968
Total
[Stage Direction]
(e)	For the crop years 1964-65 to 1968-69, inclusive, the annual costs of auditing the accounts of the Canadian Wheat Board were as follows: 1964/65, $47,200; 1965/66, $48,500; 1966/67, $50,000; 1967/68, $50,700; 1968/69, $50,-
000.	The accounts for the 1969/70 crop year have not yet been audited.
2. No. On November 29, 1966, the Minister of Finance wrote a letter to the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee in which he stated that he had considered, with his colleagues chiefly concerned, the position with respect to those Crown Corporations that are not audited by the Auditor General and had concluded that the decision, taken after careful deliberation of all the factors involved, that these bodies should be audited by public accountants and not by the Auditor General is the correct one and should not be changed. Please refer to Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Public Accounts Committee dated February 2, 1967, page 1397, Appendix 22 (b) for the full text of this letter. As indicated in the Auditor General of Canada Bill introduced and subsequently withdrawn, it was not proposed to alter the current legislative provision for audit of Crown corporations, as found in subsection 2 of section 77 of the Financial Administration Act.
Mr. Southam: 1.	(a) What was the total number of post offices and subpost offices closed In Canada in 1970 (b) by province, what were the numbers closed in each case?
2.	What was the total number of postmasters placed among the ranks of the unemployed due to such closings?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: 1. (a) and (b)	Revenue	Sub
	Post Offices	Post Offices
British Columbia	42	2Alberta	70	6Saskatchewan	155	5Manitoba	80	10Ontario	175	23Quebec	131	26New Brunswick	110	2Nova Scotia	149	2Prince Edward Island	2	1Newfoundland	126	-Total	1,040	77
2. Statistics or records are not maintained on postmasters that would be unemployed as a result of closing their office.


UNITED STATES DRAFT DODGERS AND DESERTERS
Mr. Robinson: 1.	How many American draft dodgers and/or deserters have come to Canada?
2.	How many of them have been charged with offences under the Criminal Code and/or other statutes?
3.	How many convictions have been lodged?
4 Have any of those convicted been deported or is it the intention of the government to have any of them deported?


James Alexander Jerome: I am informed by the Department of Manpower and Immigration and the Department of

February 24, 1971

Justice as follows: 1. Because an individual's military or draft status has no bearing whatsoever in any matters under the Immigration Act or Regulations information on this subject is neither requested nor recorded in any way during immigration proceedings. Consequently the Department of Manpower and Immigration cannot compile any statistical breakdowns in this respect.
2. and 3. The Department of Justice does not maintain statistics that disclose whether or not a person charged or convicted in Canada is a draft dodger or deserter.
4. See 1.


REPAIRS TO WHARF AT BERTHIER, BELLECHASSE CONSTITUENCY, 1971
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): Did the government have repairs made to the Berthier wharf in the constituency of Bellechasse in 1971 and, if so (a) what was the nature of the work (b) what was the amount involved (c) by whom were the repairs made?


Arthur Laing: No repairs have been made to the Berthier wharf to date in 1971.


POST OFFICE-ASSURED MAIL PROMOTION
Mr. Howe: 1.	Was an advertising agency given a contract by the Post Office Department for the promotion that introduced the program "Assured Mail"?
2.	Were tenders called for this promotion and, if so, what agencies entered this competition and what were the amounts of each tender?
3.	What was the total cost of this program?
4.	Did weekly newspapers have an opportunity to participate in this campaign and, if not, for what reason?


John Cole: 1.	No.
2.	No.
3.	$43,577.66.
4.	No, with the exception of one Toronto Italian weekly. The Assured Mail launch concerned mail originating from Toronto City only.


REPAIRS TO WHARF AT BERTHIER-EN-BAS, 1970
Mr. Lambert (Bellechasse): How much money was spent during 1970 for repairs to the wharf at Berthier-en-Bas?


Arthur Laing: A total of $17,130.80 was spent during 1970 for repairs to the wharf at Berthier-en-Bas.


DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE-DESIGNATION OF SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES
Mr. Robinson: What percentage of the supplementary estimates of the Department of Justice is designated for (a) winter works (b)
Order for Return
to reduce unemployment (c) underestimating expenditures (d) combatting inflationary costs (e) new programs (f) hiring of additional employees?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: The Department of Justice does not have supplementary estimates.


INFORMATION CANADA-EMPLOYMENT OF MR. D. HANSON
Mr. Hales: 1.	Has Mr. D. Hanson ever been a special consultant for Information Canada and, if so (a) when was he hired and what were the duties he was to perform (b) if he is no longer employed by Information Canada (i) when did his employment terminate (ii) what were the grounds for termination (iii) was the termination a resignation or dismissal (iv) had Mr. Hanson completed the duties for which he was hired?
2.	Has a legal suit been launched against Information Canada by Mr. Hanson and, if so (a) what are the grounds for the suit (b) what damages have been asked?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: 1. Yes. (a) He was hired on September 17, 1970, to assist in the continued planning and implementation of Information Canada priorities, (b) (i) December 31, 1970; (ii) It was the end of the contract period; (iii) Neither, September 17 to December 31 was the term of the contract; (iv) Mr. Hanson was not hired to complete a specific task but for general staff assistance.
2. Not to the knowledge of Information Canada.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Forresiall: 1.	In the period July 25, 1969 to September 30, 1970, how many women were appointed to a position or otherwise employed, other than under the provisions of sections 8 and 9 of the Public Service Employment Act, by the government under conditions or remuneration equitable to a salary of $10,000 or more per year?
2.	What are their names?
3.	By whom were they employed and what was the rank of their position?
4.	How many men were appointed or otherwise employed under the same period of time?
Return tabled.


Mr. Coates:: Mr. Speaker, I do not like to have to rise every second week regarding starred question No. 12. There is not much sense in my repeating again what I have said previously about this question. But I must say that if questions placed on the order paper are not going to be answered, the procedure will become nothing more than a farce. As I pointed out previously, this question was on the order paper in the previous session and was placed on the order paper again early in the present session. If questions are not to be answered we, in effect, will be deprived of information that we and the taxpayers of the nation have a right to receive. I do not know what more to say except to bring to the attention of the House once again the fact that this question has not yet been answered, notwithstanding the many statements by the parliamentary secretary.
February 24, 1971

Motions for Papers


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I assure the hon. member that I will look at this question particularly and communicate with him personally on the subject.


Mr. Dinsdale:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the parliamentary secretary would also look at starred question No. 730 which has been standing on the order paper for over a month.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I will do so.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, I rise again to ask when I can expect an answer to question No. 79 which was also on the order paper in the previous session and has been outstanding for about a year. I wish to tell the parliamentary secretary that if I cannot get an answer considerable time will be taken up with the estimates on the appropriate occasion.


James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, I have received one report on the progress of the answer to the hon. member's question. I am not able to report on it today, but I have a report on my desk on the progress of that answer. We hope to be able to reply soon.


Mr. McCuicheon:: Mr. Speaker, I cannot begin to approach the record of the hon. member for Winnipeg North, but I have had a question on the order paper since November 12. It is simple and straightforward. I hope that the parliamentary secretary will try to expedite the answer.


Mr. Marshall:: Mr. Speaker, since complaints are being made, may I say that question No. 540 has been on the order paper for over a year. It was also on the order paper in the previous session, and it would be nice to obtain an answer.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, Notices of Motions Nos. 181, 185 and 186 are acceptable to the government.


CBC PROGRAM &quot;WHITE PAPER&quot;
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 181-Mr. Diefenbaker:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the complete and unexpurgated program which was broadcast by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation on January 7, 1971, entitled "White Paper".
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 185-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all instructions and terms of reference given to or developed by the Advisory Committee established with respect to the Operation Lift program in 1970.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 186-Mr. Burton:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of an agreement between the Government of Canada and the Government of Saskatchewan for the establishment and operation of an Indian-Metis training centre at Cutbank, Saskatchewan.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, Notices of Motions Nos. 145 and 184 are acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Subject to the reservations or conditions expressed by the Parliamentary Secretary, is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motions?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


STUDIES REGARDING CONSTRUCTION OF FEDERAL BUILDING IN VICTORIAVILLE
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 145-Mr. Fortin:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, telegrams between or studies by the Department of Public Works, the Post Office Department, the Municipal Council of Victoriaville, the Chamber of Commerce of Victoriaville, or any citizen of the constituency of Lotbiniere regarding the construction of a federal building in Victoriaville, the acquisition of land for same and the expropriation for the period January 1, 1955 to October 30, 1970.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 184-Mr. Baldwin:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of the letter sent to the Province of Alberta inviting that Province to participate in a task force to investigate the effect of the Bennett Dam in British Columbia on the ecology of the Peace-Athabasca delta and Slave River systems.
Motion agreed to.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call Notices of Motions Nos. 84, 90, 91, 170, 173, 177, 178 and 191.


CONSULTANT REPORT RELATING TO WATER RESOURCES AND WATER POLLUTION
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 84-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Gaston G. Chamaillard, undertaken for the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, regarding a Canada-

February 24, 1971
[Stage Direction]
wide survey of public information, educational activities relating to water resources and water pollution, as mentioned in answer to Question Number 1,323 of the past Session.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources advises that this report was prepared for internal working purposes. It contains information obtained on a confidential basis and must, therefore, be treated as privileged. In the circumstances, I respectfully ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Skoberg:: Mr. .Speaker, any information dealing with water resources should be public and should be made available to the House.


Mr. MacEachen:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


CONSULTANT REPORT REGARDING QUANTITATIVE ASSESSMENT OF POLICY AND PLANNING BRANCH
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 90-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by Operation Research Industries Limited undertaken for the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding a quantitative assessment of the Policy and Planning Branch as mentioned in answer to Question Number 2,452 of the past Session.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources advises that the report is an internal working document which was prepared to assist unit management in determining what organizational changes might be required to increase efficiency of operations and its release is not considered to be in the public interest. Under these circumstances, it is requested that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


John Leroy Skoberg: I call for the question, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


CONSULTANT REPORT REGARDING REVIEW OF WATER SURVEY OF CANADA DIVISION
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 91-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the consultant report by James F. MacLaren Limited undertaken for the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources regarding a review of the Water Survey of Canada Division as mentioned in answer to Question Number 2,452 of the past Session.
James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources advises that this study, which was not completed beyond the preliminary stage, was prepared for internal working purposes only and its
Motions jor Papers
release is not considered in the public interest. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Leroy Skoberg: I agree, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion is dropped.
Order discharged and motion withdrawn.


CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING PROPOSED SALE OF LAND AT REGINA AIRPORT
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 170-Mr. Burton:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House a copy of all correspondence and other documents concerning the proposed sale of land owned by the City of Regina at the Regina Airport to the Department of Transport.
Gérard Duquet: The minister met with members of the Regina City Council on February 13, 1971, and discussions continue. It is not considered in the best public interest, or in the interest of the Ministry of Transport, to release documents or correspondence concerning the negotiations for the purchase of the lands in question. In view of this, the hon. member may be willing to withdraw his motion.


Mr. Burton:: Mr. Speaker, there have been many questions in the House on this matter, some of which have been answered by the minister. There have also been many press reports. I see no reason why this information cannot be supplied and I call for the question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the House wish the Chair to put the question?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Some hon. Members:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: I hear vague noises suggesting that perhaps there is a request that the motion should be transferred for debate. I suggest that if this is the request of the government, it should be made clear to the Chair. I do not think the Chair should be expected to act on vague suggestions.


Mr. Gray:: Mr. Speaker, to expedite matters I make such a request.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not want to be difficult, but I suggest that if members of the government wish a motion transferred for debate this should be clearly stated. With the noise it is sometimes very difficult for the Chair to find out what is suggested either by the opposition or the government in relation to such motions. Transferred for debate.

February 24, 1971
Motions for Papers


CORRESPONDENCE RELATING TO CONSOLIDATION OF RESERVATION OFFICES OF AIR CANADA
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 173-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all papers including the Feasibility Study commissioned by Air Canada in respect to the consolidation of reservation offices of Air Canada in Canada, including estimates as to the savings to be made by the Company, the reduction in staff complement, etc.
Gérard Duquet: Mr. Speaker, the information in question relates directly to the internal operation of the company and is thus considered privileged. In these circumstances the hon. member may be willing to withdraw his motion.


David Orlikow: In my opinion the information relates much more directly to the service the customers get and to what happens to the employees. I therefore think we ought to have this information. I should like the question to be put.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It arises out of the observation Your Honour made a few moments ago that a representative of the ministry should stand up and ask that a motion be transferred for debate or that it be disposed of in some other way as permitted by the rules. I would suggest that the same rule should apply in the case of Standing Order 43 and that whoever opposes a motion made under that Standing Order should stand up and so indicate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will recognize that my suggestion was not that a member of the government should rise. I just wanted to make sure that I would hear the request of the government. This is the only requirement I am suggesting under the terms of this Standing Order.


CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN PRESIDENT OF CNR AND MINISTER OF TRANSPORT CONCERNING CNR PENSION PLAN
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 177-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the correspondence, dated September 17, 1970, between the President of the CNR and the Minister of Transport outlining the company's position on the recommendation of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications concerning the CNR Pension Plan.
Gérard Duquet: The policy concerning communications relating to the internal affairs of Canadian National Railways, as upheld by Parliament, is that such material is confidential. In these circumstances the hon. member may be willing to withdraw his motion.


John Leroy Skoberg: I believe the Canadian National pension fund should not be that confidential and that the correspondence should be made available. I call for the question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN MINISTER OF TRANSPORT AND CNR CONCERNING CNR PENSION PLAN
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 178-Mr. Skoberg:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence between the Minister of Transport and the CNR pertaining to recommendations of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications concerning the CNR Pension Plan.
Gérard Duquet: The policy concerning communications relating to the internal affairs of Canadian National Railways, as upheld by Parliament, is that such material is confidential. In these circumstances the hon. member may be willing to withdraw his motion.


John Leroy Skoberg: The same comment applies.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


COPY OF TREASURY BOARD MINUTE NO. 697478
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 191-Mr. Burton:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of Treasury Board Minute No. 697478 dated May 28, 1970.
Mr. Alastair Gillespie (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: As the Treasury Board is a committee of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada, it is not the practice to make public the minutes of the meetings of the board, and in these circumstances I would ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


John Stratford Burton: Since there are other references to this Treasury Board minute in public documents I would ask that this motion be put.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


James Alexander Jerome: I ask that the remaining notices of motion be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Stratford Burton: With respect to Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers, could the parliamentary secretary look into motion No. 168 which has been on the order paper in my name since December 14? Would he ensure that this motion is brought forward soon, especially since the estimates will be coming before committees shortly?


James Alexander Jerome: I will look into it, Mr. Speaker.



February 24, 1971



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance with regard to the announcement that the bank rate has been reduced from five and three-quarters per cent to five and one-quarter per cent following a reduction of one-quarter of one per cent ten days ago, I believe. Can the hon. gentleman tell us the reason this further reduction in the bank rate was considered to be appropriate today rather than ten days ago? What has happened to bring this further reduction about?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: Of course, this is the result of a decision by the governor of the Bank of Canada. But it is an indication by the governor of the bank and by the government that they think that shortterm interest rates should be lower.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Again I point out that this further reduction comes only ten days after the previous reduction. Does this indicate a growing concern on the part of the Bank of Canada with regard to the rate of growth of the economy, or does it mean that the Bank of Canada has concluded that short-term interest rates in Canada have been inappropriately high and have been causing upward pressure on the Canadian dollar?


Edgar John Benson: I think it is a clear indication that the Bank of Canada believes that short-term interest rates are too high at the present time.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In view of the difficulties the floating dollar has been causing, as a result of which an increasing number of plants are closing down, does the minister propose to take any additional measures at least to slow down the rate at which plants are going out of business, which seems to be accelerating?


Edgar John Benson: We have moved very rapidly in the past year in reducing the bank rate and short-term interest rates in Canada. What is indicated by the Bank of Canada by this further reduction is that short-term rates have not moved in the near past as fast as the bank thought they should move.


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasiings):: In the
answer he gave a few moments ago the Minister of Finance said clearly, "we have reduced the interest rate". He has studiously stated on other occasions that there is no connection between the decisions of the bank and the government. Which is it? Does the bank take orders from the government or not?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, unlike the days when the previous government was in power and they had almost to force the governor of the Bank of Canada to leave the bank, which caused a great scandal in Canada-


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


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edgar John Benson: -the government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


George Harris Hees: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings has a supplementary question.


George Harris Hees: The Minister of Finance did not, of course, answer my question in any way. I now ask him, does the Bank of Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: -take its orders from this government?


Edgar John Benson: I suggest to my hon. friend that he read the Bank of Canada Act which gives the ultimate responsibility to the Minister of Finance. We accept our responsibilities, unlike the previous government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Harris Hees: Then why do you always claim there is no connection with the Bank of Canada? Be honest.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the minister and the hon. member have fought to a draw.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege-


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


Edgar John Benson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member opposite has accused me of uttering an untruth. I do not think this is permitted in the House. If my hon. friend would look at the Bank of Canada Act, he would find that the ultimate responsibility resides with the Minister of Finance, and I have never said anything else. Unlike the situation under the previous government, I talk to the governor of the bank and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In fairness to other hon. members I think I should point out to the minister and the hon. member that they have taken quite a bit of time. We have only 40 minutes and I think this debate might be continued at some other time.



REDUCTION IN BANK OF CANADA INTEREST RATE-ACTION TO REDUCE LEVEL OF SECONDARY RESERVES REQUIRED OF BANKS

Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement by the governor of the Bank of Canada that the objective of this interest reduction is economic stimulation, will the minister tell us whether he will now take action, along with the Governor, to reduce the rate of secondary reserves imposed on the banks as an anti-inflationary measure during the past several months?

February 24, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this was not imposed as an anti-inflationary measure; it was imposed at a time when there was great pressure on the Canadian dollar. As with all other questions raised by the hon. member I shall take up the matter with the governor ol the bank.



REDUCTION IN BANK OF CANADA INTEREST RATE

Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. As a result of the confusion I did not quite understand the minister's original answer. Did he state that the decision to reduce the bank rate was that of the governor of the bank?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, it was the decision of the governor of the bank. If the government disagrees with it, the ultimate responsibility under the Bank of Canada Act, which I am sure my hon. friend has read, lies with the Minister of Finance.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Has the Minister of Finance any explanation to offer the House as to why the additional reduction of one-half of one per cent was made within ten days of the previous reduction?


Edgar John Benson: We react to situations as they occur, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Baldwin:: Then why don't you do something about unemployment?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowi-chan-The Islands.


Donald MacInnis: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will recognize the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands and the hon. member for Lotbiniere in a moment, but I believe the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond has a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My point of order arises from the statement made by the Minister of Finance. He originally said, and confirmed it in answering a supplementary, that the decision to reduce the bank rate was that of the governor of the bank. Then the minister went on to say, in the course of his interjections and others, that the government had taken these actions during the last year. So he has definitely confused the issue and misled the House in respect of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edgar John Benson: A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will recognize the minister on a question of privilege, but obviously we are not making very constructive progress. I would suggest to the minister and to the hon. member who has raised the point of order that this is strictly a matter of debate between the

minister, the hon. member and others. I would think we would be well advised to attempt to clarify a second problem, and I will give the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands the opportunity to take the floor.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member stated that I misled the House, which is just not the case.


Donald MacInnis: That is not so. I never used that phrase at all.


Some hon. Members:: Yes, you did.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.


Donald MacInnis: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Again I apologize to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands; I understand the hon. member wishes to raise a further point of order.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, it is more a point of personal privilege. The minister said that I made a certain statement which I did not make. Now he is misleading the House.


George Harris Hees: Apologize.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, who I might point out has been absent two days in a row when he was supposed to be on the roster, may I ask the Prime Minister whether he can give the House any information as to what success the government has had in ensuring that effective control of the Home Oil Company of Calgary will be retained in Canadian hands? Has the government anything to report on the negotiations, and can the Prime Minister give the House any assurance that they have succeeded in doing what the minister said, namely, keeping this company within effective Canadian control and ownership.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Thus far, Mr. Speaker, our success has been complete. I cannot speak for the future, of course, not being able to read into the future.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister whether any Canadian companies have indicated their willingness to acquire the Home Oil Company of Calgary rather than having it go to the Ashland Oil Company of Kentucky, and has the government indicated its willingness to help
February 24, 1971

them acquire the necessary financial resources to do so, either through the Industrial Development Bank or by some other appropriate measure?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the most that I could appropriately say at this time is that there has been an indication of interest by Canadian companies along those lines.



FOREIGN OWNERSHIP OF CANADIAN COMPANIES-INQUIRY AS TO REPORT AND LEGISLATION

Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the increasing number of takeovers and the fact that returns filed under the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act indicate there is an acceleration in takeovers with the result that, according to the last report, over $50 billion of assets in this country are now owned by foreign corporations, is the Prime Minister doing anything to speed up the report on foreign ownership which the Minister of National Revenue is preparing for the government and does the government anticipate introducing legislation to deal with this matter at the present session?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think I can be encouraging to the leader of the New Democratic Party. I think the period in which they have been divided against the government's policy will soon be replaced by a period in which they will be united against government policy.



ACQUISITION OF BANFF OIL BY AQUITAINE

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether the government intends to take any action to prevent Banff Oil Limited being taken over by Aquitaine Oil, a wholly owned French company, as of tomorrow?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not
aware of that transaction, Mr. Speaker.



PROJECTED TAKEOVER OF HOME OIL BY UNITED STATES


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Finance. In view of the disturbing financing surrounding the proposed sale of Home Oil Company, would he ask the House to refer the circumstances surrounding this sale to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs?


Edgar John Benson: I do not think I would like to refer individual business transactions to any such committee. Business transactions are carried on by businessmen.


Max Saltsman: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance is reluctant to refer this matter to the committee, would he examine the role being played by the chartered banks in this particular deal and in general the role being played by them in the takeovers of Canadian companies?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I should involve myself in looking into transactions between banks and individual business corporations in this country. Otherwise some transaction could be brought up in the House every day and 1 might be even looking at their loans to the hon. member.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Waterloo on a last supplementary and then the hon. member for Temiscamingue.


Max Saltsman: Since the government has outlined guidelines of proper behaviour for the banks in terms of ownership and the national interest, would the Prime Minister look into the situation to assure himself that these guidelines are being followed?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, the guidelines were not indicated by the government but by Parliament through the passage of the Bank Act.



UNEMPLOYMENT-PARTICIPATION OF PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENTS IN PREPARATION OF POLICIES

Mr. Real Caouetie (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister concerning solutions to the problem of unemployment.
Does the Canadian government intend to invite provincial governments to participate in the redefining of fiscal, tariff and monetary policies, as was suggested yesterday by the premier of Quebec at the opening of the Quebec National Assembly?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there is always considerable consultation with the provinces concerning programs or policies involving them. I do not know whether Premier Bourassa has a specific proposal to submit in the constitutional field, but speaking merely of discussions, I can assure the hon. member that they are frequent.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. Does the Prime Minister intend to enter into discussions with the province of Quebec regarding the monetary, fiscal and tariff policies of the government of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I just replied to the leader of the Ralliement Creditiste, we do at periodic meetings of the Ministers of Finance, other meetings at the official level and, indeed, even at the Prime Ministerial meetings, discuss our general economic policies with the provinces', but I am not aware that there has been any suggestion that the federal jurisdiction over money and fiscal matters be shared in a constitutional sense with the provinces. I might add that we are and have been in the past two budgets at least trying to have fiscal and monetary policies which have regional application and regional impact.

February 24, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister tell us whether during the past few hours he has been in touch with the premier of Quebec concerning the latter's policy with respect to the language rights of the English-speaking minority in Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I contacted the premier of Quebec. We discussed several matters but I am afraid we dealt very little with this aspect of the problem. I do not want to say that we did not touch upon this topic but there certainly has not been any lengthy discussion.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Charlevoix wish to put a supplementary question?


Martial Asselin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Does the Prime Minister of Canada agree with the Quebec premier concerning the language rights of the English minority in Quebec?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I remember that we did speak about this matter, a couple of minutes maybe. I cannot answer the hon. member's question, because it is not specific enough. We briefly referred to the discussion held at the federal-provincial conference a few weeks ago. There has been no change to what was agreed on some time ago.



NATIONAL SECURITY


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: May I put a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?
Referring to a question that I put yesterday to the Prime Minister, as well as to his answer to the effect that he would have to discuss this with the premier of Quebec, and considering the statement that he has just made, namely, that this consultation has taken place concerning many subjects, may I ask him whether there was any talk of who will foot the bill for costs incurred while the armed forces were in Quebec, and whether he agrees with Mr. Bourassa's statement?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we did refer briefly to that subject. I have read Mr. Bourassa's statement, which he made, I think, a day or two ago, and we have agreed, once more, that this matter was not one of urgent priority, that we would leave it on the agenda of a future meeting, that we would try to get into an agreement which would be practical at the administrative level and fair to the province, and, also,-which is important-within the framework of the duties that are ours under the National Defence Act.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the statement by the Premier of Quebec yesterday at the opening of the National Assembly that Ottawa will be much to blame for Quebec's escalating unemployment if the provinces are not permitted to participate in redefining Canada's economic policies, is the government planning to hold a conference in the near future with the provinces to begin redefining this government's economic policies?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we have very frequent meetings with the Ministers of Finance and treasurers of the provinces. As a matter of fact we have agreed to have four meetings a year, unlike the days when my hon. friend was in the government and they never looked at them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


George Harris Hees: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker, but I will wait until the rabble quiets down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


George Harris Hees: Are we to take it then that it is the opinion of the government that in making such a serious statement yesterday the Premier of Quebec was in fact just talking through his hat?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's supplementary is argumentative. I think at this point I should put hon. members on notice that about half the question period has gone by and I am afraid many hon. members will be disappointed if we do not move a little faster.



IMPLEMENTATION OF NATIONAL DENTAL CARE PROGRAM FOR CHILDREN-TRAINING OF DENTAL AUXILIARIES

Mr. Sianley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It is based on the Dalton Wells report on dental auxiliaries which he tabled today and to which he referred on Monday. Even if the government is not yet prepared to implement a dental care program for the entire population, may I ask if the government will soon implement the recommendation that there be a national dental program for children in Canada?


John Carr Munro: As I indicated on Monday, we are very much
[Mr. Trudeau.)
February 24, 1971

involved now in discussions with the provinces as to cost-sharing arrangements under both our cost-sharing health programs, medicare and hospitalization, which were discussed at the recent health ministers conference. The over-all objective is to permit us to meet in a financial way the priorities as the provinces see them in the health field and still protect portability and national standards.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Can the minister say what attention the government is giving to the recommendation that there be facilities for the training of dental auxiliaries to assist in coping with the problem of providing adequate dental care?


John Carr Munro: Yes, Mr. Speaker. As a matter of policy we are very much in favour of this development which will have a considerable impact in terms of reducing costs. There is considerable sympathy for this type of development within the provinces, and we will be meeting to discuss how best it can be accomplished.



WHEAT-RECOMMENDATION RESPECTING PLANTING

Mr. Jack Murla (Lisgar):: I direct my question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Since the Soviet Union is emerging as a major exporter of wheat, is the government still advocating the planting of an estimated 20 million acres of wheat in western Canada?


Otto Emil Lang: The 20 million acres to which the hon. member refers is presumably the figure in the document which was tabled in the House in late October. It was indicated at that time that, with this quantity of wheat, only a small decrease would likely occur in the inventory of wheat in Canada, that we would really have enough or more than enough, so that fewer acres than that would certainly do no harm and other crops such as barley could be planted. The fact of the Soviet Union being in the wheat business in a big way is really not anything new.


Jack Burnett Murta: With a good portion of the acreage that was planted to wheat going into summerfallow, is there not a concern on the part of the government that with above average yields we might overproduce for our expected markets and end up with another large surplus?



WHEAT-BASIS OF INITIAL PRICE TO FARMERS

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskaloon-Biggar):: My question is for the minister in charge of the Wheat Board. As the new international wheat agreement to which he referred today in his tabled statement contains no pricing provisions, can he assure the House that the initial price for wheat to the farmer will continue to be based on the levels in the present International Grains Arrangement in the coming crop year?
Inquiries oj the Ministry


Otto Emil Lang: Any indication about initial prices will be made shortly. The International Grains Arrangement prices have not been effective matters in relation to pricing for some time. Of course the new agreement does contain provisions both for discussion among the participants in case of fluctuations of price in order to maintain stability and also a kind of watching brief in order to start discussions on price whenever that seems appropriate.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Since the minister has just informed the House that the new agreement provides for examination of the price structure while at the same time no minimum price is set out, can he tell the House whether there is any provision for the enforcement of any kind of price structure under the new agreement? Are there any bench marks in the agreement about which farmers can feel confident?


Otto Emil Lang: There are no pricing provisions setting down firm prices in the agreement which has been signed. The agreement indicates a procedure for co-operation with regard to pricing, and indicates that the question of when to negotiate more firm price provisions will be kept under observation.



CITIZENSHIP


Mr. Robert Borrie (Prince George-Peace River):: My
question is directed to the minister responsible for citizenship. Could the minister advise the House of the results of his inquiry into the actions and some of the statements of Mr. Bandy who is employed by the citizenship branch in Vancouver?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Inquiries are being made of the people with whom Mr. Bandy has been working in gathering information on behalf of the Citizenship Branch. There are no results of that inquiry yet which would lead me to suggest that any action is warranted at this time.


Mr. Paul St. Pierre (Coast-Chilcotin):: In view of the statement that Mr. Bandy made publicly that if the government had considered the suffering of the unemployed and poor in Quebec in 1969 there would have been no FLQ in 1970, was he authorized as he indicated in the radio broadcast, to speak as a representative of the federal government?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Of course not.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
February 24, 1971

Inquiries of the Ministry FINANCE



ACTION TO REDUCE TREASURY BILL RATE

Mr. Gordon Riichie (Dauphin):: I have a question for the Minister of Finance. In view of the fact that the treasury bill rate is 1.2 per cent above the United States rate, what steps does the government plan to take to reduce this spread and thus lessen the upward pressure on the Canadian dollar?


Edgar John Benson: As was
indicated yesterday, and the opposition seemed to disagree, there was a lowering of the bank rate.



FISHERIES


Jack Marshall: My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Would the minister advise whether he has been made aware of the existence of foreign draggers off southwestern Newfoundland which are destroying fishing gear and, if so, what action is he taking to correct the situation?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: am not aware of this. I will look into it immediately.


Jack Marshall: I would advise the minister that there are some 60 foreign draggers off the coast destroying thousands of dollars worth of fishing gear. Would the minister take the necessary action to implement proper surveillance, as he did last year in western Canada, and could this be done immediately so that we will not have a recurrence of what has happened in the past?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: My question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In light of the withdrawal of Nigeria and the likely withdrawal of other Commonwealth countries from the commission set up at Singapore to inquire into naval defence in the Indian Ocean arising out of the sale of helicopters by Britain to South Africa, does the Canadian government also propose to withdraw from the commission?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government does not intend to withdraw from the commission. As I said yesterday, we regret very much the decision of the British government to sell arms to South Africa. We also regret that the Nigerian government and others may consider it necessary to withdraw from this committee. After

all, this will be an opportunity to discuss the very situation to which they and we object, and we think there can be a useful role for the committee.


SALE OF HELICOPTERS BY BRITAIN TO SOUTH AFRICA- INQUIRY AS TO CANADIAN PROTEST
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Fundy-Royal: Has the
minister seen the British High Commissioner in the past couple of days to register a very strong protest on the part of the Canadian government to what might be described as a cynical abuse of the agreement made at Singapore?


Mitchell William Sharp: I am not defending the actions of the British government, because they are not in accordance with our views, but I would remind the hon. member that the British government made it very plain when they agreed to the formation of this committee that they would not necessarily delay any decision by them on the sale of arms to South Africa. As to the specific question asked by the hon. member, may I point out that my statement made in the House of Commons the day before yesterday has been brought to the attention of all members of the Commonwealth.


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: My supplementary question is addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could he tell the House whether he has any firm indication regarding the present intentions of other members of the commission with respect to withdrawal from it?


Mitchell William Sharp: Not yet, Mr. Speaker, but I will be meeting at five o'clock this afternoon with the Secretary General of the Commonwealth, Mr. Arnold Smith, to discuss the situation. I am sure he is making a canvass of the views of the members of the committee.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. It arises from the recent announcement by the government of an incentive grant of $3.8 million to MicroMax Products Ltd. of Kalamazoo, Michigan, to assist in establishing a drug plant in Magog, Quebec. Can the minister assure the House that this grant complies with plans announced at the time of the passing of Bill C-102, that is, to strengthen financially the Canadian segment of the pharmaceutical industry?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the grant was offered in accordance with the act regulations it is my responsibility to administer.
February 24, 1971


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Can the minister indicate how this grant of $3.8 million to Micro-Max Products Ltd. of Kalamazoo compares with assistance that has been given to the independent Canadian drug industry?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not think that question can be asked or answered at this time.


CO-ORDINATION OF ACTIVITIES WITH RESPONSIBILITIES OF OTHER DEPARTMENTS
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister. What steps is he taking to co-ordinate the activities of his department under the Regional Development Incentives Act with the responsibilities of other departments of government?


Jean Marchand: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, and much to my regret, I have no authority over other departments.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Spadina.


Mr. Ryan:: I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.


James Aloysius McGrath: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Spadina who has the floor, but I understand the hon. member for St. John's East has a point of order.


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, Mr. Speaker. The minister either did not hear my question or did not understand it. I asked the minister what efforts he was making to coordinate the activities of his department, with respect to incentives, with the responsibilities and regulations of other departments under statutes of Parliament?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the only way to effect co-ordination in a government structure such as ours is through the cabinet and its committees, and this is done regularly, and we try to reconcile our policies and to co-ordinate them.


CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN
Sylvester Perry Ryan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In light of the rehabilitation intentions of proposed and present criminal law, is the government considering extending the Canada Assistance Plan to cover
Inquiries of the Ministry
provincial correctional schools as well as welfare institutions and, if so, when will action be taken?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, there is no immediate consideration being given to this matter, but I would remind the hon. member that as a result of the White Paper the Canada Assistance Plan in its entirety is under review with the provinces.


FAMILY ALLOWANCES
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a related question. Since the minister, if I understand correctly, has indicated that the family allowance cut-off at $10,000, being the combined income of husband and wife, creates certain injustices and inequities, has the minister now thrown out that suggestion contained in the White Paper and, if so, has he any other alternatives to offer to the House?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member had read the White Paper he would understand that this was a proposal set forth. We acknowledge that there are certain injustices created when you settle on an arbitrary limit of this kind, and we invite proposals on how this situation can be corrected, if indeed it can be corrected. We even invite proposals from the hon. member.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his comments, but all I was asking was whether the minister is now in a position to say whether he will disregard that particular proposal in the white paper, and has he an alternative at this time?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, we are considering many alternatives at the moment and we are waiting for more to come from various segments of the community.


Mr. Lome Nyslrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the statement by the minister that he will try to remedy the obvious injustices in his proposal to cut off the family allowance to families with an annual income of $10,000 or more, will he advise the House when we can expect these proposals to be made?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated, there has to be some cut-off figure and some tapering at some level. We are trying to devise various means whereby this can be done and at the same time not create hardships and immediate disparities for people within a very close income range. These proposals are under consideration now. Again we invite proposals from the hon. member and the opposition parties.
3710

February 24, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry ENERGY


STATEMENT BY DEPUTY MINISTER ON FINDING OF OIL OFF EAST COAST
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I had hoped that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources would be in the House today. However, I would like to direct to the acting minister a question relating to the statement of the deputy minister that oil will be found off the east coast within two years. I ask the acting minister whether this means that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has taken charge of the drilling program and is now telling the oil companies where to drill for oil?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should think it might be obvious to the Leader of the Opposition that this was in the nature of speculation.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since the Prime Minister has been modest enough to admit this afternoon that he does not have foresight, I ask the acting minister whether this knowledge was revealed to the minister in a dream or whether he is using an ouija board?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


REPORTED UNITED STATES OFFER OF CO-OPERATION IN BUILDING PIPELINE ACROSS CANADA FROM ALASKA
Mr. David Anderson (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know from the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the United States government has made or repeated an offer to co-operate with this country in building a trans-Canada pipeline from Alaska to the southern 48 states, as reported in the lead story, datelined Washington, in Monday's Toronto Telegram?


Mitchell William Sharp: If they have, Mr. Speaker, they have not made the offer to me.


David Anderson: I would like to repeat a question I put to the minister two days ago. Has he received any reply to his letter of a week ago today to the United States Secretary of State offering to co-operate with the United States in a study of tanker route problems on the west coast of North America?


Mitchell William Sharp: No, Mr. Speaker. When the letter was presented to the U.S. State Department they indicated they would like to talk with our officials about a possible place in which to have such consultations and the form consultation would take, but we have not yet received a formal reply.
[Mr. Munro.l


POLLUTION
Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources but because he is not here I direct it to the acting minister. Has the minister's department received a proposal for extinguishing the mine-dump fire at Springhill, Nova Scotia, from Home Town Construction Ltd. and, if so, what action is being taken by the department to act on this proposal?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I will have to ascertain whether that request has been received and perhaps I can be in touch with the hon. member.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Is it the intention of the government to recognize the great contribution by housewives to the production of goods and services in Canada, as set forth by the National Council of Women, and to afford them equality of status by allowing them to participate in the Canada Pension Plan?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, many of the observations of the royal commission and the representations made the other day by the group to which the hon. member refers are under consideration in the context of proposals we have for improvement of the Canada Pension Plan. They will be considered in that context.


Donald MacInnis: In view of the argument made against such participation by the Minister of Finance on the ground that imputed income is too difficult to calculate, would the government consider hiring fresh economists who are up to this task?


AUTHORITY FOR INTEGRATION WITH OTHER PENSION SCHEMES
Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question. A number of questions arise from the question just asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. However, since this matter covers more than one department I put the question to the Prime Minister. If the only authority the government has in respect of Canada Pension Plan funds is to lend money from these funds to the provincial governments, under what authority is the government integrating the Canada Pension Plan with other pension schemes?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question invites the Prime Minister, or another minister on
February 24, 1971

behalf of the government, to express an opinion from a legal standpoint. I would not think that the question in those terms is in order.


Donald MacInnis: I am very sorry to rise on another supplementary question, Sir. It arises from your decision. I cannot see how the question I have put to the Prime Minister is in any way asking for a legal opinion, if they know what they are doing-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Simcoe North.


Donald MacInnis: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Simcoe North. I will recognize him in a moment. I believe the hon. member has a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been trying to secure from this government for the last three years answers in respect of matters which are firmly laid out in legislation. The government has failed to interpret its legislation in this regard. Answering a question by the hon. member for St. John's East, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion this afternoon made the statement that he has no authority-he could have used the word "responsibility"-over other departments. My point of order arises from the statement made on Monday by a member of the government who tried to refer a question relating to unemployment insurance to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. He claimed that the minister had authority to answer the question. There is, therefore, a contradiction between the answer the minister gave today and the statement made in the House on Monday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There may be contradictions in statements made by ministers, but I suggest to the hon. member that this is not necessarily a matter to be raised by way of a procedural objection.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare which deals with sucaryl and cyclamates. I realize that this matter comes under two other departments, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Department of Finance. Nevertheless, cyclamates and sucaryl come under the Food and Drugs Directorate and therefore under the minister. Why has this medication all at once been made subject to federal sales tax, thus increasing the price for many people in chronic ill health, some of whom are having a hard time making ends meet?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, that aspect of the question is not 23966-23J
Inquiries of the Ministry
my responsibility and I refer it to my colleague, the Minister of National Revenue. With respect to cyclamates in general, as the hon. member may be aware I undertook to make a statement on this question and I will do so shortly.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Mr. Speaker, this tax was imposed over a year ago. Have the three ministers concerned done nothing in this area? It has to do with food and drugs.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


POLLUTION
Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Is the government planning to extend the granting of CMHC loans to the installation of anti-pollution devices for emissions into the air?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not sure whether the question is in order. The minister might reply briefly to the hon. member's question.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, this is the responsibility of the minister responsible for housing, who is not in the House today. I will bring it to his attention.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I ought to direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Is the government planning to extend capital cost allowances for the installation of anti-pollution devices for emissions into the air? This is a very important question dealing with pollution.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we looked at this matter in the budget of last year.


Randolph Harding: Mr. Speaker, I repeat my question. Is the government planning to extend capital cost allowances for the installation of anti-pollution devices for emissions into the air?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, we have already done it.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day. Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Jack Marshall: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


FISHERIES
Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to take up the time of the House,

February 24, 1971
Clean Air Act
but I directed an urgent question to the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry and I did not get a reply. In order to emphasize its urgency, I point out that the fishermen in question have threatened to take up arms against foreign draggers because they are destroying their livelihood. I wonder if I could obtain an answer to the question I asked the minister.


Mr. Speaker:: No doubt the hon. member realizes that the question period expired more than five minutes ago. The Chair made a desperate effort to allow more hon. members to ask questions by voluntarily extending the (question period for a few minutes. The hon. member has raised a very important matter. Perhaps, with unanimous consent, the minister might be allowed to reply.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, this is the first that I have heard of this incident. If it is as serious as the hon. member says, then of course we will act immediately.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Friday, February 19, consideration of the motion of Mr. Davis that Bill C-224, relating to ambient air quality and to the control of air pollution, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The first order of business this afternoon is the motion for second reading and reference of Bill C-224, an act relating to ambient air quality and to the control of air pollution. If I may remind hon. members of the present state of affairs, the debate has been concluded on this motion but the putting of the question was deferred until a ruling had been made on a point of order raised by the hon. member for St. John s East (Mr. McGrath). The Chair has heard representations from various hon. members and is now in a position to render a decision.
If I may state to the best of my ability the point raised by the hon. member for St. John's East, it is that Bill C-224 should not be proceeded with at this time because a clause in the bill would prejudice an amendment also moved by the hon. member for St. John's East during consideration in committee of the whole of Bill C-207, an act respecting the organization of the government of Canada.

It seems to me that the ancient rule of Parliament is that the House should not be put in a position where contrary decisions are made in respect of two similar bills. It is, of course, a fact that a final decision has yet to be taken on Bill C-207. However, the House has given second reading to Bill C-207 and has referred it to Committee of the Whole. That decision is not in question at this time.
It is clear to me that at the moment no decision has been taken by the House in relation to any particular clause or section of the government organization bill. Similarly, no decision has been taken by the House in relation to any particular clause of Bill C-224. This point was made clear, for the guidance of the Chair and of all hon. members, by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). There is, therefore, in my view nothing procedurally wrong in having before the House at the same time concurrent or related bills which might be in contradiction with one another either because of the terms of the proposed legislation itself or in relation to proposed amendments.
May I again refer to the contribution of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to the procedural argument. The hon. member's contribution is reported at page 3584 of last Friday's Hansard. I quote as follows:
-we are not passing this bill at this point.
The hon. member was referring, of course, to the bill now before us, Bill C-224.
We are only debating a motion for second reading and the referral of the bill to committee. If we were at the third reading stage and were passing a bill that had within it a clause which was inconsistent with some other bill that had been passed, their point would be valid and I would be backing it.
Of course, at this point the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was referring to the point made by the hon. member for St. John's East and, I believe, the hon. member for South Western Nova (Mr. Comeau). The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre went on to say:
But that is not the case. We are not passing a bill. We are considering proposed legislation and the likelihood is that there are a number of details in it which members may not like or which they may find offensive. However, for the life of me-
That refers to the hon. member's life and not to mine.
-I cannot see any point of order in respect of the propriety of the bill as a whole, which is what the hon. member for St. John's East has asked Your Honour to find.
The point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre appears to be well taken. I must conclude that the question on the motion for second reading and referral to the standing committee can now be put to the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry.
February 24, 1971


Allan Joseph MacEachen: that Bill C-186, to authorize the provision of moneys to meet certain capital expenditures of the Canadian National Railways system and Air Canada for the period from the 1st day of January, 1970, to the 30th day of June, 1971, and to authorize the guarantee by Her Majesty of certain securities to be issued by the Canadian National Railways Company and certain debentures to be issued by Air Canada, as reported (without amendment) from the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Allan Joseph MacEachen: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I think there is general feeling that the bill might be disposed of at this stage. There is a certain undertaking with regard to a committee on which this hinges; it was discussed with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) in committee. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) may wish to outline to the House the particulars of that arrangement.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has taken the words out of my mouth. However, that does not deter me from repeating them, does it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It never has in the past.


Stanley Howard Knowles: When this bill was under consideration by the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Jamieson) made three commitments. It was understood that if these commitments were confirmed, there would be no objection to the bill being passed at the third reading stage without further debate. The three commitments were a reference of the capital structure of the Canadian National Railways, a device under which the officials of the Canadian National Railways could be called before that committee and a device under which the officials of Air Canada could also be called before that committee. I agree with the hon. member for Peace River that it would be nice to have these commitments on the record of Hansard.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) has said substantially what I wanted to say. When the bill was before the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications I did not have an opportunity to examine the minister. The minister gave the undertaking which I would have tried to extract from him if I had been there, that is, to call before that committee the senior officials of Canadian National Railways and Air Canada. It is only
Canada Development Corporation
with that understanding that I am prepared to allow the bill to be given third reading at this time.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In connection with the first point, Mr. Speaker, namely, reference of the capital structure of the CNR, I undertook to give that assurance to the House some time ago. I repeat it. There will be no difficulty on that point. With respect to the device to enable the officials of the Canadian National Railways and Air Canada to appear before the committee, there will be no difficulty on that point; we will certainly undertake to make that possible.


Stanley Howard Knowles: And no doubt it will be supported in the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion has been put. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, February 23, consideration of the motion of Mr. Benson that Bill C-219 to establish the Canada Development Corporation, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Saltsman (p. 3648).
Jack Burnett Murta: It occurs to me, Mr. Speaker, that there has never been a time in the history of Canada when the efforts of backbenchers have been as unrewarding as they are today both in terms of individual satisfaction and in terms of service to those voters who supported them.
The way in which backbenchers on the other side of the House leap up to speak in favour of every piece of legislation proposed by their leader makes me believe they would not dare do anything else. To judge from their behaviour one would suppose that every bill presented by the government is perfect in all respects, yet all of us here know there is not even a remote possibility that the government will ever put forward a bill which is perfect in all respects.
I am mystified by the manner in which every bill sponsored by the government is accepted by backbenchers across the way as if it had been passed into legislation even before it had been debated. There has never been a time in history when dissent has been more fashionable, yet never a word of dissent is spoken from the benches opposite against the steady erosion of the powers of Parliament by the government they support. At a time when dissent is virtually the order of the day, there is never a word of dissent forthcoming from mem-

February 24, 1971
Canada Development Corporation bers across the way as their government sets out on a path which brings wanton destruction to Canadian institutions and Canadian aspirations.
Bill C-219, the bill before us today, is no better and no worse than any other bill which the government has tabled during the time I have been in this House. I must say, Mr. Speaker, as my hon. friends have said already, that this bill is just more of the same. As is the case with other bills which we have debated recently, we are expected to pay dearly for anything in this measure that is worth while. In exchange for an ounce of benefit to the community we are expected to give a pound of concessions.
My first reaction to the bill was one of pure amazement. I wondered whether it was the same bill the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) was thinking about when he launched it with such fanfare. My impression was that the government was attempting to get out of the Crown corporation business simply by changing the name of the game. I can see the government getting into the business, commercial and industrial community on a scale which would make even the NDP blush with shame. The way the CDC is designed to operate leads me to foresee the day when the government will be stuck with every industrial concern in the country which cannot pay its own way or show a profit.
I believe the corporation is bound to be subjected to a great deal of political pressure. The bill starts out so innocently that one is lulled, at first, into believing that here is a government measure which has nothing to do with grabbing power from Parliament. It does not take much study of its provisions, though, to realize it is not a bill which will inject much-needed new blood into the free enterprise system and give the Canadian investor an incentive to gamble on the future of industry and resource development in this country.
I am disturbed by the way in which this legislation is written and by the attempts of its writers to disguise the true importance of its manifest dangers. To begin with, an attempt is made to convey the impression that the federal government's total involvement will be limited to $250 million out of a total of $2 billion. In succeeding clauses, however, we find that the Minister of Finance will be allowed to make loans to the corporation up to a total of $100 million, such sums to be secured on the basis of shares of stock in the corporation. This would bring federal government involvement to $350 million. Further, clause 39 gives the government power to divest itself of several Crown corporations by selling them to the CDC for cash or for additional shares of stock.
I do not know what value the government places on Polymer Corporation Limited, Eldorado Nuclear Limited, Panarctic Oils Limited and Northern Transportation Company Limited. There is little doubt in my mind that these viable corporations will be valued in the hundreds of millions of dollars, so we find ourselves becoming involved to the tune of $600 million or $700 million in a corporation whose dubious purpose it is to encourage and stimulate investment in Canadian private business and industry.
Further to this, there is no guarantee that the remainder of the $2 billion capitalization will ever be subscribed by the private sector. All moneys loaned by the corporation will be secured on the basis of shares in the businesses borrowing money from the CDC, Thus, the CDC will own at least a minority interest by way of a mortgage in every company which borrows from it. We can assume that in many cases the CDC will be vested with a majority interest in such companies.
There is an implication in this bill, Mr. Speaker, that Canadians who hesitate to invest in viable, healthy Canadian companies at the present time will be greatly encouraged to invest in the same or other companies since from now on their investments will be guaranteed against failure or loss. Nothing could be further from the truth. Clause 24 of the bill provides:
Notwithstanding sections 21 to 23, and section 36, the company shall not redeem or purchase for cancellation any of its shares if the company is insolvent or if such redemption or purchase for cancellation would render the company insolvent.
End of quote and end of any illusion that Canadians are likely to rush to invest in the CDC. Clause 41 contains a provision whereby the Deputy Minister of Finance and the Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce automatically become ex-officio members of the board of directors of the CDC at such time as the shares in the CDC held by the government exceed 50 per cent of total outstanding shares. I will not say that the government anticipates acquiring more than 50 per cent of the shares of the CDC, but it is clear that the administration does recognize the possibility, perhaps even the probability of such an eventuality. In all conscience, I cannot see how the additional burden of federal government bureaucracy, with its attendant inefficiency and expense, can possibly make investment in the private sector of Canadian or any other industry more attractive than it is under our present free enterprise system.
I cannot help thinking that any industry which cannot succeed with proper management and private financing, assuming it is dealing with a saleable commodity, would be a poor risk or at best a marginal risk. There is a great danger that the Crown corporations which are presently self-supporting and which return a profit to the treasury may in future be used to shore-up losing propositions, and I cannot see how the CDC could possibly be other than a losing proposition from the start.
At the outset the CDC would give the appearance of being a viable corporation solely through its acquisition of the four Crown corporations. I fail to understand how it would benefit anyone, least of all the Canadian people, for the federal government to appropriate funds with which to purchase corporations from itself. In effect, it would be taking the Crown corporations out of one pocket and thrusting them into another pocket in the same pair of trousers. It is possible that this makes sense but it is not probable, and I should like to see some demonstration of the advantage of such an exercise before I would be agreeable to voting favourably on this bill.

February 24, 1971

Bill C-219 makes no attempt to answer the real question of why Canadians are less inclined than Americans to invest in Canadian industries. Indeed, there are no provisions in it for assistance in cases in which a United States takeover of a Canadian industry is imminent. Inclusion of such a provision might at least have been a saving grace. It might have been some indication that the government intended this measure as the vehicle for rescuing some if not all of the firms which might be in danger of takeover by foreign interests in the future. I seriously doubt whether anything as elaborate as the CDC would be required for such a purpose. Moreover, I would hope that should any measures be adopted to prevent takeovers, the viability of the firms concerned and their ability to provide jobs are preserved intact whatever the means employed. I can see such a possible role for the CDC, and its adoption would cause my attitude toward the usefulness of the corporation to change somewhat. But it would still not be sufficient reason for risking the dangers inherent in the CDC concept.
Speakers on this side of the House have pointed out repeatedly and with great clarity that the real stumbling block in the way of full confidence on the part of Canadians in the investment possibilities of their own country is to be found in the nature of the tax structure generally. The answer is to be found in the incentives and in the reduction of risk provided by other countries in their tax arrangements. Successive Canadian governments have been aware that United States and Japanese investors are encouraged to develop resources and industries in Canada on as large a scale as practicable.
Corporations in those countries are encouraged, not by infusions of federal capital but by tax write-offs on high-risk development capital and by other tax benefits. Canadian tax laws have always discriminated against Canadian investors and developers, and it always amazes me when I hear nineteenth century Socialists advocating the nationalization of foreign-owned interests in this country rather than urging that the privileges extended to foreign investors be extended to Canadians also. We can no longer overlook the paradox that many United States takeovers in this country were accomplished by means of funds subscribed, borrowed or earned in Canada.
There is one aspect of foreign ownership which works in our favour and account must be taken of this in any measures designed to restrict foreign investment. Subsidiaries of foreign concerns in Canada enjoy a favoured position in the markets of the parent country, which tends to ensure the viability of the Canadian firms thereby preserving the jobs of their employees and maintaining the buying power of the enterprises concerned. This is not nearly as bad for us as some people would have us believe. But it would still be desirable for the government to learn something from those countries which find Canada such a tempting investment prospect. There is surely something to be learned from companies and countries which for many years have reaped enormous
Canada Development Corporation returns from their investments. I think it would be more satisfying to be the owner rather than the owned.
There is one further observation I should like to make and it concerns an apparent inconsistency in the government's efforts to stimulate interest among Canadians in investment in their own country. On the one hand we have this bill, purporting to be the vehicle by which Canadians will be encouraged to invest their money in home-grown corporations and ventures with a benevolent federal government as partner. I have already pointed out that the bill contains no built-in guarantee that such investments will return a profit. There are no safeguards against the money being dissipated by bureaucratic inefficiency or poor management. The CDC is just another investment possibility, and bureaucrats are not known as being astute managers and innovators; they are certainly not trained or experienced in sound business practices. On the other hand there is the government's white paper on tax reform, a classic example of muddled thinking and restrictive monetary policies. The white paper is an economic strait jacket designed to discourage investment and to strangle the productive middle range of our economy.
The introduction of the white paper stirred the business community to near panic, yet the government is planning to impose its proposals on the country. If I were able to consider the Canada Development Corporation concept in isolation, then I would be able to make a fair assessment of its possibilities, though even then I doubt seriously I could accept it as the alternative most desirable for our purposes. We need incentives to invest in Canada. The capital is here and the Canadian people are more inclined to invest in their country than we are led to believe. But federal government intervention in the private sector is not the answer; neither are restrictive and oppressive tax measures.
I must look at Bill C-219 in concert with other government measures that have passed this House or that are in the process of passing. I say this because with an overwhelming majority the government can pass any bill it chooses to pass, whether or not it is good for the country. I have to consider the Telesat Corporation, the proposed farm products marketing bill, the omnibus bill and the white paper on tax reform. When I consider Bill C-219 in company with those other bills, I see a pattern that disturbs and alarms me. I see a government legislating not for the good of Canada or for Canadians but a government legislating for itself. I see a government reaching out for power in the agricultural sector, in the communications sector, in the financial sector, and now in the business and industrial sectors. I would feel a little better about it if I heard just one small voice on the government side raised against this erosion of the Canadian economy and the Canadian Parliament. But I am afraid that I am in for a very long wait.


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate, and I welcome it for two particular reasons. Last week we had an

February 24, 1971
Canada Development Corporation emergency debate on a very important matter, namely, the sale or possible sale of Home Oil Company. I do not think that this debate answered all the questions raised with respect to the Canada Development Corporation, but it did indicate, perhaps better than hon. members opposite have done, what the role of the CDC should not be. Since it may not have indicated what the role of the CDC should be, it is to this point that I address myself this afternoon.
I should also like to emphasize that the Canada Development Corporation is only part of a larger concept. It is but part of an industrial strategy, one that will include the whole question of Canadian ownership. I think it is within this context that we must examine the role of the CDC. The CDC has become a very important subject. It is a very big corporation, a $2 billion corporation, and there is no question that both in the House and in committee the provisions of this bill will have to be very carefully examined, particularly since over the course of the eight or nine years that the CDC has been gestating the role of the CDC has changed.
Almost everyone has his own idea what the role of the CDC should be. I suppose it has become the answer to almost every nationalistic maiden's prayer. For some-I think for many members of the NDP-the CDC should be the vehicle for buying back Canada. However, these members conveniently forget that investments in Canadian industry run somewhere between $40 billion and $50 billion. Blithely they say, "Well, this is something we should be devoting our resources to", forgetting the future. They also forget the question of foreign exchange and the fact that in recent years we have been generating, during fortunate periods, a surplus balance on current account of a billion dollars.


Mr. Thomson:: Forty-seven hundred million right now.


Alastair William Gillespie: So briefly, for many it would be the vehicle for buying back Canada. For others it would be a preventive "buy first" vehicle. I think this question troubled the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) who has just spoken. I think he was concerned-these are his words or something similar to them-that it might be stuck with every industrial failure in the country; that it would be subject to political pressures that it could not withstand. I think that the debate regarding Home Oil Company last week helped to illuminate this particular problem; not that there was any failure involved on the part of Home Oil Company, but a company like Home Oil is often worth more to a foreign purchaser than it is to a Canadian purchaser.


Mr. Thomas (Moncton):: Why is that?


Alastair William Gillespie: If the Canada Development Corporation were to get into the business of pre-emptive bidding, it would not then meet the test of profitability. The hon. member opposite asks me: Why is that? If he understood how business organizations worked, he would realize that there are certain values in integration, particularly of international integration. Let him consider for a moment
that there might be economies of scale involved and of marketing arrangements where a fit was involved.


Charles Humbert Thomas: What about tax advantages?


Alastair William Gillespie: I do not think the hon. member should refer to tax advantages which really fit the Home Oil situation. That has nothing to do with the tax situation here. I think the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Salts-man) argued that the Canada Development Corporation should be a giant corporation that would stimulate regional economic growth. I think that is what he said in his remarks on second reading several days ago. He would even have taken it further and set up the CDC as a centralized planning mechanism, a mechanism that would concern itself with allocating capital resources that would meet national needs, undefined, and would not concern itself with earning a profit.
Similarly, in the debate last night the hon. member for Compton (Mr. Latulippe) made a strong and vigorous presentation. He has a most persuasive manner. However, I must confess that I did not understand all his arguments, though this may well have been the fault of the translation. Nevertheless, I do not want to be unfair either to him or to the translators. I think the hon. member interpreted the role of the CDC in very large and considerable terms.
The hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) attacked the subject again but from a very different point of view. He felt that the Canada Development Corporation should concern itself with providing a guaranteed return for shareholders-I think that was his expression. I would say that if the CDC is going to concern itself with guaranteed returns, then why does it not just sell bonds? Certainly there would be no purpose in selling shares and having shareholders.
The point that I am trying to make is that over the years the CDC has blossomed into a hodgepodge of ideas. The CDC concept originated with Mr. Gordon back in 1962, a man I think we would all recognize of vision and energy, as well, perhaps, a man of some impatience. He saw the problem that many of his colleagues and many Canadians did not see and moved to correct it. Perhaps he moved too fast because the country was not then ready to understand the problem that he saw. He was a man, though, who spoke of this concern and warned his people. Again, with this process-the buy back of Canada, the pre-emptive purchase, the giant mutual fund, the national planning mechanism, the guaranteed return, the opportunity for the small investor to develop Canada in an unstructured, undirected way- here for the first time we have before us this bill in respect of the Canada Development Corporation. Surely it should set to rest many concerns which have been stated in this House.
First, it is emphasized that the corporation will be a private corporation concerned with the private sector. The hon. member for Waterloo has argued that it should have been created a Crown corporation. He has moved his amendment essentially on that ground. He seemed to

February 24, 1971

me to be confused about how such a Crown corporation might operate. Some of his remarks seemed to suggest that the financial community should be forced to invest in such a corporation and to finance it. This is an attitude we quite frequently see on the part of the New Democratic Party, a party which calls itself democratic. In areas of economics and finance it frequently takes a hard line attitude; it frequently takes the attitude that a certain group should be forced to do something. I believe the whole spirit of our economy must be built on the idea of creating a favourable climate for growth, that no one should be forced but that opportunities should be provided for many.
Those Conservatives who have taken part in this debate and do not approve the legislation-there are those who approve it in principle-have decried the fact that this is a Socialist device. I emphasize that this is a private corporation, concerned with the private sector, which is to have a board of directors drawn from the private sector.
Mr. Speaker, as I said earlier in my remarks, this is a big subject. I should now like to deal with some of the areas in which I hope we will be able to move, because I think there are one or two questions which need attention. The purposes of the bill are clear: they are stated in the bill itself. One purpose is to help develop and maintain strong Canadian controlled and Canadian-managed corporations. There is no question that the corporation will be an important one. Its powers are established and are clear. It is to have considerable resources. But I believe a question we might properly ask is this: Is the timing of this corporation suitable at the moment? In my introductory remarks I stated that I saw the Canada Development Corporation as part of a major industrial strategy. It would seem to me to be important that some of the other parts of this major industrial strategy, particularly the part dealing with foreign ownership, be before Parliament before we proceed too far. In clause 6(l)(c), on page 3, the bill provides:
to invest in the shares or securities of any corporation owning property or carrying on business related to the economic interests of Canada-
Similarly in subclause (d):
to invest in ventures or enterprises, including the acquisition of property, likely to benefit Canada-
I have the following problem in respect of these clauses. Who is to determine what is in the best interests of Canada and who is to determine what is likely to benefit Canada? Is it to be this Parliament, the government or the board of directors of the Canada Development Corporation? I for one would not be happy if I felt this Parliament were delegating to a board of directors of a private corporation the responsibility for determining what is in the best interests of Canada until such time as Parliament had made very clear what it expects the corporation and its directors to regard as the best interests of Canada. The question then is, who is to determine what are the best interests and what are the criteria.
I believe the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) was most helpful in his remarks when presenting the bill for
Canada Development Corporation second reading. He set forth many of these elements. They might be described as some of the elements or objectives of an industrial strategy. For instance, he emphasized that the corporation will be concerned with the future rather than the past. He emphasized that the corporation should consider Canadian control as important. He emphasized that efficiency of Canad an industry is essential-I believe those were his words-that the rationalization of Canadian industry is an important element in providing for the efficiency of Canadian industry, and that this corporation might meet that test.
He set forth several other points which I think might be included in this area. He emphasized that Canadian industry must be able to compete with multinational corporations on an international scale. He emphasized the importance of building Canadian-based multinational corporations. He said he felt the corporation should give special attention to our resource industries, to those of high technology, to our northern industries and in industries in respect of which Canada has a comparative advantage.
Mr. Speaker, I commend to members of this House pages 3630 and 3638 of Hansard which reproduce these statements of the Minister of Finance. They represent an important part of an industrial strategy. While I do not pretend to have researched this subject in depth, I would argue these are the most reasonable and comprehensive statements made recently by a government spokesman in respect of an industrial strategy for Canada. So in that sense I accept the Canada Development Corporation as a fitting instrument to secure the objective of an over-all industrial strategy. However, as I have indicated there are several areas in respect of which need to articulate the policy in the industrial area. Perhaps very shortly these will be before us. They have to do with the competitive policy, science and technology and foreign ownership.
I suggest that it would assist enormously the House and the public if we could consider this bill alongside the governments' proposed policy on foreign ownership. The debate last week with respect to Home Oil emphasized to me the need to establish rules regarding the takeover of Canadian industry. In that connection it would seem to me that a takeover review board is an essential mechanism so that at least the national interest can be considered by persons given the specific responsibility of assessing the takeover. By that I do not mean the review board will not authorize some takeovers. I am sure there would be many industries and companies approved for foreign takeover by the review board, but there might be many more takeovers which would not be in the national interest.
In conclusion I would emphasize that in my view the Canada Development Corporation is an important instrument of industrial policy. I regret that we do not have at the present time a foreign ownership policy to consider alongside it. I urge the government to give priority to bringing in a foreign ownership policy. I have one other reservation with respect to this bill. I hope that it will be a long time before shares are sold to the public because it seems to me that if the CDC is to do the kind of things
3718

February 24, 1971
Canada Development Corporation which need to be done, it will have to take a very long view.
The directors will have to look five years and more into the future. If they are looking for quick returns, they will not be doing the kind of things that need to be done. If they take the long view, the question of earning sufficient profits to pay dividends will be less important if they are not faced with having to pay dividends. If we are to sell shares to the public, surely we will have to be prepared to pay dividends within a short space of time, or we will have to show such an improving or stable earnings record that the future payment of dividends can be assured in order to establish the value of the shares and perhaps some opportunity for appreciation.
It seems to me there will be enough problems in developing and launching the CDC initially, without having to think about problems of this kind. I would argue with the hon. member for Lisgar on this point, that the more independent the CDC can be, the better it will be able to resist the kind of political pressures that he and I are concerned about. The important thing is that the CDC be designed to withstand the kind of political pressures about which we are concerned. It should be designed to meet the test of the marketplace. I urge the House to give the establishment of the CDC favourable consideration, notwithstanding the reservations I have stated this afternoon with respect to the timing of its introduction.


Mr. Rod Thompson (Batlleford-Kindersley):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with a great deal of attention to the hon. member for Etobicoke (Mr. Gillespie) as he listed, in his own inimitable way, the reservations that he has regarding the CDC. However, I expected something different from him because, as I understand it, the hon. member for Etobicoke is supposed to be in favour of Canadian-based multinational corporations and I thought that perhaps he could tell us how the CDC could help to establish just such firms which I understand he supports. I assume he has his own reasons for not doing so, but I had hoped he would do so and that he would contribute something new in the way of ideas to the debate.
As I understood the hon. member for Etobicoke and other government speakers, they are promoting the bill with the rather uncertain enthusiasm of a middle-aged man paying court to an 18-year old girl. In this case their suit might not be as effective as they would like it to be. We do not criticize the minister or the government for not riding off madly in all directions developing Canada seen or unseen, but we suggest they show a little more enthusiasm for what the CDC could be expected to do.
The hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) and the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland) have listed some of our reservations about the bill, but I would like to suggest some things which I feel the CDC could or should be doing. Some of the suggestions which I have might not be ones which the CDC will automatically adopt, but they might consider them at least. If we are going to develop industry in Canada we should be concerned with producing goods and services which are needed and for which people are willing to pay. I do not see any point in
producing something, either in goods or services, for which there is no market in or out of Canada. We want products that are both economic and reasonable.
A bill such as this should have a positive approach and I suggest that the CDC might look at new ideas. If it does not, then why bother? For example, the Polymer Corporation produces rubber. If it would be in the national interest for it to be under the CDC, I would not argue against that. But if all the CDC is to do is produce rubber or products that are already being manufactured, then why bother? In Manitoba the Atomic Energy Corporation is building a new type of transmission line. They seem to be doing a good job and I have no criticism of them, but if the CDC is to produce something that has already been produced, then why bother?
I will suggest some things which might be considered so that we can have new ideas which can be used. I assume that the CDC will have adequate research funds to look into any new ideas which they will promote, or at least that they will have access to adequate research facilities. They should have sufficient research facilities to prove the product before they attempt to produce it. I think, also, that they should have cost accounting officers among their officials who would be prepared and able to consider these matters in a truly businesslike way, to see whether a certain item might be profitably produced in Canada or for marketing abroad if necessary. Such a corporation must have adequate and efficient business management which will make sound business judgments. There should be a willingness to venture into new fields which I will mention in a moment.
There are certain problems in Canada which should be tackled. For example, in eastern Canada we have not had for a long time a winter as bad as this one. This has caused leaking roofs. Some way of removing ice from the roofs could be considered by the CDC. I do not see why the CDC should have to do it; the building construction people should be doing it. But apparently they are not. Perhaps the CDC should also consider establishing a company to manufacture glass that will not frost. This would be an advantage in Canada. A corporation or a government group in Ottawa has produced a frost foam. This is a new product which might well be produced and promoted in Canada. As a farmer, this is something which I suggest we might use and produce commercially and which might be sold in Canada as well as abroad.
The other day the hon. member for Waterloo mentioned the Laser. Again this is an item we have developed in our government corporations. It was a new thing, a useful thing, but the companies that took over the idea have financial difficulties and inadequate resources with which to do a proper job. This is another area which the Canada Development Corporation should consider. A few days ago we dealt with a textile bill in this House. The intent of the bill was to bring some rationalization to the textile industry. This may be a logical area for the Canada Development Corporation to move into, to help promote new textile products and then perhaps to sell
[Mr. Gillespie.)
February 24, 1971

out to the textile industry at a later date. I suggest there is a great deal of room for improvement in winterwear in Canada and in the kind of textiles we produce. These are matters which the corporation might logically be expected to consider.
Last fall the Department of Industry Trade and Commerce published a little pamphlet outlining a study it had conducted on the dairy industry in Europe. It discovered that the European dairy industry was quite successful, compared with ours. In Europe they had a whole list of new products and new methods of packaging items, as a result of which buyers were rushing to buy them. The net result was that the sale and consumption of dairy products in Europe had gone up. But apparently nobody in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is following through on that study. I might ask why, but that would be another argument. This, too, is an area at which the CDC might look to see if it could develop similar types of products in Canada and later, on a cost or cost plus profit basis, sell out to the Canadian dairy industry.
I would like to talk for a moment or two about atomic energy. It seems to me that this is a logical area for Canadians to be involved in because we have given leadership in this field. Recently the Minister of Energy Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) returned from Japan with great ideas about the possibility of building an enriched uranium plant in Canada. If this were feasible, it seems to me quite logical that it would be built by the Canada Development Corporation. There is the possibility of surplus power being available for such a project either in Manitoba or southern Saskatchewan. The CDC might co-operate with the government of Japan in building such a plant. I know that if I were the government of Japan, particularly after the recent shake-up in the international oil markets, I would be looking for alternative sources of energy and I would certainly be looking to a country with a stable government to help supply me with those sources of energy. We in Canada could produce enriched uranium. We could even sell them atomic energy plants if they wanted them. This is the kind of thing a CDC might be working at and promoting. It could coordinate the resources of the nation to build a project as large as this. I do not think private industry could undertake such a project; if it were to be done it would have to be done under the CDC.
I wish to emphasize something that I mentioned when I began my speech. If there is no great enthusiasm for an undertaking such as the Canada Development Corporation, and if not much pressure is put on it by a minister or by the government, then it will not achieve much; it will not have any great effect on the economic scene in Canada. Unless the government is prepared to administer it with a fair bit of enthusiasm and concern, we will not get many results from it. Many of us on this side of the House disagreed with the policies of a great industrial promoter in a previous Liberal government, the late Hon. C. D. Howe. But at least he had enthusiasm for industrial promotion in Canada. We agree that he contributed much, even if we did not agree with the methods he used. There
Canada Development Corporation does not seem to be that kind of enthusiasm in the present government. If we had the kind of enthusiasm that built Air Canada, we might take the CDC and really go somewhere with it.


Mr. Mac T. McCutcheon (Lamblon-Kenl):: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to participate in this debate today, so my intervention will be brief. As I listened to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) when he introduced the bill I could not help thinking of what I had been taught when I was a school student about different types of investment. I was always led to believe there were two different types of investment open to the individual or large corporation. One was to obtain the largest, consistent, periodic yield on a more or less guaranteed basis. This type of investment normally would not have much to do with the management nor the administration of the corporation into which the investment was being made.
Canadians have been great people for this type of investment, the sure, safe, blue chip type of thing. They have been more concerned with security, more concerned with guarantees than with risk capital. The proof of the pudding is the fact that Canadians by and large are the largest per capita owners of life insurance of any nation in the world. The other type of investment is normally the high-risk type of investment designed to bring about the largest growth factor, or an increase in equity. With these two different things in mind, I am concerned about how the Canada Development Corporation can ride two horses and how it can justify its existence from the standpoint of developing this country, which is what the name implies it will do.
In my opinion, if we are to develop this country money must be funnelled into investments that are pretty "scaly" or speculative. Some of those investments may bring no return whatsoever. On the other hand, this government proposes to take a facility and Crown corporation or two that belongs to me, to all Canadians, and give it to the corporation. We own these outfits at present, and I see no justification for my equity in a high-class corporation like Polymer being dissipated by the government. Why should it give such corporations to the Canada Development Corporation and then use some of the money on high-risk propositions that are essential?
High-risk ventures are absolutely essential if we are to develop this country. But, Mr. Speaker, you cannot take the money of an investment fund that guarantees you 5, 6, 7 or 8 per cent annually-this being the type of fund that widows and orphans need-and invest it in a speculative oil well or an unproved mine. Historically, people who invest in ventures like these lose on more occasions than they win. It is just like going to the race track. When you win, you win big. This is the secret of the race track. That is what we must keep in mind when considering the Canada Development Corporation.
Something disturbed me a great deal as I watched a CBC presentation a few weeks ago. Normally I am not the CBC's greatest fan, yet I felt that the short documentary they put on one evening had merit. The presentation
23966-24jj

February 24, 1971
Canada Development Corporation was more or less an informal discussion period among a group of investment bankers and members of the Toronto Stock Exchange. I was interested in hearing some of the things said during that presentation. They asked, how is it that so much Canadian money being invested through that stock exchange is being invested in foreign securities? How come so many of our large financial institutions, insurance companies, trust companies, etc., are investing money on behalf of their clients outside of this country. I really think these people are doing the best they can for their customers and clients. They must therefore consider some of those things I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks. They must feel that those types of investments are safer. They must feel that investments like that, investments made in other jurisdictions, will be more profitable, considering the socialist tax measures proposed in the white paper. I think these factors must weigh heavily with them.


Mr. Comeau:: The hon. member is quite right.


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: Having said that, may I mention something which to me as a Canadian is more disturbing than the platitudinous, patriotic talk we hear all over Canada about buying Canada back.


An hon. Member:: It is platitudinous talk.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: The Wall Street Journal points out clearly that one of the biggest industrialists on the North American continent who controls a very large corporation owns in this name only 7 percent of the stock of that corporation. His family owns the balance, which is in their names. Their total holdings amount to 20 per cent. But nobody in this chamber can tell me that Henry Ford does not control the Ford Motor Company. So when I hear platitudinous talk about Canadians owning 51 per cent of the stock of companies, and about ownership, I suggest that the people concerned ought to take a good, hard look at the facts of life and see how corporations are manipulated and controlled.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: That's the stuff. Tell it to the people across the way.


Malcolm Wallace McCutcheon: Having said that, I think I should tell this government about one more danger sign which to me has much more sinister implications and is much more dangerous than almost anything else. We are a developing country; our economy is not stagnant, as is the economy of developed nations like Britain. We are still developing. I am not as much concerned about foreign investment in this country as I am about something else happening in the world which, in my humble opinion, is very dangerous indeed. I refer to the amount of information which is being stored in various data computing centres outside this country. I am not disturbed about investment per se; I am disturbed about all the information on Canadians and Canadian businesses that is being stored with corporations and companies engaged in the data processing business. This monster is far more dangerous than a few American dollars invested in our industry.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: They have more information than Information Canada.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: Exactly.


Charles Humbert Thomas: That is not much.


Maclyn (Mac) Thomas McCutcheon: This is an area to which the government should forthwith direct its attention.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, we in this party have looked forward to a Canada Development Corporation for many years. We have suggested a development corporation in which the government could show an interest. We now find that the Liberal government, as it has often done in the past, have bastardized the words "Canada Development Corporation" and have introduced a bill which we cannot support. We should not be too surprised, because this has happened on other occasions. It has often been said that we in this party are Liberals in a hurry. If that is true, we can go a lot further on that trail before the Liberals catch up. That is certainly true in this case.
The minister has stated that no assistance will be provided to any company with less than $1 million capitalization. If the CDC is not going to assist small companies, the assistance will be no more than that provided in the past to companies which have no need for this type of legislation. If we are going to make tax concessions to a large corporation, and I consider a company with $1 million capitalization to be fairly large, we will not be doing anything for the type of industry that will be involved in a large portion of this nation in the next 20 years.
Many pious proposals have been advanced by this government to solve the problems of the underdeveloped and disadvantaged areas of this country. In most cases they were of the same type as the proposals outlined by the minister for the Canada Development Corporation. There has been an erosion of the Canadian economy because of the government's tax structure, the fact that we do not have a capital gains tax and that it is much easier for a branch plant of an American company to establish and operate effectively within an international market than a Canadian company. That erosion has extended to the point where it affects more than 90 per cent of the oil industry. Many hon. members say what a wonderful organization Home Oil is because it is a Canadian company. At the same time, the Canadian public will not invest $10 million in this company which has assets of over $200 million. I am aware of the liabilities of this company as well. The president of the company is probably the greatest liability.
The minister has stated that the corporation will not be able to participate in the type of rescue operation that is necessary for many of our industries. This bill will assist the large companies which do not need help, in the same way that they receive assistance in the way of area development loans and assistance because of regional disparity. In most cases it will help American branch

February 24, 1971

plants out of difficulty. It will not be involved with those companies which have very large hope of success.
I would be prepared to invest a few dollars in Home Oil. Knowing the long-term debt which they have and the manner in which it is secured, if I had the money I would be prepared, along with a small number of people, to invest $10 million in Home Oil. This company controls a large distribution company in England and one in the United States which handles gas. It controls a large company which handles rail containers for butane and other gases. It controls approximately 360 producing wells, many of them capped, and has a large interest in 500 million acres in Alaska. If I were in charge of that company I would be able to control production and distribution of oil through leases held by the company. The government will not invest $10 million to take over some of the current liabilities of the company in order to provide the Canadian public with this kind of organization.
What did the government do with regard to books? This subject has been widely touted. The Conservatives in Ontario were in a position to do something, but what did they do? They all sat back in pride. I am sure that some members of the United Church even prayed that the United Church of Canada would be a responsible organization and retain the ownership of Ryerson Press in Canada. How much money did it involve? In the future, the majority of text books for Ontario students will be purchased from an American company. Canadian history will be written by Americans and published in the United States. Obviously they will rewrite the battle of Queenston Heights. If they are brave, they will rewrite the battle of the Plains of Abraham. I do not know on which side they will come down. The cost to the Canadian public will be fantastic through the loss of our major book-producing companies, the textbook industry in particular, and the important role it must play in Canadian education. The minister will say he could not get involved because it is a provincial matter. The government of Ontario will say they could not get involved because they were not sure they had jurisdiction. While the matter was being discussed, the transaction occurred. It is the type of thing that once we lose it, we can hardly rebuild it.
We need a Canadian development agency. I was interested in the remarks of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto). He talked about establishing the kind of corporation that I suggest. He mentioned there was a great deal of difficulty sorting out capital that is being retained by insurance companies, banks through savings and the type of capital that is normally used to develop companies. The government should pay attention to what that hon. member said yesterday. He seems to know what he is talking about, which is more than most members of the government when it comes to finances. It is certainly more than I know, because my knowledge in this field is limited.
If all hon. members seriously consider this matter, they will be of the opinion that if the Canadian public are given the opportunity to invest in a bona fide Canada Development Corporation they will do so for several
Canada Development Corporation reasons. They will invest because they know that a company which is properly operated by the government can be a success. Even more important than the amount they may receive in return is the fact they will be launching many new businesses in this country which will remain in Canadian hands.
There is a small smelter in my area. It has had a sad history; I shall not go into all the details. I am sure, though, that if an agency like the CDC were operating now in the way in which I hope it will eventually operate, we would be lending money to establish a smelter in the Cobalt area to smelt silver and precious metal ores in northern Ontario. The smelter we already have is reported to be holding a large amount of silver against the international price of silver. Because the price is low, it is losing money and it may have to close down. Some people may say, "So what?" Well, if it closes down there will be nowhere in Canada to which silver mines can send their ore. This might not matter much, except that in the area of which I speak more than 25 per cent of the work force is unemployed. There are still 450 miners working in the lode silver industry in the area, some of them in mines which have been in continuous operation for 60 years.
As I say, the industry has had its ups and downs. They sent their ores originally to Montana, though they did some smelting in Cobalt. From time to time they renewed their relationship with the St. Helena, Montana, smelter. The United States smelting company is not very interested in handling the ore because the arsenic content of Cobalt ore is exceptionally high. So there has to be a smelter in the area. I am not suggesting we should buy the smelter which is already there, or nationalize it, or take it over. It all depends on whether or not it is an economic proposition-perhaps it is not, in which case the government is partly to blame because it along with a number of others decided to melt down its silver currency. Carloads of silver were coming in from the Canadian Mint, from the United States, from Mexico and from South American countries. To deal with this work, the company expanded its operations. Finally they possessed a smelter which was larger than was necessary for the smelting of the local ores.
I believe this is the kind of proposition in which the CDC could invest. It would be providing a service for the area, it would be doing so on a sound economic basis and it could do so profitably. In addition, the government would be serving its own interests, because we still need monetary silver. In addition, the smelter would be playing a much larger role in the economy of the whole silver industry. If something is not done along these lines, what is the alternative? We shall end up paying welfare benefits to all the people in the area because most of them have reached an age at which they cannot be retrained or relocated.
The entire municipality of Cobalt is dependent upon whether or not a smelter is in operation. I do not know whether free enterprise will invest in such an undertaking. I would think not. In any case, private enterprise

February 24, 1971
Canada Development Corporation would be concerned only with the smelter, and I am concerned with the future of the whole industry in this region. Those who will be administering the CDC, as I see it, will be interested in developments of this kind. I believe the government should put money into the CDC and I believe the people will be willing to do so.
When the CDC advances funds to a company it should receive equity stock. To my mind there has never been a more stupid operation than the system of regional development grants. We provided to Timmins an immense amount of money, $5 million or $6 million, to build a smelter which had to be built there anyway. We provided it, yet we allow Texas Gulf to benefit. Why shouldn't we own it? Why shouldn't we exercise enough control to ensure that all the ore mined in the area could be processed by that smelter?
Why cannot we acquire an equity of 25 per cent or 50 per cent, or whatever is needed to develop a precious metal smelter in the Cobalt area? Why cannot we build a smelter in Sudbury? Why should it be necessary to send ore to Montreal? The reason this is done now is the nature of the grant structure and the fact that the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) favours Montreal. But I cannot imagine that any intelligent people in Montreal would want a smelter to be built there. In Sudbury the smokestack is almost high enough to be seen from Toronto, and they say that in favourable conditions smoke from it will blow over New York.


An hon. Member:: Favourable?


William Arnold Peters: If it is intended to develop a mid-Canada resource corridor, we shall need federal money and lots of it. I am not interested in Rohmer getting this grant. It is almost like giving it to Prince Charles to develop the Hudson Bay lands. I am not interested in Rohmer doing it. But let me tell you, Mr. Speaker, that he has shown a lot of initiative and the people associated with him have shown initiative in appreciating all the advantages of a mid-Canada corridor. He thinks it is a heck of a good idea and all he wants from the government is the right to exploit it-and he uses the word "exploit" freely. If he can see any advantage in it, surely there are people within the government service who can look at the proposition and determine what advantages exist for the Canadian people. It will pay handsomely.
It seems we are reluctant in this country to plant trees. I am reminded of a little story I read in the paper about a small community not far from the city of New York whose population decided years ago during a depression that they would plant trees on a large area of land which had come to them in lieu of taxes. They planted the trees and I understand that even today the money derived from the cutting of those trees on a controlled basis is enough to defray all their municipal costs. If this is true of the renewable resources belonging to this little town in New York, I am sure it is all the more true of the northern part of Canada and that if we seriously undertook the development of this region we could expect to be rewarded proportionately.
Recently Premier Bourassa of Quebec was in the Rouyn-Noranda area and was talking about employment
and expansion of the base metal industry. There is talk about putting in a new smelter there to handle the resources in northern Quebec as well as some of the resources in northern Ontario. Why should this smelter be built in some other area? Obviously the refinery should be built where the resource is. If it is necessary for the nation to provide financial assistance to build this smelter in the best location, in terms of maximum employment, then we should be prepared to finance it. But companies that ask us for that kind of support must also provide the Canadian people with an equity for the investment they make, and the Canadian people should have some say in the operations. I do not know what guides the thinking of this government, but it always seems to me that it depends upon whose ox is being gored, when it comes to providing help. We are providing many people with a good deal of monetary assistance which is not absolutely necessary.
I see the hon. member for Sudbury (Mr. Jerome) is here. He knows much better than I the amount of money that has been poured into the Sudbury area through various development programs. He would be in a better position than I to decide whether or not a smelter is required in that area instead of exporting the ore to another province. Probably he is also in a better position than I to say whether or not financial assistance is required to build that smelter. But I think he would agree, on behalf of all the people of Sudbury, that they are not very interested in exporting any resource that would assist in the growth of the Sudbury area. Perhaps he would also admit that neither Inco nor Falconbridge needs a handout from the government. If they accept a handout in the form of some tax concession, then these companies should be prepared to give the people an equity, to the extent of the assistance that is provided, in one form or another.
All across the nation, and particularly in resource-based areas of Canada, we are desperately in need of secondary industry. In my area there are two reasonably large iron pelleting mines. I am not suggesting that we should take away from Jones and Laughlin their captive mine, though rumour is circulating that they have sold the mine to the other operating mine simply because Dofasco is Canadian and Jones and Laughlin is not. Whether or not they have taken note of the nationalistic leanings of the Canadian people and decided that this sale would be to everybody's advantage, I do not know, but that is the rumour. What I do know is that northern Ontario has enough iron ore to operate a very large steel mill for many years. There is an immense amount of iron ore in northern Ontario, and this resource can be supplemented from northern Quebec where in the Belcher Islands there is an almost unlimited amount of iron ore. If the government wanted to solve regional problems in northern Ontario, then the installation of an up to date steel mill that would employ several thousand people in the secondary industry that would be built around it would give the Canadian public their money back many times over.

February 24, 1971

Another problem in northern Ontario is that at the present time there is potential for three additional pulp mills. This potential exists in the Spragge area, at the eastern point of Georgian Bay, and in my own area either at Elk Lake or somewhere along the Montreal River. As far as my own constituency is concerned, this mill is needed. Not only do we need it to create employment; it is needed because the timber on a limit that is much larger than the size of the British Isles is overripe. This limit was held for many years by the E. B. Eddy Company and only recently reverted to the Crown because E. B. Eddy decided to revitalize the K.V.P. mill at Espanola and instal pollution control devices, and as a result found themselves with insufficient funds even to consider the construction of another pulp mill in the Elk Lake area.
I am well aware that we have had our ups and downs in the last several years in the production of newsprint. I am also well aware that no company is keen on building another mill. Yet on the west coast mills are being built. Indeed, mills are being enlarged in northern Ontario. A mill in my area is not only necessary to provide employment and to be an outlet for goods and services; it is absolutely essential if we are fully to utilize the resource of the area. Although this resource is renewable, if the lumber becomes overripe it deteriorates and its value suffers.
In my opinion, if a mill is going to be built in the Elk Lake area within the next five years, it will have to be built with government money. Perhaps not all of the financial assistance will have to be provided by the government, but there would have to be a large contribution by the government. If E. B. Eddy decides to build the mill, we should give them 25 per cent of the capitalization, we should provide them with up to $5,000 for each job created, we should give them a tax free benefit and we should make a number of other concessions to them. Why does not the government put this sort of proposition to the company: If you build this mill with a 60 per cent interest, then we will put up the other 40 per cent and the Canadian public will own that 40 per cent. You will be serving the needs of the people of the area and be providing a valuable service in developing one of our prime resources. At the same time you will have allowed the general public to invest in a Canadian concern.
This bill provides that if Canadians invest some of their tax money, other people will be able to participate on a direct basis. I am not sure you can have it both ways. As far as I am concerned, that proposition sounds a loaded one. If the minister is sincere in this regard, I think he should limit the financial angle to some sort of pension plan where the money invested would grow and the government would participate in the growth of that money. I am not sure that you can justify the "have-nots" having an investment portfolio with the government kicking in tax moneys all the time.
However, the public are not interested in the niceties of these situations; they are interested in the orderly development of the resources of this nation, and with government participation. In this regard there have been
Canada Development Corporation regional programs but I think that part of the fault with regional programs lies with the present minister, or certainly with those colleagues of the minister who have a regional identity and direction. But that is not really the crux of the matter. I think the crux of the matter is that some initiative must be provided by the government and the government will have to participate in development of resources.
Therefore, the limitation of $1 million means that in most cases the industries in the resource areas and in the mid-Canada corridor who need assistance will not get it. In fact, the bill is discriminating against them. It is very easy to put money into Toronto, Vancouver or Montreal, and if you really believe in city states perhaps that is where you should put the money. Maybe this is what the Liberal government is going to do anyway. But if we are interested in the orderly development of this nation, as I see it the money with which the government will assist will have to be provided through the Canada Development Corporation.
If there is to be assistance in respect of orderly development, initiative will have to be shown in other areas such as the resource field which in turn will provide assistance in respect of employment, goods and services. Those of us from northern Ontario have said-I believe this is true of every member from northern Ontario-we do not care whether the benefit goes to Sudbury, Timmins or northern Quebec, because anything that is good for any part of the northern area is good for the area as a whole. If investment is made by private enterprise or by government, the result will be felt generally by all the people in the area. So we are not suggesting that something be undertaken in one specific place or another.
I have suggested that three smelters are absolutely necessary in the area where the base material is produced. They should be located in the resource area, and beside the refineries must be built the secondary industry which is more economic in such an area than anywhere else. The difficulties in respect of manpower and some other fields could be overcome by the influx of capital from government sources and the infusion of private capital that would follow government initiative.
I have been interested in watching the machinations of even some of my colleagues in respect of taking all the money in the area development fund for a year and building a pipeline from Prudhoe Bay down to Edmonton. If we built this pipeline, obviously we would have to look after the problem of ecology and take into consideration the indigent people in the area. As well, we would have to make arrangements for training the Indian and native populations in the area so that they could be employed. But we would eliminate any idea of bringing oil down the west coast which would have the potential of pollution.
I am pleased to learn that the government is thinking of making some kind of arrangement in this respect. We could take all the money we have and put it into one enterprise that would have a terrific secondary industry potential for the whole area. I think the hon. member for

February 24, 1971
Canada Development Corporation Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) would be prepared to say that if we should run a 48-inch or a 60-inch line to carry both oil and gas, this would even do something for Edmonton. 1 am pleased that some of my colleagues now think this might not be such a bad idea and are making a noise in that direction. I am pleased to know that the noises are being made by people who are not the least enamoured of nationalized industry. Those that have opposed nationalization have probably frightened away more people than enough. I say, however, that if the government decided to put money into the Canada Development Corporation for the benefit of industry, and provide equity, that pipeline could be built and much of the disaster that may befall generations to come could be eliminated by an expenditure made in one year.
I do not know whether the government intends to make any changes in respect of the Canada Development Corporation. They talk about their willingness to give $100-odd to the old age pensioner. Really, they will not give it to him but will do a number of things, and if he meets a number of requirements he might get the money. Perhaps it will be the same in respect of the Canada Development Corporation. Perhaps if a number of conditions are met and circumstances develop in a satisfactory way, some of the things suggested may be done. Surely there are enough members in this House who would like to see an agency established which would have sufficient money to provide for the direction of development of our nation, rather than merely helping some of our industries higgledy-piggledy.
Some time ago I was surprised to hear a woman from one of the universities talking about the mid-Canada corridor. She said she had to get her point of view across because the government was going to participate in Rohmer's scheme in respect of the mid-Canada corridor. I was very surprised because I wondered how the government could participate without taking it over. Would they give somebody else the money to do it, and give the land that would be necessary to establish the mid-Canada corridor project to somebody else? How would it be done? I think if members would look at the Canada Development Corporation bill they would see one way in which it could be done in order to provide maximum benefit to the Canadian public.
I do not believe we should have anything less than an agency which would have the ability to provide the wherewithal either on a direct participation basis or totally in the development stage in respect of industries in the resource areas of this nation, for the greatest benefit of the largest number of Canadians. I think this is a serious enough matter that the government should accept the amendment and take back this bill for reconsideration.
The other night the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Greene) listened to many members from both sides of this House speaking about whether it is worthwhile to investigate and implement methods that would guarantee the retention of Home Oil in Canadian hands. Although the minister expressed surprise, I believe most members would agree that Canadians in general are not so concerned about buying back Canada
as in changing the direction in which the future of the country will go. In order to make that change there must be a totally different orientation in the development of our resource areas. This change can come only through large infusions of money from the Canadian public, and this must be done through the Canada Development Corporation if it is to be national in scope and provide the greatest possible benefit to the largest number of Canadians.


Mr. F. J. Bigg (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, for the past 12 years I have recommended something along the lines proposed in the bill. I do not want to join those who say that we should nationalize everything, because that concept is 60 or 70 years out of date. This is the era of the multinational corporation and we have fallen behind in that we have not kept up with our competitors in world trade. All that I hope the CDC will do at present is initiate a new look and to set up a research team of experts, not well-meaning, wishful-thinking people but people who know as much about world trade as do the Japanese, the West Germans or our neighbours to the south. That is leaving out the Russian bloc about which I know very little. These three blocs at least have done their homework, but we have fallen behind.
I cannot see any sense in putting a vast amount of money such as $250 million or ten times that amount into the Canada Development Corporation unless we know the direction in which we are going and unless we have markets in view, because we are after world trade. I think it is putting the cart before the horse to start setting up a company, selling its shares and asking the Canadian taxpayer to underwrite the initial cost unless we have well thought-out plans telling us in which direction we should go. It is almost too late now. The fact is that at the present time we are no longer masters of our own house. Such markets as we have are largely controlled by multinational corporations. At present their headquarters are not in Canada but in one of the three blocs I mentioned-the European bloc, the American bloc or the Japanese-Asiatic bloc.
Unless I miss my guess, the entry of Britain into the Common Market will cut off one more outlet for Canadian goods. Britain has been forced to join one of these international power blocs. That is what the Common Market is-nothing more nor less than the complete integration of customs, trade and manufacturing as well as, unfortunately for Canada, the agricultural industry. All this is in one big basket.
To the south of us there are 200 million people, well organized, in a self-sustaining economy, and the strides they have made in the last 25 years have staggered the western world. It has not been an accident. We cannot blame the Almighty for deserting us in our hour of need. The Japanese also have gone to work. They sent a team of experts to Canada and found out that Canadians by and large love cameras. What did they do? They put competition out of business so far as cameras and camera equipment are concerned. They did the necessary research and now they have the market. Once one has a

February 24, 1971

market, it is nothing at all to set up a corporation of any size. Inexperienced as I am, if I were given an unlimited market I could find not only the shareholders but the money to finance a corporation, because markets are the lifeblood of trade.
The first thing we should do is find out what Canada has to sell to the world. We are in a good position and always have been so far as raw materials are concerned. That is not our problem. Our problem today is that we have aspired to being one of the foremost manufacturing nations in the world. Considering our population, we have not done badly, but obviously we have not done well enough. Just today I received in my mail two releases stating that before October of this year Chemcell Limited, which hires 1,000 chemical experts in the area of greater Edmonton, will lay oft no less than one-third of their personnel.
I do not want to be a Jeremiah, but I hope this is not a tremor before an earthquake and this will be an earthquake for 350 families whose pay will be directly affected. These people will be jobless due to lack of planning over the last 25 years. I am not partisan about this. This is not the time to be throwing stones. Now is the time for an emergency approach, for an all-party approach. Now is the time when I keep my ears open even to those to the far left, to find out what they can offer in the way of an answer. I do not write them off, but I have not heard much of an answer from them yet.
Certainly the answer is not to nationalize all companies in Canada. On the contrary, I think the answer probably is to use the initiative and imagination of which Canadians have always had plenty, to do the homework and to get into the international markets as rapidly as possible. It will not be an accident if we capture new markets or if we retain the ones we have; it will be solid planning. Perhaps the young people of our country do not know us very well and are not aware that our generation accomplished much along the road to affluence which they now enjoy. But we have not done a good selling job to our own people, nor have we tried to involve them with their know-how, their ambition, their imagination, their courage and their youth. We should put them to work, making them what Canadians could very easily be, the greatest salesmen on earth.
At the end of World War II in particular we were foremost in the field of world public relations, and we have blown it. This is not to be personal or partisan, but we have blown it. We have lost our markets and our preferred position in many areas. Instead of laying off a third of our well trained, efficient, capable and hard working Canadians we should be looking for more experts to man more factories, to set up more corporations and, if it is not out of date in this age of piety, to make more money for the Canadian people so that we can afford some of the frills and some of the security about which we boast so highly. Yet we have not so far eliminated poverty in many areas. It will be very sad if the affluence which we have cannot at least be maintained for the future.
Canada Development Corporation
With the unlimited natural resources we have, and most of them undeveloped, surely we can do better than complain when the Americans, who have done their homework, saved their money and invested in a good thing, namely, our Canadian future, are doing such a job of development in Canada. Yet they are called silly names-capitalists and imperialists. The fault, Mr. Speaker, lies with us. I do not think that nationalization of any of our industries is necessary. I agree with government participation. I think it was good when the government developed Trans-Canada Air Lines, now Air Canada. I am looking forward to the day when we sell Air Canada back to the Canadian people, who set it up. We paid for it and we have a right to own it. It is a big project. It cost a lot of money.
After a while, nationally owned corporations become tired and start to lose money. Instead of being the assets they were originally, the new broom sweeping clean, they are a liability. It will be an empty dream to suggest that we create a pool of government taxes and funds and do nothing but buy up defunct corporations. I hope this is not going to be some grandiose scheme to buy out entrepreneurial industries that have failed in world markets, with the beautiful thought that by digging into a pool of tax free money we will be able to shore-up dying industry. That just will not work.
We have to find out what we can sell. Then we have to make those products and get out and sell them. I was greatly heartened a few years ago when we called in our trade commissioners from all over the world and read the riot act to them. I do not know how many of them were fired, but then they took an interest; some planning was done. I believe that out of this we developed the Industrial Bank. We had some idea of the things in which Canada could involve herself. I think it was this positive, outward-looking that set us to work retraining our young people and retraining the older people who were out of jobs.
I have tried to find out what will happen to the 325 families affected by the Chemcell closedown. So far as I know there is no plan to retrain them to fit into the pulp industry. It seems to me we must undertake an emergency operation, call it what you like.
We will need co-operation at the three levels of government. If the government of Alberta gives a charter to set up a pulp industry in the foothills of the Rockies, I do not know why experts from Chemcell should not be sitting around the table with those who are setting up the pulp mill to find out how many of these 325 people can be retrained to fit into that industry. I have had chemical training myself and I do not think it would be too difficult if you were in the formaldehyde business to work in a plant producing sulphuric acid. I hope I am not being too subtle. You need sulphuric acid and strong alkalies in the pulp industry for bleaching the paper and other products.
Surely people who have worked in a Chemcell factory producing formaldehyde should be able to work in the pulp industry. Why wait until October when these people

February 24, 1971
Canada Development Corporation
are on the unemployment rolls? Why not do it now? Don't waste time blaming people because it has not been done in the past. What are we going to do from here on in? What kind of co-operation can we expect from all three levels of government? What kind of co-operation can we expect from this chamber? Let us not waste time throwing stones; instead, let us chip in a bit and build something.
We need full employment in this country. We shall not get it by talking about bigger and better welfare payments. This is just like a snake chewing on its tail; after a while there is no more snake left. To have full employment we must have busy factories, and the only way to have busy factories is to go out and get the markets. We need a great deal more than know-how about producing, than how to get the products to market cheaply. We need more than a transportation policy. We must have a sale at the other end of the line.
There is certainly no use asking the people of Canada to invest in any kind of white elephant. If I set aside some of my hard earned wages and stop wasting my time travelling around the world on holidays, or going south of the line on holidays instead of staying in Canada, if I invest in the future development of Canada I want to know whether I will be protected from unnecessary taxation. If I am encouraged to make what I consider to be an honourable profit in developing the resources of Canada, I should at least expect to be treated the same as people who benefit from tax concessions in this country. I think that the taxpayers of Canada should have an opportunity to write off their losses in the development of the oil industry. An American investing in drilling oil in Alberta can write off any losses he has against his income tax. Of course he can afford to develop our oil when he may be 35 per cent or 40 per cent better off than a Canadian as far as income tax is concerned.
I believe there are a great many Canadians who want to gamble on the future of their country, but you will not get many of them to respond until they have at least equality in the taxation field. I am afraid we have created uneasiness in Canada by suggesting that profit is necessarily bad. I do not agree with that. I believe that thrift has to be rewarded. I believe that most people in Canada want to work. I think most people in Canada will work, but when they are asked to invest they should have as much guarantee as we can give them.
I am not asking for Utopia or a slice of the moon. I am asking the government to guarantee that in the foreseeable future it will not take away the benefits of their thrift and the benefits of their investment in our country. The intricacies of the financial structure of this country have always eluded me somewhat. I do not fully understand the implications of the floating dollar, but I do know that, when we are exporting from our embryonic industries things such as chemicals made in our petrochemical plants in Edmonton it makes it very difficult to keep the plant going if you are afraid that after you have produced $1 million worth of formaldehyde you will have to sell it for 7 per cent less within the next year. This happens.
The floating dollar has seriously hit our petrochemical industry and our pulp industry. You need only look at the stock market to see this. I do not suggest for a minute that the floating dollar is the only factor; nevertheless, it is a contributing factor. When we do the research which I think will be necessary if the Canada Development Corporation is to work, in so far as it will work, we shall need to take cognizance of the broad picture and determine how stable is the money market and what kind of selling market exists for our commodities. The market, of course, is tied very closely to our floating dollar. I think we are gambling. I hope that our financial experts know what they are doing when they take the drastic step of either pegging or unpegging the dollar.
The chemical industry in Canada is worried about this, the pulp industry is worried and all Canada is worried. Our bacon has been saved in other fields because at present we have in asbestos and nickel almost a world monopoly. Our trade in those commodities has in part accounted for our enormous favourable balance of trade. Nevertheless, the small Canadian companies are still going out of business by the hundred.
I hope that the Canada Development Corporation will not only be interested in keeping the large corporations going. I believe by and large that the large, multinational corporations need very little help from us. Some of them are bigger than countries and stronger than governments and need very little help. The Canadian entrepreneur, the man whom the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is encouraging, must be helped to begin new enterprises and to create new jobs. Of course we must decide whether the new companies are valid enterprises. I do not suggest that we set up a dictatorship; nevertheless, if we are to put the Canadian taxpayers' money behind a venture, we ought first to do our homework. We ought not to encourage people to set up box factories when boxes are not needed, or shoe factories that make only for the left foot shoes. It is passing strange that those people who talk most about planning have been deplorably lacking in the ability to make those plans work.
Private enterprise has created 99 per cent of the affluence we now enjoy. Since North America has led the way to affluence, I do not see that we need go to others for leadership. I say, by all means learn how the Japanese did what they have done in the Pacific. Learn what West Germany did in Europe and learn what the Americans did south of our border. Nevertheless, we must develop our own Canadian economy. The problems of those countries are not our problems. America has not our transportation problems. It does not lack a large home market. That economy is self-sustaining. We in Canada must develop the kind of economy which suits us. We must have a well co-ordinated transportation policy. We must try to locate our industries where they will be viable.
I think we could take a page out of the Japanese book. The Japanese government can tell a factory that it will not be in a competitive position. This is where our own government could step in; it could see that research is

February 24, 1971

properly done and that advice is fairly spread across the board. Government experts can advise. They should be able to go to a private agency and say, "We do not think this is going to work, because..." The government must be encouraged to say, "Before putting in the Canadian taxpayers' money we must be conviced that this will be a viable industry."
This is a big country and we need a flexible policy. I believe in the distribution of wealth. I believe we should do all we can to help people in various areas. I believe that we should try to set up industry where there is no industry. On the other hand, I think we would be foolish if we tried to put the steel industry of Hamilton on Baffin Island. I would much rather see a seaway built, as was done, with the consequence that ships could sail up the St. Lawrence and up to Hamilton and transport iron ore from Baffin Island, northern Quebec, northern Ontario or from wherever it could be found, cheaply and efficiently, and also transport steel to places where it can best be used.
Let us see what the Japanese have done with Alberta coal. It has been in Alberta for a long time. The Japanese did the research, now they are shipping 100 million tons of coal to Japan. The Japanese are in a unique position in Asia. At present, Asia is theirs. Can we compete? I think we can. We will not do it by wishful thinking and by returning to nineteenth century nationalism. We will not do it by carrying on the class war. That has been won; in Canada there are no classes; nobody in Canada has a monopoly on profits. The unemployed in Quebec, New Brunswick or Alberta can still go to work if they are willing to adopt, willing to reclassify and to retrain. I am only begging that we do all we can to make this easy for them. We must set up more national trade schools, we have done this in the past, but not enough of it. Also, we ought to anticipate some of the problems that may arise. We ought to go to the chemical industry and to the pulp industry with our experts and find out their problems. We need more communication.
Some years ago, when Canada's trade was slumping, I made a suggestion which I still think is valid. How many of us know where the products we use are made. One thing we could do right now is buy Canadian. It would be a good idea if our products carried a recognizable stamp. It could be a red maple leaf, if you think that would not desecrate our flag, or a beaver.


An hon. Member:: A red one.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: We could stamp on the product, in letters the size of which could be legislated and would vary with the size of the containers, if you like, the quantity of Canadian labour, Canadian raw material, etc., that had gone into the product. We might begin with "30 per cent Canadian made" and grade the scale right up to "100 per cent Canadian made". When we reach 100 per cent, let us have a gold maple leaf or a gold beaver, because that would show the product was 100 per cent Canadian raw materials, labour and expertise. This would not shock the Japanese; people already know what is made in Japan.
Canada Development Corporation
We can do a great deal to find out what Canadians want and need. I have mentioned the automobile industry. What about a bumper that will withstand the jolts we receive from the heavy traffic on our roads? I do not care whether the Asians, including the Japanese, have one or not. We should do research on what we need.


An hon. Member:: Why don't they fill in the potholes?


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Indeed. Our unemployment is at one of the highest rates in modern times. If we carried out proper research on pollution, we could kill two birds with one stone. By replanting our forests we would also be cleaning our air. I suggest that many young people would enjoy replanting forests during the summer. While we are at it, we might as well plant hardwood trees. What initiative are we taking with regard to our water problems? A question was recently asked in this House about whether the government was planning or helping to build a pipeline from Prudhoe Bay. The answer was that the government had not been asked. The government must start taking the initiative rather than waiting to be asked. The government should have investigated the matter of Prudhoe Bay as soon as the news was released. When I heard the news, I stood in my place and said that we should get on with the pipeline now. This is still my thinking. Those who do not agree say that we must think about the ecology of the north. That is pretty well balanced. A pipeline would be far less dangerous to the north than a supertanker sinking in the Arctic.
Our chosen leaders should not hide behind the excuse "Nobody asked me". As I understand it, Members of Parliament are to take the flag and say, "Follow me". We should not wait to be asked what we are going to do about a pipeline, planning or unemployment. We must not wait for an earthquake or a flood before we act. Noah built an ark. When it started to rain, he was ready. We know there will be slumps, periods of unemployment and automation which will result in the loss of jobs for many people. We must be ready for this. It is not good enough to sit around for three years and then when a problem arises say we are sorry but we do not have any plans. If we act in this manner, it will be a sorry spectacle.
Canadians are tired of us. They are talking about a new method of running Canadian affairs. Have we worn out the Parliamentary system? Is it no longer capable of accepting the challenge of leadership? Canadians want leadership, not foolish and half-hearted moves. In fact, sometimes they are broken-hearted moves. Why should we not forge ahead? If we are not experts, and few of us are, we should get a few dollar men in here. There are people who know how to run General Motors; they might be pleased to assist. There are talented men in this chamber who are not being paid what they are worth. There may be men in industry who would be willing to donate some of their time. C. D. Howe donated his considerable talents so that we were able to reach the stage we did at the end of World War II. There is nothing partisan about that, coming from a Tory.

February 24, 1971
Canada Development Corporation
I think we are failing when we do not ask industry to do something about our high unemployment rate. If we believe in planning, let's do some planning. As I stated at the beginning of my remarks, it is not necessary to nationalize everything; however, it is necessary to plan. It is certainly necessary to plan if we are going to ask Canadian taxpayers to underwrite any of these segments of industry. They have a right to know why. If it is a gamble, they have a right to know. If we do not know what is going to happen, we must be honest enough to tell them. If they are to be asked to invest $1,000 a year in the Canada Development Corporation, they must have assurance from the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) that he will not take it all back through some fancy capital gains tax. If that is the case, they may as well spend their money in Europe or the Caribbean.
I would like to invest in Canada's future along the lines of the CDC. The public leaders should show the Canadian people that they are going to be masters in their own house. I do not think it is necessary to expropriate anyone who has invested an honest dollar in this country. We need know-how. We must build up our stocks, work as a nation and be thrifty as we were in the past. I have drawn up a timetable. I do not know how accurate it is, but it can be a target. In round figures, Americans own 75 per cent of all Canadian industry at present. If we work hard, by 1976 this figure could be 70-30. By 1981 it could be 65-35. I am not going to read the whole list. For every five years we could reverse the trend by 5 per cent. According to my figures, by the year 1991 the ratio would be 50-50 and by the year 2000, 60-40. This cannot be done overnight. We cannot expropriate our blood cousins who had much more faith, initiative and more sense to gamble than ourselves. However, we can do it if we want.
At the present time we have not developed more than 10 per cent of our potential in Canada. In the next century the world could be ours, not in an imperialistic sense but by the fact we would be masters of our own house. If we are able to develop the wealth of Canada properly and methodically and participate in that development ourselves, in 25 years we could be so wealthy that we would have to give away a good deal of that wealth for our own good.
9 (5:50 p.m.)


Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters) told us that he and his party were not able to support this legislation, and from this premise he reached the conclusion that the bill was inadequate. I would remind him that from a premise of that kind there are at least two possible conclusions. The very fact that Bill C-219 is being belaboured from the right by speakers such as the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Bigg) and from the left by speakers of the New Democratic Party suggests that the government has steered a satisfactory middle course between excessive state control and the absence of adequate direction.
The hon. member for Timiskaming, and this is a good example of his party's analysis of the bill, said the measure makes no provision to assist small companies. He probably had in mind clause 6(2)(b) which provides that the corporation shall invest in the shares of corporations in which the real value of the shareholders' equity after investment by the company will be, or is likely to become, $1 million or more.
Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this power is not to assist small companies or, indeed, to assist large companies. It is not to assist companies, as such, at all. The purpose of the CDC, as stated at the beginning of the bill, is quite clear. It is to establish a corporation which will help develop and maintain strong Canadian-controlled and managed corporations in the private sector of the economy. That is the first purpose. The second is to give Canadians greater opportunities to invest and participate in the economic development of Canada. In investing in a company, the CDC will be doing so for the purpose of obtaining a much larger economic benefit. This, it seems, is a purpose which has not been understood by some hon. members opposite.
In fact, hon. members opposite, especially those in the New Democratic Party, have been ambivalent in their expressions of view on the question of profit. Sometimes they take the view that the whole scheme is wrong because it involves the profit motive. At other times they acknowledge, as did the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman), that the profit motive is not bad in itself and that there must be some profit orientation here.
It would seem the best way to look at this is to ask whether the profit criterion is to be taken as short-term or long-term profit. If this corporation were to be interested in grasping at every short-term benefit which came along, it would obviously not be fulfilling the larger purpose which the government and, I hope, Parliament will entrust to it. But if the corporation takes a long-range view of profitability, it will not only achieve the protection of the money invested in it but it will achieve the much broader purpose of making a major contribution to the development of the economy within the hands of Canadians.
I should like to refer briefly to the comments made yesterday by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Rowland). He said the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) was presenting us with a bill which would create a private corporation completely beyond the influence of the government and motivated solely by the desire to maximize profits. It is very easy to win a battle if you set up straw men to attack. The fact is, the purpose of the bill is not that at all, nor is that the kind of entity which the legislation establishes.
Initially the government would be the sole shareholder and would obviously possess as much control as it wished to exercise over the affairs of the corporation through its power to appoint directors. Even if it were reduced subsequently to its 10 per cent holding, as envisioned in the legislation as a possibility, it would still be in a position to vote its full shares in the corporation rather

February 24, 1971

than to appoint the limit of four directors to which hon. members opposite referred. This is provided for in clause 40(1) as follows:
The Minister of Finance may . . . annually appoint not more than four members of the board of directors in lieu of voting the shares held by Her Majesty in right of Canada-
The wording of this clause would suggest that this is to be a more exceptional power and that normally the government would exercise its right to vote its full shares. Then, of course, if the board failed to work in the way anticipated, the power would always remain with this House to amend the legislation to achieve whatever results were considered necessary.
I trust, however, that action of this kind will never be needed and that provision has been made for the proper degree of direction, the introduction of the correct degree of national purpose in the operation of this new vehicle, making it unnecessary for the government to take extraordinary measures.
This does raise an important point, nevertheless. I should like to endorse the comments made by my hon. friend from Etobicoke (Mr. Gillespie) and by my hon. friend from Scarborough East (Mr. O'Connell) that this legislation merely provides a framework-the policy has still to be worked out and established. For example, it is necessary to establish a science policy; I trust any effort made in this direction will be considerably aided by the
Canada Development Corporation report of the Science Committee of the other place which we expect to receive in the next few months.
We need to work out and establish a policy concerning foreign ownership; such a policy is now in gestation within the government and we trust that it will soon be presented to the House for comment. We need, as my hon. friend from Scarborough East put it, to develop an over-all industrial policy. It is only in this context that the legislation before us becomes fully meaningful, because it is only in this context that the board of directors of the new corporation and, indeed, the government itself will be able to achieve the national purposes which we hope for in general but which have yet to be specified in particular.
May I call it six o'clock?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order. As it is now
six o'clock, the House will adjourn until 2 p.m. tomorrow. As I wish hon. members a safe journey home, may I suggest to them that they might consider whether the CDC ought to take over the removal and use of our snow, which is one of the more plentiful resources of Canada at this time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, February 25, 1971