1971-12-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath):
That in view of the decision of various toy manufacturers in Canada to stop having their toys tested by the Toy Testing Council and in view of the cutting off of all funds to this valuable body and the vital consumers' interest therein, that this House do direct the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to meet with the toy manufacturers and to express to them the wish of this House that they continue to have a format whereby their toys are tested, and further, that he request Information Canada to continue printing the toy safety evaluation issued last year, and finally, that this House call on the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs to meet immediately to consider the entire matter of toy safety standards so that it might be looked into and discussed at this peak toy-buying period.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



FAMILY INCOME SECURITY


Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: wish to make a motion under Standing Order 43 in a matter of urgency. The government of Canada has been misleading the people of Canada into false hopes about a family income security plan.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jack Marshall: The white paper on income security in 1970 declared a target date of September, 1971. Bill C-264 declared a target date of May, 1972. Since it is obvious
that these declarations are ambiguous and misleading I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare be directed to appear before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs to state the government's position and intentions with regard to Bill C-264.


An hon. Member:: Or resign.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion cannot be put.



PILOTAGE


Mr. Gerard Duquet (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I wish to table in the two official languages the fifth and final report of the Royal Commission on Pilotage-Study of Canadian Pilotage, Great Lakes System.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State who has made statements to the press that he has a mandate from the cabinet to pursue negotiations with the provinces on the subject of licensing broadcasting stations to broadcast educational material. In view of the confusion and vaccilation in the last couple of years on this whole subject, can the minister indicate briefly to the House the specific scope of his mandate from the government in this area?
.


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I think, Mr. Speaker, that I can resume it rather briefly.

December 9, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
Some Canadian provinces, especially Alberta, Ontario and Quebec approached us many months ago. The cabinet has studied the matter and has asked me to meet the provincial ministers concerned in order to consider the possibility of making a new arrangement. The cabinet has also stated three conditions which would be set by the federal government, providing an agreement acceptable to the provinces and ourselves would finally be reached.
The first condition is that the authority of the CRTC and the jurisdiction of the federal government in the broadcasting field remain complete. In the second place, the stations which would air educational programs in the provinces would have to comply with the definition of educational broadcasting drawn up, in agreement with the ten provinces, two years ago. The third is that the licences would not be delivered by a provincial government or one of its departments, but as it is done at the federal level, by a body independent of the provincial executive.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In these negotiations is it contemplated that one of the conditions shall be that the CRTC will be the judge of what is considered to be educational content that might be broadcast by one of these stations licensed under this proposal?


Gérard Pelletier: That is to say, Mr. Speaker, that the CRTC would have no judgment to pass on the quality since the definition of educational television has already been accepted by the provinces. The CRTC would only pass judgment on facts, that is to say, it would merely say whether such and such an educational program is, I say it again, generally different from ordinary broadcasts.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Since these negotiations contemplate the rescinding of the directive issued by the government in June, 1970, I think, which directed that there should be no renewal of these licences to stations which were in fact provincial agencies for educational purposes, is the government prepared to revoke that directive now so that these stations will not have this axe hanging over their heads and bargaining can proceed in good faith?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, we are seeking a solution so that the stations that the Leader of the Opposition is referring to may continue to transmit radio programs; this is indeed in the field of radio only. I do not believe however that it should be through educational TV that we may solve the problem of these radio stations. One of the complications is that they are not really transmitting educational radio programs, but general broadcasting of a cultural nature.
But efforts to find a solution allowing these stations, connected with universities, to keep on broadcasting have not ceased. The CRTC and we ourselves are still trying to find it.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the Leader of the Opposition, of course. I suggest, however, that perhaps we ought to go to the next subject in a moment because we are spending perhaps a bit too long on this subject.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Secretary of State whether it is contemplated that the CRTC will revoke the licence of any station which is considered to be a provincial agency that is broadcasting matter which, in the judgment of the CRTC, is of a cultural rather than of an educational nature?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, the CRTC must make judgments. Licences issued under this new policy would include conditions related to broadcasting and the CRTC would have to ensure that these conditions are met as it is doing in the case of the CBC or any other private general broadcasting station.



EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING-REASON FOR ISSUANCE OF STATION LICENCES TO PROVINCIAL AGENCIES RATHER THAN TO PROVINCES

Mr. Mark Rose (Fraser Valley West):: I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State. Does the minister feel that a violation of the Broadcasting Act, as we understand it, is avoided by making licences available to autonomous Crown corporations or agencies rather than to the provinces directly, and is that the reason this particular course has been chosen, in order to avoid the problem with the Broadcasting Act as it currently stands?


Gérard Pelletier: If I understand the question I am being asked, Mr. Speaker, the reason for not granting licences if we finally decide to grant same, only to autonomous agencies rather than provincial governments is quite simple. It is because the federal government has never granted itself broadcasting licences but did issue some to the CBC only which has a very autonomous status in relation to the government.



EDUCATIONAL PROGRAMMING-POSSIBLE ACCEPTANCE OF LIMITATIONS BY QUEBEC

Mr. Georges Valade (Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State.
I would like to know whether he held any discussions with the Quebec Minister of Communications to acquaint him with the limitations he has just indicated to the House. Is there any agreement with the provincial government in this regard? In other words, did the province accept these limitations to which the Secretary of State has just referred and does the minister foresee any agreement between Quebec and the federal government in this respect?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I have met the Quebec Minister of Communications three times, as I have met the ministers of two other provinces
December 9, 1971

that are specially interested. We have not come to any final agreement with any of them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are three or four members seeking supplementaries. We have spent nearly ten minutes on one subject. If we follow the same ratio, we will have four questions during the question period. I think we might try to return to this subject in a moment.



WELFARE


Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the minister's action in cancelling a grant to the Hamilton welfare rights organization and in view of the desirability of our hearing directly from the disadvantaged people of this country, can the minister say why this grant was cancelled? Can the minister also say whether there are criteria or standards for these grants that could have the effect of endangering other such grants to similar organizations across the country?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the policy with regard to giving grants to low-income people so that they can express their views still holds. I have to make certain decisions with respect to some of these grants. Whether it be Hamilton or anywhere else, where the preoccupation is rhetoric and inflammatory action that contribute to a hardening of attitudes in this country. I feel that in the long run this undermines the over-all objective of rendering useful assistance to the disadvantaged.


Stanley Howard Knowles: How does the minister square this judgment with the principle of freedom of speech?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is debate.


John Carr Munro: They can still speak.



MEETING OF MINISTER AND HAMILTON WELFARE


Jack Marshall: have a supplementary question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Will the minister advise whether at his meeting with the Hamilton welfare rights organization on Saturday, he will discuss the need to lay down guidelines in order to allow these groups to attain their objectives, the need for setting up more adequate liaison with the provinces and municipalities involved and the need for a means of appeal if they cannot make progress in dealing with welfare offices rather than cut off these grants unilaterally?


John Carr Munro: Many of these areas may be subject matters for discussion. I cannot say exactly at this point.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Alexander:: In light of the fact that the minister is now setting a precedent in trying to ascertain what can be done in this area and since the municipalities, generally speaking, have not been brought into the picture, is it the minister's intention to see to it that representatives of the Hamilton City Council are present at this meeting in Hamilton on Saturday?


John Carr Munro: I think the hon. member should be aware that not only were the municipal authorities in Hamilton advised at the time of this particular grant but, as I have said on several occasions, it is a matter of policy, in connection with these applications for grants, to consult with the local and provincial authorities.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Perhaps the minister did not understand my question. I am asking him whether in fact he has invited representatives of the Hamilton City Council to sit with him on Saturday when he meets representatives of the welfare rights organization?


John Carr Munro: No, Mr. Speaker. Representatives of the welfare rights organization asked to see me and I said I would see them. If they want other representatives to be at that meeting, that is up to them.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Has he received from Mr. Andre Boudreau, general director of CRAN, of Bathurst, New Brunswick, a telegram stating the representations made by various French Canadian organizations in northeastern New Brunswick regarding the establishment of a French television network in that province?


Gérard Pelletier: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State whether a study is being made or whether he gave orders to have appropriate action taken concerning the October 18 letter he received from CRAN and the Common Front of northeastern New Brunswick?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, a study is under way and being carried out very intensively. But the second part of the hon. member's question startles me because the Secretary of State cannot give orders to the CBC or the CRTC.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I would like to know whether the Secretary of State has officially made his position known to CRAN and to the Common Front with regard to that matter?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledged receipt of their communications and I gave those people the same information I have just given to hon. members, that is that

December 9, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
the matter was being taken into consideration and that a statement would be made in the fairly near future.



PROPOSED STATIONING OF SALES PROMOTION OFFICERS IN EUROPE AND ASIA

Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Wheat Board. Has the government given any consideration to the recommendation by the Canada Grains Council that there is an urgent need for market information and development officers to be stationed in European and Asian countries as a promotional force to sell Canadian grain?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: This and other questions related to the best method of selling grain were considered by the marketing committee of the Canadian Wheat Board and, of course, are constantly under consideration. The board is aware of this most recent recommendation and assures me it is constantly examining its position with respect to the wisdom of having persons in offices abroad.


Jack Burnett Murta: Does the minister recognize, then, the necessity of a third force in the marketplace to promote sales of Canadian grain in countries around the world in addition to the marketing research activities presently carried out by the Canadian Wheat Board?


Otto Emil Lang: We are encouraging many more forces than simply a third force in our total market development. We are encouraging Canadian companies interested in the export of grain to take a variety of steps to ensure greater access to markets. We are also doing a great deal to encourage associations such as the Canadian Rapeseed Association to play an active role in the marketing of grain.



CONSIDERATION OF CHANGE IN BASIS OF PRICING

Mr. A. P. Gleave (Saskatoon-Biggar):: May I ask the
minister whether, in view of the specific recommendation of the mission set up by the Canada Grains Council, either the Wheat Board or he himself has under consideration the possibility of changing the basis of pricing in relation to both domestic and overseas purchases at the lower St. Lawrence ports?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, I should make it clear that the mission referred to by the hon. member was financed by the government as part of its market development program. The question of home and abroad pricing was also the subject of consideration by the Wheat Board's very high-powered marketing committee which recommended no change at the present time. This is not a matter that can be settled for all time, and the Wheat Board has it under constant examination.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Further to the pricing policy of the Canadian Wheat Board, will the minister tell the House whether

or not he is asking the Canadian Wheat Board to re-evaluate its pricing methods for markets in Common Market countries and to act on the recommendations of the mission in regard to meeting seasonal changes in pricing methods by the European Economic Community-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member because it seems to me he is making a speech rather than asking a question. I suggest to hon. members we should make an effort to try to shorten questions, and ministers should make an effort to shorten their replies. If we are to have a series of speeches during the question period, I suggest to hon. members that we will not have a very effective period. The hon. member might ask his question at this point.


Alfred Pullen Gleave: Thank you, Mr. Speaker; I am sorry if I was overly long. Is the minister going to try to meet the recommendations of the mission regarding changes in pricing policies in the Common Market under the levy system, which the mission has said were inadequate?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, many of the comments of the mission in regard to pricing and other selling activities were out of date in the sense that most of the things they recommend have in fact been implemented either as a result of government or Wheat Board action. I am satisfied with the evaluation being given by the Wheat Board which watches pricing from month to month and from place to place; I am sure the Wheat Board is doing a very competent job.



GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION


Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister bring the House up to date on the results of the investigation that was started several weeks ago into the leak of a draft of the Gray report?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I made a report on this either yesterday or the day before; perhaps the hon. member was not here.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You said nothing in that report.


George Harris Hees: In view of the fact that I was here and heard the Prime Minister's non-answer, I would ask him whether it is not a fact that the reluctance of the government to make public any information regarding this investigation is due to the fact that the investigation has shown that this leak came from within cabinet ranks?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is not the fact, Mr. Speaker.


George Harris Hees: You had better examine your conscience on that aspect.
December 9, 1971



FAMILY INCOME SECURITY


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the hon. Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Can he tell the House whether the government of Quebec has recently made proposals concerning the family allowances plan and whether that government, in such communications, has waived the legislative priority recently demanded by the Premier of Quebec?


John Carr Munro: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the issue of legislative primacy is in question at the moment in the discussions with Quebec. Rather, we are discussing the details of our legislation and theirs and how best they can be dovetailed. These discussions are being held at the official level but have not yet concluded.



HOUSING


Mr. S. Perry Ryan (Spadina):: I direct my question to the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In light of the fact that approximately 18 per cent of Toronto's construction workers are unemployed, while the housing crisis and shortages are increasing, is the government working with the province of Ontario and metro Toronto to encourage increased construction activity and, if so, when will a statement be made?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I would say that the federal government is working with the province of Ontario and putting up about 90 per cent of the funds for social housing in Toronto as well as other parts of Ontario. I fail to see much credit given to us by that government for this. I do not think there is a need for a further statement.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: Has the government worked out with the province of Ontario and with Toronto specific house construction targets for the year 1972, and is there any immediate program to get the 18 per cent of construction workers in Toronto who are unemployed back to work?


Robert Knight Andras: Specific budgets were allocated to the government of the province of Ontario earlier in the year and an additional share of the $113 million that was advanced from the first quarter of next year was allocated to Ontario. We would be glad to sit down and give the Ontario government the benefit of our advice as to how this could be translated into housing starts, but we will listen to their suggestions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.
Inquiries of the Ministry



TORONTO-SUGGESTED DIRECTION OF FEDERAL FINANCING TOWARD LOW-COST HOUSING TO RELIEVE SHORTAGE

['Mr. Speaker, as to the exact number of Canadians who could be fitted into this one flight I am not in a position to say. I do know Canadians have departed by other means on their own, some by sea and some by air, and therefore I have no way of knowing if this figure given by the Leader of the Opposition is the current figure. I repeat that we have had two aircraft on standby. As recently as a few days ago the situation appeared to have deteriorated very seriously. We did send two Boeings as a matter of fact to Teheran and if they have to make two trips I am sure they will have the authority to do that.']
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I have a related question for the Minister of State for Urban Affairs. In light of the statement yesterday by the president of Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation that there exists a most acute housing shortage in metropolitan Toronto and his assertion that 95 per cent of the families in that area cannot afford the new houses that are being built, will the minister announce a new policy directing the effort of federal financing of housing toward fulfilling the urgent need for low-cost housing?


Robert Knight Andras: I do not know what the percentage is but I would estimate that about 80 per cent of federal funds under CMHC are going directly into low-cost housing and the other 20 per cent is going into infrastructure making more housing of that nature possible. This really adds up to the bulk of it now. What the Ontario government does about it is, of course, something that thdy have to decide.



Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the right hon. Prime Minister. It arises out of events that have happened in the last 24 hours as a consequence of which India has refused to permit Canadian aircraft to remove Canadians. Does he not think, under all the circumstances and in particular the tremendous contribution made by Canada to India to assist in connection with the refugee problem, that this kind of highhanded action on the part of the Indian government calls for bringing to the attention of the Indian government the gross unfairness of the directions in this connection that have been issued by that government are totally inconsistent with our Commonwealth relationship?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is true, as I believe the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, that we have made some unsuccessful attempts to obtain clearance for the Canadian Hercules which was standing by in Thailand and which tried to evacuate foreign personnel and even perhaps some Canadian missionaries from Dacca. So far we have failed to obtain this clearance. I repeat what the minister said; we are not trying to escalate the matter yet. We are trying in every way to obtain this clearance in the east.
I might add that we have obtained clearance in the west. This very morning we obtained from the Indian government clearance, which, incidentally, we had already received from the governments of Iran, Afghanistan and Pakistan, to have a Canadian Armed Forces Boeing 707 land in Karachi to evacuate some Canadian personnel and foreign nationals from Karachi. We have not yet had another clearance, but we are hopeful of getting it, to have the same type of aircraft land in Islamabad to evacuate people from that area.

December 9, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: This seems like a contemptuous attitude on the part of the Indian government. I am wondering what possible excuse that government can have to treat in this way a member of the Commonwealth which has done so much for India when at the same time India is prepared to have United Nations aircraft go in. In the course of conversations with the representative of the Indian government, what fatuous excuses are given as to why Canada is treated in this way?


Mr. Speaker:: Supplementary-


John George Diefenbaker: I ask the Prime Minister what excuses were given for this conduct which it is difficult to describe as other than comtemptuous? What explanation is given?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Obviously no excuse is being asked or, so far as I know, is being given except the one of the very confused situation there and that there are measures of war between two peoples in that part of the country. I repeat that our posture at this time is to ask for clearance and to do everything we can to get it. We will save any arguments on the merits of delays for some other occasion.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: My supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister and it is not with respect to any expressions or comments from India. Can the Prime Minister tell us why Pan American was able to evacuate U.S. nationals, BOAC to remove British subjects, Air France to remove Swiss and New Zealand nationals, Lufthansa to remove Germans, but Canada cannot remove Canadians? What excuse or reasonable explanation does the Prime Minister have for the families of Canadian nationals who are still there with respect to our failure to remove our own people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It depends to what particular airfield the hon. member is referring. I have said a moment ago-


J. Michael Forrestall: Islamabad.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -that we have had clearance from India for airfields in West Pakistan, in which part of the country Islamabad is, as the hon. member might know.


Mr. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace):: In the
absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs i direct my question to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister has said that the Canadian government has now received clearance from the Indian government to land in West Pakistan to pick up approximately 300 Canadians who are still there. Can the Prime Minister say when the Canadian aircraft will go in to pick up these people in view of this clearance?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Mr. Speaker. My information was that the clearance was obtained this morning and that the aircraft will go in later today, this evening.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question in respect of East Pakistan where the situation is very acute. Are there Canadian nationals there seeking evacuation and what plans has the government made for their evacuation?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As I said a moment ago, the Canadian Hercules which is trying to land in Dacca would do so for the purpose of evacuating foreign personnel but also any Canadians who might want to leave. I am informed that there are perhaps several dozen Canadian missionaries in that area, but our information at this time is that they are not requesting to leave and that they are staying there. However, the aircraft will be there. We are in daily communication with New Delhi and Islamabad through our High Commissioners and we have done everything we could in both countries to inform Canadians of the danger zones and of the precautions that they should be taking in moving in particular from the northwestern part of India, the border areas. We are informing them as well of the security and evacuation methods which we are prepared to take.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: In
view of the fact there are said to be some 270 Canadians in Karachi alone, can the Prime Minister indicate to us what arrangements are being made to get them out with one Boeing 707 and whether he has any explanation at all as to the confusion surrounding the attempts to get Canadians out when they were led to understand that the British would take them out and the British said they had no instructions to take them out?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as to the exact number of Canadians who could be fitted into this one flight I am not in a position to say. I do know Canadians have departed by other means on their own, some by sea and some by air, and therefore I have no way of knowing if this figure given by the Leader of the Opposition is the current figure. I repeat that we have had two aircraft on standby. As recently as a few days ago the situation appeared to have deteriorated very seriously. We did send two Boeings as a matter of fact to Teheran and if they have to make two trips I am sure they will have the authority to do that.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. In view of the fact that during the life of the Prices and Incomes Commission the cost of living has gone up considerably, as emphasized by the figures released today, and in view of the fact that the commission has cost $31 million to date with six months still to go, what other initiatives has the minister in mind for dealing with the rising cost of living?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is inviting the minister to make a general statement. I would not think this should be done at this time.


Mrs. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if he will make a general statement at the beginning of next week?
December 9, 1971


Hon. Ron  Bastard@Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs: Mr. Speaker, the question relates to the financial policies of the government which have been announced in various budget statements by the Minister of Finance. If there are changes in policies they will be announced in the usual way in the House.



MANPOWER


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration concerning the Local Initiatives Program.
Considering that under this program the maximum wages for any worker are $100 a week, while in the province of Quebec we have an arbitration committee which prescribes a salary much higher than $100 a week, would the minister instruct the municipalities and organizations concerned as to how they can include those extra wages in project estimates, in order to avoid the problem which arose in connection with the previous winter works program in the province of Quebec?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the rule is that the maximum grant which can be made is up to an average of $100 per man-week involved in the program. It is quite possible for individuals to be paid more than that within the program either because there is balancing with lower pay for other individuals or because funds are obtained from other sources than from the grant itself.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour similar to one asked yesterday by my colleague from Frontenac-Lennox and Addington. I have had a telegram from Mr. Monroe, the mayor of Glace Bay, asking me to inquire whether the minister's department can expedite matters with regard to unemployment insurance payments in order to ease the burden placed on the welfare rolls.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for the question because it provides me with an opportunity to apologize to the hon. member for Frontenac-Lennox and Addington for my rudeness of my answer yesterday. Had I not been rude I might have been able to explain more precisely the steps we have taken to alleviate this particular problem. Beginning on the first of January it will be possible for people who are in financial embarrassment as a result of delay in their unemployment insurance cheques, not necessarily caused by the Unemployment Insurance Commission, to
Inquiries of the Ministry
voluntarily assign these cheques to the welfare office so they may receive immediate assistance.
With regard to the specific question of Glace Bay, we have received such a telegram and have arranged for the regional director, Mr. George Foster, to meet with the mayor of Glace Bay at 2 o'clock in the afternoon on December 14.


Donald MacInnis: On a point of order, this takes me back to an issue this House and the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs have dealt with. I understood the minister to say that as of January 1 it would be possible to voluntarily assign UIC benefit cheques. I draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, and the attention of the House to the fact that the Unemployment Insurance Act is being violated in that section 58 does not permit the assigning of unemployment insurance cheques by anyone to any other person. This was contained in the old act and it is also contained in the new act, so we have a conflicting statement by the minister.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, as is the hon. gentleman, I am interested in the welfare of the people for whom he has just made a case, and I can assure him that under the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Act such a voluntary assignment is quite legal.


Donald MacInnis: On a point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I will recognize the hon. member, of course. He seeks the floor on a point of order and he has the right to be recognized. At the same time, this is debate between the hon. member and the minister rather than a point of order. This having been said, I will recognize the hon. member and remind him at the same time that we are running short of time so perhaps his point of order might be stated briefly.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, my point of order can be substantiated by the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs which in its final reported quoted that section of the act. There is no doubt that the same section is contained in the new Unemployment Insurance Act, so I have the backing of your own members.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the minister is rising on the point of order I have to draw his attention again to the fact that we are running short of time. The minister's reply should be brief.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not question the judgment of the hon. gentleman because usually he wants to be fair, but I am wondering whether he would be satisfied if I rescinded the measure I have just mentioned so that we might resolve this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



SUGGESTED EXTENSION OF OFFICE HOURS TO PROVIDE BENEFITS BEFORE CHRISTMAS

Mr. W. C. Scott (Victoria-Haliburton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the minister. Would he have the office hours of the unemployment insurance offices
24725-24;.

December 9, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
extended so that more people might receive their benefits prior to Christmas?


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, most people receive their unemployment insurance benefits by mail and I do not think extending the hours will be necessary. However, if there is any delay because of lack of personnel we would be glad to hire as many casuals as are needed in the interval.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Hon. J. A. MacLean (Malpeque):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion of which I have already given him notice. This question is urgent because bankruptcy proceedings I believe are under way. With regard to the fully secured loan of some $82,000 made by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion to the now bankrupt Seabrooks Frosted Foods Limited operation in New Annan, Prince Edward Island, has consideration been given to forgiving sufficient of this loan to allow debts owing to local farmers, truckers and so on to be paid in full?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: I thank the hon. member for having given me notice of his question, Mr. Speaker. Having considered the matter carefully, we came to the conclusion that, in view of the large number of creditors and the small amount involved, it would really not have been worth it to come before Parliament to distribute again the amount we had already granted.



OPPORTUNITIES FOR YOUTH PROGRAM-WRITING OF EVALUATION REPORT BY PRIVATE CONSULTING FIRM-SELECTION OF PROJECTS FOR ANALYSIS

['Mr. Speaker, I acted in the sense that I considered that, and there was no possibility of putting it on what the hon. gentleman calls the agenda. I reported to the House what subjects we did talk about, and there were very few subjects about which we talked in any great detail.']
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State. In view of the fact that the evaluation report on the Opportunities for Youth Program recently tabled in the House was carried out by a departmental task force, would the minister inform the House why the report itself was written by a private consulting firm?


Gérard Pelletier: Mr. Speaker, those who have been carrying on the study since the beginning of the program will themselves publish-and if the hon. member has read the introduction to the report, he will know that it says so in it-before the end of the month another report or a more thorough analysis. However, since it was necessary to give as soon as possible to the House and to the government an outline of the performance, we hired that firm which could do it more

quickly than the evaluation committee which has already undertaken a longer operation.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Would the Secretary of State inform the House how the sample of 356 projects analysed in the report was selected by his departmental task force?


Gérard Pelletier: It is matter of detail, Mr. Speaker. I could send the answer later to the hon. member, but I cannot recall it for the moment.



Mr.  R. R. Southern@Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the right hon. Prime Minister. It is a repeat of the question I put to the right hon. gentleman yesterday. Last Wednesday I asked if he would place on his agenda for his duscussions with President Nixon the suggestion that the United States should cooperate with Canada in reactivating the International Grains Arrangement and, more particularly, the placing of a substantial floor price under wheat. Can the Prime Minister advise the House if he acted on this suggestion and, if so, what was the President's response?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I acted in the sense that I considered that, and there was no possibility of putting it on what the hon. gentleman calls the agenda. I reported to the House what subjects we did talk about, and there were very few subjects about which we talked in any great detail.



COMBINES


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint ]ohn-Lancaster):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Would the minister hold up the Irving prosecutions in New Brunswick until this whole matter is clarified by the new competition bill?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Without passing the buck, Mr. Speaker, answering on the progress of prosecutions is the responsibility of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada.


Thomas Miller Bell: May I rephrase the question and address it to the Minister of Justice. Would he consider holding up the Irving prosecutions in view of the mess that has been created by the delay in proceeding with the competition bill?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Simcoe North.
December 9, 1971


Thomas Miller Bell: No, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member resume his seat. The hon. member can ask a question but I thought he was making an argument. It sounded that way to the Chair. If he asks the question directly of the Minister of Justice the minister can reply.


Thomas Miller Bell: Will the Minister of Justice undertake to delay the Irving prosecutions in New Brunswick, his summer home?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I have a duty to enforce a statute that is valid under this Parliament.


Thomas Miller Bell: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Why does the minister permit Southam and Thomson to go ahead with their monopoly acquisitions when he is prosecuting Irving for the very same thing in New Brunswick?


Stanley Ronald Basford: A good question.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have reached the end of the question period but the Chair would like to be allowed to recognize the hon. member for Dauphin. I wanted to recognize him yesterday. Other hon. members who are seeking an opportunity to ask questions today were recognized yesterday, but that is not so in his case.



FINANCE


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Can the minister give any indication to the House whether or not the recent erratic currency realignment swings appear to have been completed, or does he anticipate further international currency instability?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: I have no comment, Mr. Speaker.



SUGGESTED STUDY OF REGULATION OF DOMESTIC FEED GRAIN PRICES

Mr. Stan Schumacher (Palliser):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board. Does the government intend to set up a committee, task force or commission to study and make recommendations relating to the regulation of feed grain prices on the domestic market?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, this matter of course was referred, in
Inquiries of the Ministry
part at least, to the agricultural committee last year. The question is now under active examination by a number of provincial Ministers of Agriculture, and the Wheat Board and ourselves and we are co-operating in these examinations.



POSSIBLE RESTRICTION ON METHADONE TO ALLOW USE ONLY IN MEDICAL CLINICS

Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the urgent fight against heroin and other hard drugs, and the galloping increase in the use of methadone which is being used as a substitute for hard drugs in medical treatment, and by drug pushers, and because of the fact that this drug is itself addictive, are any restrictions being placed on this drug allowing its use only in treatment given in clinics?


John Carr Munro: As the hon. member may be aware, Mr. Speaker, we had a conference in the latter part of last week of all the health people from the provinces, working both for governmental agencies and in the private area, to discuss the over-all problem of heroin, and methadone as part of that problem. We are now assessing the conclusions, if you like, resulting from the views that were expressed at that conference as well as the recent study conducted jointly by the Canadian Medical Association and my own department relative to methadone. We expect to formulate our conclusions on the basis of these two reports very shortly and I would hope, after consulting with some of my colleagues in other departments, to make recommendations to the government. I might add that this will also be a subject for discussion at the forthcoming health ministers' conference.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member for Yukon on a last supplementary.



INQUIRY AS TO FINAL REPORT OF LEDAIN COMMISSION

Mr. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of his previously stated anticipation that the final report of the LeDain commission would be tabled before the end of this year, can he now state whether that anticipation will come true and, if not, when the final report will be tabled?


John Carr Munro: If the hon. member would be kind enough to ask me that question early next week, I expect to meet the chairman shortly to find out how matters are coming along.

December 9, 1971
10310__________________________________
Inquiries of the Ministry GRAIN



REQUEST FOR TABLING OF REPORT ON RATIONALIZATION OF HANDLING AND TRANSPORTATION

Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Further to the question I asked the Minister of Agriculture on November 29 concerning the tabling of the report on the rationalization of grain handling and transportation, which he took as notice, would the minister say whether or not this report will be tabled in the House so that all of us can have a look at it?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, we are taking steps progressively in regard to this report and have made copies of the report available to the interested provincial governments. I cannot at this point predict when we may be able to take the next step.


John Leroy Skoberg: On a question of privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair will recognize the hon. member on a question of privilege and then call orders of the day.


John Leroy Skoberg: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that hon. members represent thousands of people across this nation, and in view of the fact that copies of this report have been made available to the railway companies, wheat pools and other interested parties, surely we as elected Members of Parliament should have access to the report so that we can truly represent the people who sent us here for better or for worse.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member's representation is noted. Orders of the day.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Baldwin:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the government House leader about the business for this week and next week. In particular, could he advise the House what business we will be engaged in while the other place is considering Bill C-259, and does he have any indication from his colleague, the government leader in the other place, as to the length of time that bill may be debated there in spite of the alleged assurances given by the Minister of Finance that there will be substantial amendments moved next year?


Edgar John Benson: I have not given such assurances.


Mr. MacEachen:: Tomorrow we will call third reading of Bill C-259 and continue with that bill next week. While that bill is in the Senate, and before plans can be made to terminate this part of the session, I would like to have Bill C-176, the marketing bill, and the budget bills dealt with. In addition, there are Bill S-9, the Northern Canada Power Commission bill and the Canadian Wheat Board
bill which are at report stage and which it would be good to have passed.


Gerald William Baldwin: Would the minister answer the last part of my question? Has he any indication as to the number of weeks the other place will be engaged in debating Bill C-259?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker-well, I am not going to get involved in that controversy.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe has a supplementary to the point of order.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, can the President of the Privy Council give an indication to the House when second reading of Bill C-264 will be proceeded with in view of the concern of many Canadians as well as the hope that we will be able to increase family allowance benefits by May 1, 1972?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I assume the hon. member is referring to the family income security plan- not this session but it will be on the agenda for next session.


Mr. Crouse:: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Now that the tax reform bill has been rammed through Parliament, is it the intention of the Minister of Finance to resign before Christmas as a Christmas present to the Liberal party or is he going to wait until the new year?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Sainte-Marie on a point of order.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, my point of order concerns a matter of procedure.
I should like to point out to the House that on November 25 I asked the Minister of State for Urban Affairs when a complete report would be made to the House on the "Abeille" housing project. The minister indicated that he would soon advise the House of the results of that investigation.
Now, when a minister agrees to table a report and does not do so within a reasonable time limit we have to ask him about it during the oral question period and that procedure, which is normal and in order, deprives us from the opportunity of asking other more pertinent questions. To my mind, this is detrimental to hon. members. Ministers who agree to table reports should do so without our having to renew our requests.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, further to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Peace River, I should like to ask the government House leader whether he can say when we may expect to receive the new edition of Bill C-259, as passed last night?

December 9, 1971


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Egmont on a point of order. Order, please. I apologize to the hon. member for Egmont. I believe the hon. member for Abitibi did not receive a reply to his question. I am not sure whether I am authorized to refer to the matter raised by the hon. member, but I believe that question was asked last night by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.

Last night, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked this question. The Chair then indicated that the bill would be in the hands of hon. members tomorrow, before the House at 11 o'clock.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, earlier this afternoon I attempted to gain the unanimous consent of the House to refer to a very important matter, the suspension of support for the Toy Testing Council. Unfortunately, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was not here at that time and I was not able to catch Your Honour's eye during the question period with regard to this important matter. The difficulty arises, Mr. Speaker, because of the infrequent attendance of ministers and the immediacy of the problem. I wonder if we could be permitted to hear what action the minister has in mind or if he is taking some action on this question at this peak period for the buying of toys?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the minister might be allowed to answer the question, but we should proceed to orders of the day. The hon. member for York South has been very patient, and I believe he has an important statement for the House. The minister might be allowed to reply briefly to the hon. member's question.


Stanley Ronald Basford: It is a matter of real regret to me also, Mr. Speaker, that because of some action by the Canadian toy manufacturers the Toy Testing Council is not able to issue the publication it normally does and the report it normally makes. I indicated to the council some time ago that if they could find a source of publication I would be happy to assist them with a financial grant to do so. That is still the position, and I hope by next Christmas there will be such arrangements. My officials and I have been working very closely with Mr. Lawrence and the Toy Testing Council to ensure that a testing program is carried out to provide better information.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Lotbiniere rising on a point of order?


André-Gilles Fortin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Last night you assured the House that Bill C-259 as amended would be printed and available to members by Friday morning.
Mr. Speaker, we welcome that assurance. Technically speaking, this means that in less than 24 hours this bill of over 700 pages, including amendments, will have been completely reprinted. There is only one alternative: either the reprints were ready before the House completed its study, or the Printing Bureau has the best equipment money can buy.
In view of the danger of Parliament's action being anticipated by the Printing Bureau, could I, as a Member of Parliament, get a written certification from the Printing Bureau that the reprinting of the bill was not undertaken before it was agreed to by the committee of the whole-


Mr. Speaker:: This is obviously not a point of order. This is rather a very simple question which the hon. member can put to the interested minister in due course. It is as simple as that.

Order, please. Again I bring to the attention of hon. members that we should call orders of the day. We have members who are prepared to make their contribution on the business for today. We are operating again today on a limitation of time, and we should try to get on with the consideration of that item as soon as possible. We have already gone more than 20 minutes beyond the end of the question period on points of order. I think we should make an effort. I appreciate that these matters which were brought up were all important, but we should try to reach orders of the day as quickly as possible. For the moment, the Chair will recognize the hon. member for Sainte-Marie.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to invite you to make a ruling on the technical aspect of the parliamentary question of procedure I just raised in order to speed up progress during the oral question period and spare hon. members the obligation of asking again a minister to table the report as promised. Since that minister is in the House, I wonder if the could not say when he will bring in the inquiry's findings on the "Abeille" project-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is rising on the same point of order. Here again, this question could be directed to the minister. I want to point out to hon. members that they are simply prolonging the oral question period when they pretend to rise on points or order. I think it would be better to wait at the next question period for such information.
I realize the merit of the hon. member's question and I shall try to co-operate in that respect.

The hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond on a point of order.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time because of the remark made by the Minister of Labour with respect to assignment of unemployment insurance benefits. To

December 9, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
support my contention in this matter, I quote from the report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs of May 13, 1971 which at page 5 reads as follows:
4. Your Committee notes the following facts:
(b)	that Section 58 of the Unemployment Insurance Act provides that "Benefits are not capable of being assigned, charged, attached, anticipated or given as security and any transaction purporting to assign, charge, attach, anticipate or give as security any benefits is void, except that any amounts payable under this Act by any person and required to be credited to the Fund may be recovered out of any benefits payable to that person, without prejudice to any other mode of recovery."
(c)	that Section 10 of the Interpretation Act-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that he should co-operate with other hon. members of the House and indicate as quickly as possible what his point of order is. The Chair is in a difficult position. I have to recognize an hon. member who seeks the floor on a point of order, but the hon. member should indicate why he is entitled to seek the floor at this time. We should be calling orders of the day. On the point of order, I should like to know what Standing Order of the House has been violated. It seems to me that this is a point of debate rather than a point of order. If there is a valid point of order, the hon. member should indicate it as soon as possible for the benefit of the Chair.


Donald MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I was about to continue and refer to the fact that the Interpretation Act further supports my contention which is that the minister has misled the House. On this matter the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs supports my contention, if I may continue the quotation:
-the Interpretation Act provides that an Act of Parliament and each part thereof shall be interpreted according to its true spirit, intent and meaning and section 11 of that act provides that every enactment shall be deemed remedial and shall be given such fair, large and liberal construction and interpretation as best ensures the attainment of its objects; applying these provisions, it appears that section 58 of the Unemployment Insurance Act means that an unemployment insurance benefit is so personal to a recipient that it cannot be alienated from him by himself or any other person.
I suggest that this would also apply to the Unemployment Insurance Commission.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I refuse to recognize the minister on this point. This is simply a question of debate and has nothing to do with a point of order. I call orders of the day.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege arising from the implication and, indeed, allegation that I misled the House. I could clarify this in three or four minutes. That would save much time on subsequent occasions.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. If the minister thinks he has a legitimate question of privilege, I must listen to him. I suggest to him, as I suggested to the hon. member, that this is clearly unfair to hon. members waiting for orders of the day to be called who wish to participate in the debate. I put it to hon. members that we are operating today under a time limit. This is the last day of opposition business and I am sure that tonight, when we reach the closing hour, some hon. members will protest because
(Mr. Maclnnis.)
there has not been time to consider the estimates which, according to the notices received, are to be questioned. Other hon. members will protest that they have not had an opportunity to participate in the debate which should be beginning now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It should have begun 20 minutes ago.


Mr. Speaker:: I must recognize the minister's right to rise on a question of privilege. However, I suggest again that this is not entirely fair to other hon. members.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that it is unfair to the House and particularly to opposition members. May I remind the House, however, that I did not raise the point of order, nor did I make any references to which anybody could take personal objection. I consider that this is a question of privilege inasmuch as the hon. member has suggested I misled the House. I wish to clarify the matter, and that is why I maintain that this is a point of privilege. One must be consistent. The hon. member, in good faith, got up today and pleaded the case of people who, for one reason or another, were not in possession of their unemployment insurance cheques. It is obvious that if the cheques had been in their possession, there would not have been a complaint.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the minister. We could go on for days debating the point at issue between the minister and the hon. member. I am sure it is a matter of importance. I have no doubt of its importance although I really do not see how it can involve a question of privilege for the minister any more than it could involve a point of order for the hon. member.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Mr. Speaker, referring to the question of privilege, I have been accused of misleading the House. I am saying that I have not misled the House. I refer the hon. gentleman, and others in this House, to section 48(2) of the new act, which provides for the right to assign cheques to any welfare office, government agency or municipality. That was hardly misleading the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Mr. David Lewis (York South) moved:: This House calls on the government to institute without delay policies and programs designed to arrest further expansion of foreign control of Canada's economy and to regain control by the Canadian people of our natural resources and manufacturing and service industries in order to assure our country's independence and jobs for Canadian workers and to enable Canadians to shape their own national identity and social values.
December 9, 1971

He said: Mr. Speaker, I placed the motion which you have just read on the order paper for two reasons. The first one relates to the fatuous statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) after his return from Washington last Monday. It seemed clear to us that he came back from Washington with empty hands.


Mr. Gibson:: Not at all.


David Lewis: In a desperate search to justify the trip which he may have made reluctantly, he tried to inflate a simple and natural remark by the President of the United States into nothing less than a breakthrough for Canada. Mr. Nixon was kind enough to say that he recognized Canada's right to be independent in all spheres. What else one would have expected him to say I do not know. That, as I gathered from the Prime Minister, should be sufficient to remove all our worries and to guarantee our independence for all time. We can all relax now. The President of the United States assured our Prime Minister that he does not intend to treat Canada like a colony. We need have no more worries. President Nixon spoke. The Prime Minister heard it. No doubt they shook hands on it and that is, to use the Prime Minister's adjective, fantastic. I say, what fatuous nonsense.
The second reason for placing the present motion before the House is the failure of the government to announce its policy on foreign investment and the numerous indications showing that when it does announce it, the policy will be without teeth and without the capacity for regaining control of Canada's economy over the years ahead. For years concerned Canadians have been waiting for government policy and action to check and reverse the increasing foreign control of our economy. Since Walter Gordon's days in 1963, Liberal governments have been fumbling helplessly for such a policy. They have been fumbling because they have not been serious about the subject. Their traditional continentalism, their anxiety not to interfere with the power of their corporate friends and their doctrinaire reliance on outmoded private enterprise shibboleths have rendered them incapable of protecting Canada's independence. That is why they have thrashed about without result.
For some two years, Mr. Speaker, the present Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) has been charged with the job of developing recommendations on policy. The other day the Prime Minister suggested that the government has finally reached four firm decisions but that he would not announce them until he was able to publish some of the studies on which these decisions are based. It is impossible for me, Sir, to understand the delay in announcing the policy.
Let us look at the history of this matter, Mr. Speaker. At first it was suggested that the studies were papers for the eyes of the cabinet only. Then, one of those papers, a preliminary one apparently, found its way to the Canadian Forum. This was followed by the leak of a cabinet document containing a decision on principle. Following that, we were told that the government would be prepared to consider what studies to publish, if any. Now, the publication of these studies has become so important and crucial that the announcement of a policy is to be delayed until that publication takes place. I cannot help saying
Control of Canadian Economy
that strange and tortuous indeed are the workings of the collective mind of this government.
I want to make clear on behalf of our party that we are desperately concerned about the future of our country and the continuing erosion of our effective independence by the massive foreign control of our economy, and about the distortions which that control has created in our industrial development. We are concerned about this not for any reason of arid nationalism but for very concrete reasons affecting Canadian jobs and the shape not only of our economic destiny but of our national identity and culture as well. Having travelled across Canada, it is my observation that a new Canadian awakening is taking shape. Canadians are increasingly realizing that every aspect of their lives, economic, cultural and even recreational, is invaded by foreign domination. Increasingly, they find it difficult to see how we can build a real sense of Canadian identity so long as we remain a minor dependency of our powerful and overwhelming neighbour.
I also want to make it clear that no sensible person in Canada can fail to realize that we must maintain close and friendly relations with the United States. Geography, history and language make that unavoidable as well as desirable. I maintain, and our party maintains, that a friendship founded in equality is honourable and productive. However, a relationship based on the timidity of a satellite is humiliating and sterile.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: The New Democratic Party wants to see a policy of continuing friendship with the people of the United States and with the government of that country, as with the governments of all countries, but not at the expense of our losing the capacity effectively to shape our own economic and social destiny and our own social values in a distinct society. The fact is the huge size of foreign equity in the Canadian economy and the large areas of control by multinational corporations present modern Canadian nationalism with immense problems.
I want to make clear at the very start that we appreciate the existence of these problems. We know that the changes we are seeking cannot be achieved overnight. We know it will require years to rid Canada of its dangerous economic dependency. It is precisely for this reason that we condemn the failure of Liberal and Conservative governments over the years to even make a start. The fact is that our governments have not only failed to make a start, they have allowed the foreign controlled sector of the economy to increase every year. They have not only permitted accelerating take-over and expansion of foreign take-over and control, but they continue to invite it. The problem has grown in size every year and the government of Canada carries the major responsibility for the resulting difficulties.
Before I go any further, I want to put on record that our party believes that a policy of foreign ownership must be implemented without delay. I also want to put on record that for such a policy to be effective, it must at least contain the following elements if we are to tackle the problem with imagination and determination.
First, we urge that a screening or control agency be established without delay which will at least have the

December 9, 1971
Control of Canadian Economy
powers suggested in the study published in the Canadian Forum, namely the power to obtain all relevant information to investigate particular industries or practices, to limit take-overs and the further expansion of foreign ownership and control. Unless the agency has these powers, particularly the power to limit further foreign expansion in Canada, it will be a toothless and useless exercise.
Second, we urge that we require a revamped Canada Development Corporation totally different from the distortion that the government produced. The Canadian economy in general, and the provinces in particular, must have an alternative source of investment capital. That can be provided most effectively by a Canada Development Corporation directly under the control and management of the government and responsible through a minister to Parliament. To be really effective, the corporation will require massive investment funds which in our view can be drawn only from the reserves of financial and other corporations as well as other voluntary investment by individual Canadians.
Third, we urge that the Canada Development Corporation must have the authority and the duty to act as an instrument of government planning and development policy and to invest in new industrial development as well as to buy into existing multinational corporations.
Fourth, it must also have the power to invest heavily in research and development, either directly or in partnership with private corporations, in order to encourage new initiatives in this field and develop a Canadian technology so that our dependence on multinational corporations for technological known-how is reduced and eventually limited.
Fifth, the Canada Development Corporation should have the authority and duty to expand the public sector of the economy, either through Crown corporations or through consortium arrangements with private concerns.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: This, I suggest, is obviously the most reliable road to Canadian economic independence. It will not only enable us to develop new sectors of the economy under Canadian control, but also to introduce Canadian ownership and control in resource and manufacturing industries now largely under foreign control. Merely to indicate the powers that we believe the Canada Development Corporation should have is to underline the ineffectiveness and the inadequacy of the kind of corporation that is now on the statute books, one which worries, as it does, about getting into its hands existing Crown corporations rather than worrying about buying into multinational corporations now controlling Canada's economy.
Six, we must introduce a new industrial strategy containing a program of rationalization and specialization in the Canadian manufacturing industry, designed both to meet more of our domestic demand, and thus rely less on imports, and to change our trade pattern away from one predominant market, the market of the United States.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: Seven, we urge something that was proposed three years ago in the Watkins report. We urge the immediate establishment of a government export trade
agency with real power to ensure that all corporations in Canada promote trade in accordance with Canadian laws and policies and do not, as subsidiary corporations have in the past, submit to foreign laws and foreign policies.
Eight, in co-operation with the provinces, we must establish standards of resource planning and development and require a great deal more processing of raw materials in Canada instead of shipping not only the materials but also jobs out of this country.
Nine, it is essential to increase public investment in our resource industries, either through public ownership or joint participation with private corporations and, indeed, through both. This is the most, if not the only, effective way of regaining control of our energy and mineral resources which are now mainly in the hands of multinational corporations and world cartels. The government tax bill which is before us continues the tax concessions to the multinational corporations to encourage them still further to gobble up our natural resources, particularly in the field of energy resources.
Ten, and finally, we must implement a policy regarding plant shutdowns in this country, a policy that will require full disclosure of facts before the shutdown is authorized and will enable the government to take-over plants threatened with a shutdown if the operation is economically sound and socially useful for society and the workers in Canada.
I have summarized some of our proposals because we all expect a statement of policy by the government in the near future. I wanted to indicate now the concrete steps which our party believes are essential if we are serious about developing Canadian independence and ensuring the future prosperity of our people. I urge that we rid our minds of what I believe to be a number of myths. It is usually suggested that we need foreign investment because we haven't enough in Canada. This is clearly wrong as has been shown statistically many times. For the last number of years there has not been a shortage of investment capital in this country. The failure has been in the lack of planning and direction. In any case, foreign ownership costs Canada well over a billion dollars annually in interest, dividends, management and licence fees, development and other charges, so that net benefit is, on occasion, a negative quantity.
Canadian businessmen have also developed tne habit of a strange kind of self-denigration by suggesting that they do not have the spirit of entrepreneural adventure. I do not believe this. Their willingness to invite multinational corporations is not due to any lack of capacity; it is due primarily to a desire to make a fast buck by chumming up with the powerful at the expense of Canada's destiny. Through the years Canada has produced tycoons of considerable strength. I may not agree with them but I admire their achievements. We could have more of them. In any case, I reject the notion that a people which has built Canada from wilderness and rock is incapable of generating the capacities to build its own economic future. We have lacked only the will, not the resources, whether financial, material or human.
Our failure is also due, in my opinion, to our exclusive reliance on private corporations to develop our economy.

December 9, 1971

We have permitted wealth to be concentrated in a few hands, most of them foreign hands, and our social and economic structure to remain unchanged. Our values continue to be shaped by the selfish goals of the powerful, rather than by the sensitivity and needs of our people. We shall not overcome our problem if we continue to rely on private corporate goals motivated primarily to maximize profits and power. We can take charge of our economic destiny only if we are prepared to challenge private corporate power, to increase the power of ordinary Canadians to plan their society collectively, with a new industrial structure designed to satisfy the needs of Canadians, and, indeed, the needs of people throughout the world.
Present American policies have underlined the dangers in our present position. Our party has warned about them for years, but they have now become real in the life of Canada and its people. The American surtax and, even more, other protectionist policies like the tax incentives and DISC programs will affect not only our trade but the jobs of Canadians. American multinational corporations may well find it more profitable to take advantage of the immense tax exemptions promised in the United States and transfer the operation of subsidiaries to that country, thus shutting down or reducing operations in Canada with the loss not only of jobs but of essential economic activity.
The government study published by the Canadian Forum emphasizes that foreign ownership and control of our economy means that our social and economic purposes are set by multinational enterprises in boardrooms outside Canada rather than by Canadians. It is natural that people should be concerned about any fundamental changes in the economic pattern and in the industrial strategy of the country. I accept it as natural that they should fear the possibility of dislocation and possible loss of jobs. I want to say to the people of Canada that we see no reason for these fears if, and only if, the essential changes in the control of our economy are carefully planned and if governments, both federal and provincial, take the responsibility which is theirs to assure job security for the Canadian people. This is a responsibility which the federal government has abandoned and betrayed during the past two years by deliberately slowing down the economy and creating massive unemployment crisis-


Colin David Gibson: Nonsense.


David Lewis: -from which we shall not be able to emerge for two years at least.
I notice that today the Ontario government released the report of a task force composed of civil servants on the question of foreign ownership. I also note from a press report that the Premier of the province refuses to state a policy until the federal government has done so. This is another example of the lack of seriousness with which governments of this country have treated and are treating the basic problem of Canada's economic independence. The provincial government waits for the federal government. The federal government points to provincial anxieties as a reason for its inaction or inadequate action. In the meantime, the loss of our economic sovereignty continues unchecked and the threat to Canadian political, social and international independence becomes daily more dangerous.
Control of Canadian Economy
My colleagues and I believe passionately that the overriding goal of a modern democratic society must be to eliminate every form of exploitation, to eliminate as far as possible inequalities between regions, and inequalities between groups within each region.


Colin David Gibson: Would the hon. member permit a question?


David Lewis: Perhaps the hon. member would have the patience to wait until I have finished, when I shall be glad to listen to a question which I am sure will be relevant as well as earth-shaking.
Our objective must surely be an egalitarian society in which every individual has an equal opportunity to share in a rich and varied life and to develop his talents to the full. Only in such a society, a society in which human equality is the overriding consideration, can the worth and dignity of the human being receive full recognition and respect. I say that a society in which one out of every four or five lives in poverty, a society in which hundreds of thousands are forced into idleness, a society in which the difference in income and living standards between regions and among groups, remains intolerable, is an unjust society and that speeches about the worth and dignity of the individual in these circumstances sound just as hollow as in fact they are.
I say to you, Sir, that we cannot talk seriously about a just society as long as we continue to rely primarily on the benevolence of corporations whose purpose is not first and foremost the common good and whose activities are frequently in conflict with the aspirations and needs of ordinary people. We must drop our old-fashioned, doctrinaire ideas about our society and recognize the need for increasing public participation, the need for increasing collective effort to achieve desirable national goals.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Lewis: We cannot speak seriously of a new and more humane society if we fail to gain control of our own economic and social destiny. These are the reasons a democratic socialist party like ours believes that the question of foreign ownership and control is crucial to the people of Canada. I suggest to you that Canada is already fighting for its very life. Any further delay is to betray our people.
I put it this strongly because of my profound faith in our country. Canada, perhaps more than any other country, has the resources, financial, physical and human, to satisfy the anxious search of mankind for new social structures from which poverty and want, inequality and waste, may eventually be eliminated. I have a deep faith in the capacity of our ordinary people, in their political strength and in their belief in their country. All they need is courageous and imaginative leadership. The time is later than we think. But it is still not too late. We commend to the House and to the people of Canada the program that I have, I am sure inadequately, tried to outline.


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


Mr. Kaplan:: Mr. Speaker, to ask a question.

December 9, 1971
Control of Canadian Economy


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member can ask a question only if he has the permission of the hon. member for York South. I should immediately point out to hon. members that we will again be running short of time if we prolong the time allocated to hon. members by asking questions.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, may I say before the question is asked that I will only answer questions if I am still within the 30 minutes allotted to me. I do not intend to go beyond my time.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for York South has 120 seconds or so left before his time expires.


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member why he failed, in his speech, to point out that this government introduced and had passed almost at the beginning of this part of the session the employment support bill that provided $80 million to protect Canadian jobs.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I always find that this hon. member, if I may say so not too unkindly, needs to ask questions more than most because his facts are usually wrong. The short answer to the hon. member's question is that we opposed the bill to which he refers. I called it, on behalf of my party, "inadequate tokenism". It has not done the job and will not do the job. In any case, it is irrelevant to the question we are debating today, which is probably the reason the hon. member rose to ask the question.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member a question regarding the manifesto that he has just delivered and which is silent on this point. Have he or his party given any thought to the difficult political question of whether a provincial government should have any real say in a decision not to permit foreign investment to be made within its provincial borders? I would be interested to have the hon. member's views on that matter.


David Lewis: Mr. Speaker, as a matter of fact my statement was not silent on this. In relation to natural resources, I specifically referred to the need for co-operation with the provinces. I know perfectly well that many of the areas involved in the discussion also come under provincial jurisdiction, and I would certainly underline the need for some consultative machinery between the federal government and the provincial governments regarding the implementation of a policy that is effective. But I want to emphasize that if the hon. member is suggesting, as Liberals have suggested throughout the ages, that the constitutional divisions of power should be used as an excuse for remaining quiet and letting Canada's economic independence continue to be eroded, then I throw that suggestion back in the hon. member's charming face.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this debate. The motion urges the government to stop expansion of foreign control over the Canadian economy in the interests of Canadian independence and Canadian jobs, as well as the recovery of control over our country. I thought the motion itself was a little vague with regard to the question of whether any foreign investment was to be permitted, but my impres-

sion from listening to the hon. member is that the sponsor of the resolution really wishes us to halt foreign investment in Canada.
I want to emphasize today that foreign investment has, of course, been important to us in our past, given our lack of an accumulation of savings. I want to emphasize, too, that foreign investment is still important. It has been important in central Canada in the past in stimulating the economic growth of the region. It is important today to large parts of western and northern Canada in terms of the development of natural resources.
I would warn this Parliament that there is concern in the west and in the north, as well as in the east, about the possibility that policies of this government or of this Parliament could interfere with the natural development of those parts of Canada, particularly with the natural resource industries. I emphasize that if we are going to discuss policies in this Parliament related to increasing the strength of our nation, we had better talk about policies that really strengthen our national feeling rather than policies that tend to divide this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I mentioned the north and the west but there are also people in the east, and not only in my own province of Nova Scotia, who would be very upset at any attempt on the part of this government to impose ground rules that would prevent the benefits which would accrue from foreign investment and foreign enterprise from coming to what are still, in relevant terms at least, the "have-not" provinces in Confederation.
I ask my friends to my left whether this resolution, and the statements accompanying it, envisage that foreign enterprise now actively exploring and developing offshore oil and gas off the cost of Nova Scotia should be taken over by the government, should be stopped, or should be discouraged. I think these are points which should be clarified by the sponsors of the resolution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The resolution before us refers to the independence of Canada. We in this party who are the direct political descendants of those who brought about Confederation will not take a back seat to anybody in our determination to preserve this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But there is no simplistic answer to this question. It may be that to the leader of the NDP and his friends the solution is to be found in public ownership and control. That is a simple concept alright. My hon. friend spoke about myths. One of the myths that prevailed in the nineteenth Century and in the early part of this century in some circles was that public ownership and controls constituted some kind of magic formula. But in the past half century at least, too many countries have experienced too many incredible difficulties in their unsuccessful attempts to prove the correctness of that formula.
It is not only the foreign corporations that have been laying off people. In terms of public ownership, what has
December 9, 1971

been going on in the Polymer Corporation is not exactly an example to private enterprise in this country.


Mr. Olson:: There is Deuterium of Canada.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister mentions Deuterium. Perhaps it is an example.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: A bad example.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: But it was this government that insisted that the majority control of that corporation be retained in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Miller Bell: Any more questions?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A man with all the minister's troubles deserves the opportunity to shovel a little of them off on somebody else.
We need more Canadian enterprise and more Canadian ownership, and we should certainly consider actively a program to encourage Canadian ownership and enterprise in many forms. This certainly must play a part in any effective program. This government's action in ramming through this House the massive tax bill by closure, much of which is irrelevant to the present difficulties, is not a part of any sensible formula to increase Canadian participation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Certainly, the heavy emphasis in my friend's resolution and in his speech was on the question of ownership. I do not deny that the question of ownership can be relevant and, in certain sectors, very important. We have maintained this in the past and we maintain it today. There are obvious sectors, such as finance, insurance and communications, and there may well be others, where it is important to keep a close watch and where we should be prepared to move. I do not rule out a screening process, for example, for new investment of the kind that would bring about some distortion in our economic priorities in this country. We should be willing to consider these possibilities. But first of all let us be clear as to what our priorities are. Quite apart from that, what we should not be doing and what we must not do, under the guise of creating some sort of screen to preserve our nationhood and on the pretext of saving Canadian independence, is to create new bureaucratic monstrosities with arbitrary powers over the economy which would destroy, not simply economic freedom but economic growth and development in this country.
Let us not forget that there are other aspects of the independence and autonomy of our country which are at least as relevant to us as is the ownership of property. There is trade. In a country that achieves 25 per cent of its gross national product through external trade-over 80 per cent of our manufactured goods go to one country, the United States-surely the concentration of trade in this way is just as important in relation to the autonomy and independence of our country as is any concentration of ownership. The official policy of the government has been multilateralism, but in fact what has developed has been a continental trading pattern. That has been the real Liber-
Control of Canadian Economy
al policy. In view of the degree of interdependence that has developed between Canada and the United States we need guidelines to govern our behaviour. I am not minimizing the importance of trying to diversify our trade with the European Economic Community, for example, but one must be realistic and recognize the importance of the U.S. market at this stage in time. Therefore, if we are going to maintain a position of comfort in our economy, we must recognize the importance of establishing meaningful guidelines which would govern the behaviour of Washington and Ottawa toward each other. I cannot stress this too much.


Colin David Gibson: How unfortunate.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I have only 20 minutes. I will talk with the hon. member tomorrow.


Colin David Gibson: I am just interested.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The obvious uncertainty created by the Nixon announcement of August 15 was deeply disturbing to me. I say we can do all we want about foreign ownership in this country-I am not minimizing its importance or the importance of encouraging more Canadian ownership-but we will continue to depend on the decisions being taken unilaterally in Washington because of the degree of interdependence of our economies unless we establish meaningful guidelines to govern the behaviour of our two economies. We need the market. We cannot develop a modern technological industry without markets. We cannot retreat into some form of protectionism either through tariffs or through public ownership. We need jobs and we want our country to be in the mainstream of the economic life of this world, not a weak country retiring into economic backwaters.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The sad truth is that the government is lacking in any strategy of economic development. I could develop this aspect at some length but my time is very limited. We have had piecemeal efforts at tax reform, at curing economic disparity, at a competition act, and now, from what we hear, the government has made up its mind about a foreign investment policy, all without any regard to any over-all strategy of economic development. We have had it with regard to taxation; now, apparently we will have it with regard to foreign ownership. I am sure that since the government has made up its mind, anything I say here today will have very little effect. However, there are some things I want to say in any event.
I expect that the government will go off half-cocked once again, not for lack of time but because of its failure to develop any general economic strategy, the need for which was emphasized even by those who wrote what was described as the leaked Gray report. They recognized that to have an effective or meaningful screening process with regard to foreign development there had to be a government strategy of development which this screening process was supposed to implement. But what the authors of that report overlooked was that the very machinery that might be established can only be significant, intelligible and intelligent if it is related to some decisions on priorities and decisions that have been taken with regard to an industrial strategy which we do not have at all. Nobody

December 9, 1971
Control of Canadian Economy
need take my word for this. The Science Council of Canada has made it very clear that this government has no industrial strategy.
I recognize that in certain areas in particular, foreign ownership may be a problem. That is not the most basic problem with which we are faced. The most basic problem is the lack of any sort of strategy for economic development. This government has failed in many fields, but certainly in this. What we need is a strategy, not only because it will enable us to develop our priorities in terms of industry but because we need something that will enable us to use industry in the broadest sense of the term, including services, farming and natural resources. It is only by setting such priorities that we shall be able to look intelligently at the matter of foreign investment and see what degree of distortion is in fact taking place in relation to the kind of strategy we want to achieve. We should see what steps should be taken in respect of foreign investment to fit it into our own priorities in Canada. Then, when the government of this country brings down a policy with regard to foreign investment, it must at the same time clearly indicate to this House its strategy with regard to economic development.


Jean Marchand: We have one.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: You have one! I am prepared to wait and see. Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) says they have one. I challenge him to describe it. I do not believe he has one because the only meaningful economic strategy in this country cannot be worked out by one level of government. It has to be worked out by the federal government in concert with business, agriculture, labour and the provinces because it is meaningless otherwise. A strategy of economic development worked out on high by the federal government, the supergroup or whoever tries to do it, will not mean a thing unless it carries with it the support of the provinces. I say it will not mean anything practical unless it is worked out in conjunction with those actually engaged in industry, both on the management and labour sides in this country.
How, for example, are you going to have any meaningful strategy with regard to the processing of raw materials to which my hon. friend referred, unless it is worked out in conjunction with the provinces. There is no indication at all that this is taking place. The main thing we have to remember in debating this whole issue is that talking about nationalism is one thing and practising it effectively is something else. We must remember that nationalism and poverty are uneasy mixers. We are determined to keep Canada independent, but the only independence which can mean anything is one based on a reasonable degree of economic prosperity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Without economic growth, without investment, without enterprise, independence can only be an illusion. You do not achieve independence by talking about it or by looking at it, but by making hard decisions. So far as the government is concerned, you do not achieve it by discouraging people at the rate the government has been doing it. The government has failed miserably in
iMr. Stanfield.]
giving encouragement. It has failed to produce any strategy. We in our party have adopted a positive approach designed to restore confidence and build up the country.
Let us examine the role of foreign investment in the context of a meaningful strategy of economic development to develop our country and to develop its independence. Speaking for myself and for my colleagues, we shall not allow ourselves to be hypnotized by a slogan or by simplistic answers. We need an industrial strategy and we shall in all probability continue to need foreign investment. Our challenge is to reconcile these two goals. We must choose our priorities and we must choose the means to attain them. We cannot do this by means of such a resolution as is before the House, and certainly cannot do it by the negative and secretive attitude of the present government. Neither of these extremes can inspire any confidence, and that is what is lacking most in this country at the present time. It is not by the pursuance of irrelevant subjects such as the tax bill and the Competition Act that confidence can be attained and yet, that is all the present government seems to be capable of producing.
I welcome this debate today. We welcome the opportunity to point out again the bankruptcy of the government in terms of the lack of any effective approach to the development of this country. We welcome the occasion to point out again the need to look to new horizons in terms of trade, in terms of our relationships with other countries and in terms of long-term economic strategy. That may be the best we can hope for from this debate, but there will be other debates coming, both in this House and outside, and we shall be ready for both.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, we in the opposition are very happy with the motion moved by the New Democratic Party because it gives us the opportunity of restating our confidence in Canada's potentialities and in our international policy, especially with regard to the United States.
Mr. Speaker, while the diplomatic war deliberately carried out by this government with our neighbours to the south goes on in order to justify other diplomatic manoeuvres with the communist world, American control of Canadian resources continues to grow. In this connection, this week the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), following a meeting of barely two hours with President Nixon, stated that both countries had agreed that each one was free to choose its political and economic destinies, while respecting the other.
In short, the right hon. Prime Minister went and asked Mr. Nixon if Canada was a country separate from the United States. Mr. Nixon replied: Yes, of course. That does not mean anything. Those are the terms with which the Prime Minister is content. But facts are the extreme opposite of the political strategy of the Liberal party that keeps on handing out Canada to Americans for a dish of lentils. But we know it is the federal government that has jurisdiction over foreign investments.
Our relationships are characterized by the interdependence of our two countries in culture, technology, finance, trade and tourism in one word in everything.
December 9, 1971

The present legitimate concerns of the Canadian people which is more than ever determined to attain its independence in North America are deeply rooted in history and in the struggle waged by Canada to carve its own future in spite of the large difference between the size and the power of the two countries.
Mr. Speaker, the concerns of Canadians, which are shared by the Social Credit Party of Canada, are linked first of all to recent social and economic events which are today more acute and alarming. My time being limited, I shall only mention them. They are: the profound influence of American culture on Canada's and Quebec's way of life, the extent to which our industries and resources are controlled by Americans, the attraction that the United States offer for Canadian scientists, engineers and professionals who are unable to exercise their talents in their country, the numerical superiority of American teachers in Canadian universities and the predominantly American content of radio and television programs.
Thus, Mr. Speaker, Canadians and Americans should consider these phenomena in the light of their respective history and national aspirations. It was obviously not necessary for the right hon. Prime Minister to go to Washington to acquaint himself of the fact that we are two distinct nations. We must therefore not only take into account the factors which tend to unite our two countries, but also and increasingly so, those past and present factors which tend to separate and divide them.
In fact, it is urgent for Canada to find and attain its own national identity, not only by words of mouth, but in fact.
For the most part, these problems result from the disparity of our respective powers in practically all areas.
In most of their transactions the United States are in a better position to promote or to jeopardize Canadian interests than Canada is to influence American prosperity and security. Canadians are more aware of this situation than the Americans. The recent 10 per cent American surtax on imports is a fair example of those conflicting interests.
Faced with this situation, which is not new, the previous governments, in the pay of almighty finance, have constantly kowtowed and each time we could have orderly and logically imposed ourselves as Canadians and with legitimate national proudness, we hurried to exchanged our natural resources against a handful of peanuts.
What did we do with our iron? We gave it away. We begged the Americans to carry it home so they would employ their own labour, process our products and subsequently sell them back here.


Mr. Bechard:: Quebec does that.


André-Gilles Fortin: My hon. friend from Bonaventure-Iles-de-la-Madeleine says that Quebec does that. I would point out to him that, to my knowledge, the province of Quebec is still a part of Canada and that if Quebec is doing it, it does not make it more sensible.
What did we do with our timber? What did we do with our timber rights? We leased them for 99 years.
Control of Canadian Economy
What did we do with our oil?
What did we do with our marine resources?
We are giving them away and, as certain NDP members do, we blame the Americans for it.
We in this party say that the blame rests on former governments which, in the pay of high finance, went running on all fours before these people and begged them to develop our country so as to get votes and then put the blame on the Americans.
We in the Social Credit Party, want to be more honest than that.
So as to prove what I am saying, I shall quote an article from the October 24, 1971 edition of the newspaper Dimanche-Matin, entitled "Mr. Masse is asking the USA oil industry to develop our resources".
That happened in New Orleans. And he is not better than the others. He is not different from them, simply more of the same.
The article was as follows:
Proximity of the markets, co-operation from the Quebec government and recent oil discoveries in Nova Scotia were factors that obviously interested officials of the southern United States oil industry when Quebec Natural Resources Minister Gilles Masse invited them to come and explore for oil fields and develop our oil resources.
Leading a delegation that spent last week in Louisiana, Mr. Masse, accompanied-
After a detailed account we are told that Mr. Masse would extend numerous privileges to the Americans so as to enable them to discover oil in this country, as if Canadians were unable to discover their own natural resources. They go to the United States and say: With the promise of generous tax privileges, and other things, we invite you to come and discover our resources, to take them and develop them; meanwhile, we work in those mines, we develop our resources and nothing is left to us. We are even not wise enough to demand royalties for those natural resources, royalties that would be payable to the government of this country or of the province and that would make it possible to redistribute to the people who own them at least a part of those natural resources. Then, they will blame the Americans.
But in fact, the Americans are filling a vacuum that Canadians refuse to fill because they say they are unable to do it or because their hands are tied. Either Canadians do not possess enough competence to develop their country or they do not have the resources necessary to do it. We think the reason is not that the Canadians are unable to do it but rather that their governments are tied down by the world of finance and prefer to sell out Canada on a long term basis on the pretext of bringing in foreign capital and thus creating jobs.
The governments live from day to day and that is their most serious problem and most serious fault. They prefer to sell out Canada to foreign interests on the pretext of giving its population three meals a day. It would be so simple to hand out Canada to the Canadians without throwing anybody out but by giving Canada the monetary and financial mechanisms to finance that production.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow me to ask him a question?

December 9, 1971
Control of Canadian Economy


André-Gilles Fortin: No. All you have to do is rise and speak. Your turn will come.


Albert Béchard: Be a bit more polite. I asked you if you would accept a question.


André-Gilles Fortin: No. I refuse to be interrupted by this stupid man. I am only allowed 20 minutes.


Albert Béchard: I asked you very politely.


André-Gilles Fortin: I will give you another example to show-


Albert Béchard: You lack manners.


André-Gilles Fortin: -how stupid people are in that
administration.
Yesterday, on December 8, in the newspaper Le Devoir one could read:
James Bay, an error advantageous to Nebraska.
National Resources Minister Gilles Masse confirmed yesterday that a $20 million public works contract had been awarded to an American firm rather than to Montreal-based Simard-Beaudry because of a "technical error" on the part of the latter.
How perfectly ridiculous to see such things and the United States get $20 million worth of Canadian and Quebec taxes because of a simple "technical error" on the part of a stupid government official. Then people will say, it is the Americans' fault.
In the light of those facts-the federal government is just as responsible as the provincial governments-we can only add that they are hiding behind technical details or legal difficulties to say: We cannot develop our country or we cannot give those contracts to someone from Canada or the province of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that maladministration is involved and no wonder we have reached that point. In the report of the Task Force on the Structure of Canadian Industry, published in January 1968, the following can be found on page 127,
An attempt has been made to collect detailed financial data on 570 of the 606 separate companies, the excluded companies being mostly financial corporations. These 570 companies had 46 per cent of the assets of all fully tabulated companies in 1964, 35 per cent of the sales, 53 per cent of the taxable income, paid 67 per cent of the dividends and accounted for 51 per cent of the net internal cash flow.
These large companies are a very dominant factor in three sectors of the Canadian economy-mining, quarrying and oil wells,-
These are three sectors where our governments, federal and provincial, instead of availing themselves of the necessary mechanisms to develop our resources for the benefit of the Canadian people, went to the United States and begged our neighbours to come and have them developed on our behalf.
Mr. Speaker, one can recall also that a cabinet minister, the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans), once said publicly that the American influence in those three sectors was too great. He wanted to protest and, then, the Liberal party threw him out. Whom is the Liberal government serving?
Recently we heard about the life insurance company La >
Prevoyance which was in the process of being taken over

by Americans. On this side of the House somebody asked the government what it intended to do. The answer was that the problem was of a technical and legal nature and that intervention was impossible.
Again recently we learned that Retail Credit of Atlanta, Georgia, had undertaken to buy all the offices of that company located in Montreal, Winnipeg, Toronto, Vancouver and Regina. We asked the government what it proposed to do, but we got no answer. I phoned the office of the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, but no answer there either.
This is the situation, Mr. Speaker. And yet, when a liberal or conservative government is brought to power, the first thing it does is to take a yearly trip to Washington or to Wall Street in New York. What for? To obtain funds in order to support provinces, municipalities, school boards and the whole public sector.
We suggest that the Bank of Canada become the main source of funds for the public sector, for provinces, for municipalities, for school boards so that there may be a great flow of Canadian capital, which in turn will be invested in the private sector in order to stimulate our economy.
The reason we have to obtain American capital in order to develop the public sector, which is the most costly-as can be seen when we read the annual reports and balance sheets of municipalities and school boards-is that there is a lack of Canadian capital. Most municipalities in Quebec spend 40 per cent of their budget on public debt payments. As for the federal government, 14 cents out of each tax dollars goes towards paying the interest on the public debt. Therefore the lack of capital in Canada is not surprising since most of the capital available here for developing our country and our natural resources is used to service the public debt.
That is why we are trapped in a vise, stuck in a vicious circle where Canadian capital gets lost and becomes nonproductive; the best we can do is repay the money borrowed in foreign countries where we simply could have asked the Bank of Canada to invest money.
Mr. Speaker, there is more to it than blaming the Americans for lending us money.
If Americans have faith in our natural resources, if they believe in Canada to the extent of heavily investing in it, why should Canadians not also have faith in their country and avail themselves of financial mechanisms to ensure its development through the Bank of Canada? Why should Canadians not have faith in their country, if Americans do?
Mr. Speaker, that is the language Canada's Social Credit uses. We shall not solve our problems by putting the blame on Americans, but by giving Canadians the opportunity to develop their country, by inculcating them with national pride, by making them realize that Canada belongs to them, as do the country's natural resources and that it is up to them, not to foreigners or neighbours, to develop their country.
Mr. Speaker, some provinces under Social Credit administrations for a long time have required the payment of fees to the Crown on resources extracted from their subsoil; in this way they were able to levy large sums of money which were redistributed as social security
December 9, 1971

Control of Canadian Economy
allowances or some other allowances, to the benefit of the people. Thus the provincial governments were able to reduce personal taxes while increasing the purchasing power of the people.
This is, Mr. Speaker, an intelligent way to administer a province. What is being done in other provinces? They beg the people from other countries to come and develop our own country. In this connection, I would refer my colleagues to the two articles I mentioned earlier. That is as true of the former provincial Ministers of Natural Resources as it is of their federal counterparts.
Mr. Speaker, we should stop begging for financial permission to develop our country each time a new federal government comes to power.
Mr. Speaker, Canadians are in a position to give themselves the financial permission to develop their country- however paradoxical this may seem for some hon. members opposite-though the Bank of Canada.
In conclusion, I wonder how is it that the successive governments for over 30 years have dealt with everything, have made inquiries on everything, have discussed everything in order to solve their problems but have never thought of going to the Bank of Canada.
Reforms have been undertaken in all fields and at all times to find solutions which have been but poultices on wooden legs. However, no one ever dares tackle the Bank of Canada, not to destroy it, but to put it at the service of Canadians, by granting interest free loans to the provinces, municipalities and the federal government, in order to build what we need, so that people will not be so heavily taxed and to reduce our indebtness toward the Americans.
What difference is there, Mr. Speaker, between $10, $100 or $1,000 coming from either Washington or New York, and the same amounts coming from the Bank of Canada? The big difference is the following: This debate would not be taking place now if we used the Bank of Canada, because Canadians would hold the mortgage on their own investments and thus, Canada would belong to them.
This is why we will continue to fight to convince government members to accept that great idea of keeping Canada for Canadians, not through revolution, arms or force, but by maintaining order and justice, respecting our neighbours and continuing to co-operate with them.
The Social Credit Party of Canada is not anti-American. We advocate a policy of good understanding, of exchanges at all levels, of constant co-operation but not at the expense of Canadians.
Our friendship has cost us up to now more than what we have received in return, so much so that in the financial and economic fields, the so-called profitable dialogue between both countries is falling on deaf ears and while Canada is satisfied With speaking, the United States take advantage of everything which we do not put to use. Our governments, Tory and Grit, wanted it that way.
We are happy, Mr. Speaker, that the United States should show an interest in us, but we want Canada to equip itself with efficient financial and monetary mechanisms. Our country should adopt a policy for the development of its natural resources that can give Canada back to the Canadians without necessarily generating sterile diplomatic wars.


Mr. Ross Whicher (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, it is a real pleasure for me to have the opportunity of being the first speaker from the government benches to answer to the motion moved by the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis). May I preface my remarks by saying that I am sure there are no Canadians who are not somewhat perturbed by the infiltration of American capital, and indeed American control, of the many industrial enterprises that are the economic bulwark of the nation. However, Mr. Speaker, I think we must be realistic in the appreciation of such a subject and realize that such investment is absolutely vital to us as a country and as Canadians.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The facts of life are that approximately 210 million people live immediately to the south of our border who speak one of our official languages and, in my opinion, live our way of life. They have been friendly on practically every occasion, certainly since World War I. That they have made mistakes is undeniable; that they think firstly of their own country is equally true, but that they have done more to aid the whole world than any other nation in history simply cannot be denied.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: What other country in the world knocks nations such as Germany and Japan to the ground, and then builds them up again so that those same nations are now the economic envy of the whole world. Mr. Speaker, billions and billions of dollars have been given by the taxpayers of the United States, who range from the industrialists of New York City to the cotton growers of Mississippi, for the benefit of this old world; and when I say world, I indirectly include our own nation.


John Leroy Skoberg: What state are you from?


An hon. Member:: Missouri.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Mr. Speaker, three months ago my wife and I had the opportunity of visiting a great little Quebec city, Seven Islands, or Sept lies as it is known in Quebec, at the mouth of the St. Lawrence. Just over 20 years ago there were a few small houses in that locality. Today it is a city of 22,000 people, a modern city with wide streets, sewage disposal plants, new schools, new hospitals and the highest paid salaried workers in the whole province of Quebec. The Americans, Mr. Speaker, spent over $1 billion developing this city. Every single dollar was American but every single employee was a Canadian, with the exception of two or three senior American officials who were there to look after this huge investment. Mr. Speaker, since that time the Americans have paid Canadian taxes, have obeyed Canadian laws, have employed Canadian people and turned the houses that they financed back to Canadians at a very reasonable price.


John Leroy Skoberg: Hurrah.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: My next statement about this situation will be obvious. If it were not for American capital, there would be no Sept lies, as we know it today. This is what

December 9, 1971
Control of Canadian Economy
the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) is against. He and his party can deny this in any way they see fit, but it is he who is more anti-American than any political leader on the horizon in Canada at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: And yet the very party that he heads gets more financial support from unions controlled absolutely by Americans than any other political party in Canada, bar none.
The hon. member for York South and his colleagues in the House passionately believe certain things. I wonder how passionately his supporters outside the House, known as the Waffle group, support him on what he said in the House this afternoon. I wonder if the premiers newly elected to lead the western provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba passionately believe what the Leader of the NDP said this afternoon. I wonder if they are against American dollars in the same way as he is. May I tell you that the first pilgrimage Premier Schreyer made was not to that great city, Montreal, to get money, was not to that great Canadian financial centre, Toronto, but was to the cauldrons of New York City. He went just like a pilgrim going to Mecca. And when he came back he had a bank account of American dollars and the waved the Star Spangled Banner just as every other Canadian has done who has gone to New York for some of that money. And, Mr. Speaker, what was the speech that he made to the industrialists and moneyed people of New York City? He said, "We are not socialists; do not believe the nonsense the Lewises are feeding the people of Canada. We are free enterprisers."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: He said, "Because we are free enterprisers, I know you will give us money." And they gave him money, Mr. Speaker, and he was very happy to get it. The only thing I want to say here is this: such money does not always breed industry. When our American friends see the word socialist applied to any particular provincial government, they shy away from that province as if it had the plague.
Let us look at some of the statements the Leader of the NDP has made, not just today, but in the past few days. When the Prime Minister came back from Washington and made his statement in the House of Commons, the NDP leader accused the Americans of raping us. Actually, he went even further and said that the rape was by invitation and by consent. Mr. Speaker, that statement is probable the only sexy thing about the Leader of the New Democratic Party-


John Leroy Skoberg: You are misquoting.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Some of his stupid statements are probably the only sexy thing about him. It has not been my opportunity to have the great education and legal training that the Leader of the NDP has had; it has not been my opportunity to have a great many certificates on the wall emphasizing what a great scholar I am.


An hon. Member:: That's obvious.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: It has not been my opportunity to come from a great city like Toronto. I come from a little town, Mr. Speaker; but I come before you, proudly, and with a degree of common sense on this particular subject that has not been shown this afternoon by the hon. member for York South.
Let us look at the realities of the situation in which we find ourselves. The leader of a responsible political party in Canada is condemning our greatest friends.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: He is condemning our greatest market and condemning our greatest source of capital. No wonder the people of Canada have relegated him to be the leader of a very small political party that is smaller than the rump of the Liberal party. I ask, Mr. Speaker, what kind of leadership would we have if this man, who had the audacity to bring forward this motion this afternoon, should ever happen to become prime minister of Canada? How would he get along with the President of the United States?


John Leroy Skoberg: At least we would know where we stood.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The hon. member says, at least we would know where we stand. We would wind up on our fanny; that's where we would be.


John Leroy Skoberg: You know where you stand.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The leader of the NDP practically invited us to declare war on the United States, just as he invited us to declare war on Nigeria when the Biafran situation was discussed here in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: No responsible Canadian can excuse his continuing attacks on our greatest friends. That does not mean that our American friends are always right. That does not mean we should not be the architects of our own destiny. It does mean, however, that we, as Canadians, despite the many faults of the Americans, should appreciate the Americans and be happy that it is the Americans who control the country to the south of us. Indeed, we should get down on our knees and thank God that it is the United States that is next to us instead of a couple of other countries that shall not be mentioned this afternoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: The anti-Americanism that has been emphasized chiefly by the Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada must cease. Day after day, hour after hour, this man and his party have criticized the Americans because of their experiments with atomic weapons. Every single member of the House of Commons is against these experiments. I venture to say that 98 per cent of the people are against the use of such weapons. However, we are against all experiments involving atomic weapons, including those carried out by France, China and Russia. That is something that the Leader of the New Democratic Party has not said, has not emphasized. One wonders, and I say this most sincerely, just where his friends live.
This talk of the rape of Canada, and the rape of Canadian industry, is such nonsense. Let us look at what actually happens. We will say that an American wants to buy a
December 9, 1971

certain Canadian business or a piece of land owned by a Canadian. One would think, from the criticism that has been heard here this afternoon, that he comes here and seizes it. On the contrary, he finds the Canadian who wants to sell and pays him good money for the purchase.


John Leroy Skoberg: Good money!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Good money that the seller wishes to accept in exchange for his property. Is this rape by these horrible Americans? I would say it is plain, ordinary business. And business, Mr. Speaker, has done more to give the Americans the highest standard of living in the world and more to give the Canadian people the second highest living standard than any other single factor. Certainly, it was not the socialism of England or the socialism of Russia that gave those people the few refrigerators and bathrooms that they now enjoy. It was because of socialism that they had so few of these amenities.


John Leroy Skoberg: Hurrah!


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: It is those same forces of socialism that today, in Sweden, permit a 10 per cent inflation rate, that have permitted a general strike in that country and that have forced the present government of Sweden to bring in a back to work order.


John Leroy Skoberg: Tell us about their unemployment level.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: You will be unemployed after the next election. That does not mean, of course, that we should not attempt to own as much of Canada as our economic resources will allow. This does not mean that we should not attempt to own, as Canadians, our gas industry, our oil industry, our petrochemical industry and many more industries that American money and know-how have taken over. I ask most sincerely, Mr. Speaker, where these industries in Canada would be now if it were not for our American friends. There simply would not be any. There would not be any Sept lies. There would not be the standard of living that we now have in Canada. Indeed, there would not be the employment that American investment has created. In short, we would have been damn fools to turn down this money.
We would have been equally as foolish to have allowed the Americans to make their own laws, which they do not do. They obey ours. We would have been foolish indeed if we had not insisted that they employ Canadian labour, which they do. We would have been foolish if we had not forced them to pay Canadian taxes, which they do. The crux of the situation is the big stick we hold that can be used if it is necessary. What happens if the department of highways wants to build a highway through your farm today? That department expropriates the land for the common good of all citizens. We can do exactly the same to any American industry that does not play ball with our laws and our way of living. Please God, this will never happen. If it does, let it never happen as the leaders of the New Democratic Party in the province of New Brunswick have suggested, namely the seizing of these properties without compensation. What a despicable thought!
Control of Canadian Economy
Having said this, Mr. Speaker, I urge the government to use that degree of sweet reasonableness and common sense which will allow us to control our economic future as much as possible. Under no conditions must we make enemies of our greatest friends. Let us remember that the Americans have not just bought, Canadians have sold and have been well paid.


An hon. Member:: It is known as prostitution.


Ross Mackenzie Whicher: Perhaps we should cease selling. Perhaps through such agencies as the Canada Development Corporation we can control our own destiny. I appreciate the fact that the destiny of the inhabitants of Sept lies and scores of other areas in Canada is better controlled by American money than no money at all. In fact, if that money had not been invested in that area, no one would even be living there.


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know if I dare get to my feet, being a mere member of the New Democratic Party, after all the previous tirade. I am tempted to reply, but my time is limited. I want to make a few points that will have a direct bearing and some relationship to the issue before this House. Before doing so, I cannot refrain from making a few observations on the speech of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) this afternoon.
What we heard, perhaps politely put, was "Bob, the Tory" revealing himself. First, we heard the disparaging comments about the suggestion that some public enterprise in this country might indeed be beneficial. He referred to his concern about the Atlantic and other provinces which might be deprived of the advantages accruing from foreign investment. I remind the Leader of the Opposition that, after nearly a century of almost exclusive emphasis on private enterprise, the Atlantic provinces are not exactly one of the richest regions in Canada. The steel industry in his province was notoriously known throughout the steel industry, both in this country and abroad, for losing money annually. After it was brought within public ownership, it made a profit for the first time in many years and is still making a profit. I further remind the Leader of the Opposition that the New Democratic Party never argued we should cut off all sources of investment capital. We have argued that when it comes in, it should be on a minority shareholder basis. Above and beyond that, we have argued for a meaningful Canada Development Corporation that would provide investment capital, not only in the Atlantic provinces and other poor regions, but in many places in this country.
Finally, there was the unjust and inaccurate description of our party's position, and that of the leader of our party, which he stated this afternoon with regard to public ownership. The Leader of the Opposition raised the old shibboleth of 19th century socialism. He said we know what that has led to in certain parts of the world. He said that it has not been very efficient and has not achieved all the wonders its believers thought it would. That is a distortion of what we are arguing for at this time in this Parliament and throughout the country. We have never argued at the provincial and federal levels of this party for anything other than a mixed economy at this time. It is to create a caricature to suggest that all we want is public ownership

December 9, 1971
Control of Canadian Economy
and cite a lot of misleading examples to show that it has run into certain difficulties here and in other parts of the world. We are now talking about a mixed economy. We have ideas. In terms of emphasis in this debate and at other times, we stress that we need more public involvement, not less. We do not want the total absence of all private enterprise in the economy.
I would like to take up the challenge of what should be done with one of the major sectors of the economy in terms of private enterprise at this time. I refer to the automotive industry. The automotive industry in Canada is one of the most prosperous. It is our leading source of exports at this time. However, it is in great difficulty because the government of Canada has not made its position known. It has left a great deal of uncertainty about the safeguards in the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement. It is my firm belief, and indeed the belief of all those informed in the industry, that the government is about to give up the safeguards of the pact, but they have stated no policy. Not only are the workers concerned, but I know from personal conversations with leading managerial people in this country that they are concerned about what is going to be done with Canada's automotive industry.
The Liberal party has no policy now in terms of the automotive industry on this continent. If it has, it has certainly not revealed it. I have checked the record for the past year in terms of speeches made and questions asked in this House. I have found that the Tory party has no policy at all. It tries to come down on both sides of every issue, both with regard to automotive trade and everything else. They raise serious questions and then suggest that the government is not doing what should be done in the national interest. However, they make no concrete proposals whatsoever about what should take place in this very important industry, particularly in the province of Ontario. In the time remaining to me, I wish to deal with that industry and simultaneously with the important question of the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement. I will do this in terms of three myths that have been created. They have developed in part because of the deliberate failure of this government to shatter them.
The first myth is that the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement commits Canada and the United States to free trade. Over a period of years we are supposed to take down all the trade barriers and, so the story goes, have an open door to a free market. However, Senator Long, the CBC and the Toronto Star claim that Canada has reneged. They claim that we have not upheld our end of the promise and involved ourselves in the free trade program to which we were committed in 1965. This government has not come out and said that is a lot of hooey, which it is. The Canada-U.S. automotive agreement does not commit us to free trade. The government of Canada should make this clear. The people of Canada should know that is not the case. I will come back later to the importance of why it should not be a free trade agreement.
The other myth that has been allowed to develop in Canada, allowed by this government and not challenged by the media, is that the Canada-U.S. automotive agreement has been of fantastic benefit to Canada. The impression has been created that this is a colossally successful enterprise for Canada, and incidentally one having only
[Mr. Broadbent.l
marginal value for the United States, if indeed it is not a great handicap to the United States. Only two weeks ago, Premier Davis of Ontario said the auto pact had created 32,000 new jobs. That is a lot of hooey, as I shall show later.
The third myth is related to the other two. It is that after six years of automotive development in Canada, the renovation of our plants, the stimulation of new production techniques, we are now able to stand on our own feet without relying on safeguards in the pact. Has the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) denied this? Of course, he has not. Has the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) denied it? Of course, he has not. Has anyone in the government denied it? No. The fact is that we cannot commit ourselves to a policy of abandoning all these safeguards nor can we contemplate doing so in the future, and the government should say so.
I should like to give my reasons for suggesting these are myths, I should then like to propose some positive courses of action we ought to take and, indeed, must take if manufacturers are to be satisfied and if the people of Canada who work in the industry are to be satisfied. First, as to the so-called blessings for Canada. The pact came into being in 1965 because for many years we had been running a deficit on trade in automobiles and parts amounting to hundreds of millions annually. Something had to be done about this in Canada's interests, and so the pact came into being. One of the alternatives which was considered at that time, or one which should have been considered by the government, I do not know whether it was, was to rationalize our industry in the same way as the Swedes, the British, the Germans and the Japanese have done. We might have streamlined the industry, leaving only one or two firms, and possibly using an agency such as the Canada Development Corporation to ensure Canadian majority control. That would have been a viable alternative solution.
The other solution, the one recommended by Professor Bladen the one-man Royal Commission set up to consider this subject in 1960, advised streamlining on a continental basis with safeguards to protect both manufacturers and workers in Canada. This solution was accepted. It was accepted by the American manufacturers because it gave them a leading role to play in the industry in terms of future expansion in Canada. They were happy with it then, and they are happy with it now. There is no evidence to suggest that manufacturers on either side of the border are upset about the present situation. Indeed, most Americans outside the treasury department, including those who are members of legislative bodies, are happy about the pact.
What has been the effect of the pact upon Canada? Well, it has not provided 32,000 jobs since 1965, as Mr. Davis suggested, but only 13,000. Thirteen thousand jobs in six years is not a miraculous accomplishment. It is not exactly the second coming in economic terms. In that period, the market in Canada has grown. We might have expected a growth of employment in the industry anyway; it would have come about with the pact or without it.
Here are some figures with regard to employment and production in the industry. In 1965, we were responsible
December 9, 1971

for about 4 per cent of the total production in North America and consuming around 7.5 per cent of automotive products. We are still producing much less than we are consuming in Canada in terms of North American automobiles. At the present time we are producing about 5.5 per cent of the product and still consuming about 7.5 per cent. According to my calculations, if we got what was due to us in fairness and equity-and the Pact states in its preamble that there is to be fair and equitable production on both sides-instead of the 82,000 people who are now employed in the industry we would be entitled to employ approximately 114,800, an increase of 32,000.
I am saying that in terms of the employment of Canadian workers in this industry we are not yet employing the number of workers in Canada we would be entitled to employ if we were producing as much as we are consuming. My contention, therefore, is that instead of giving up the safeguards under the agreement we should be seeking to strengthen those safeguards. What is needed as a basic minimum is a commitment by the automobile producers of North America to produce in Canada, that is, employ workers, up to a level which would ensure we were producing at least the share of the North American market which we are consuming. This is the kind of policy the government should be pursuing. I would suggest to the Leader of the Opposition that instead of getting up every day to ask broad, general questions, coming down on both sides of every issue every time, he should put forward concrete proposals along the lines I have indicated if he is interested in the Canadian economy and in Canadian workers.
I am about to conclude my observations on the automotive industry. I apologize to the hon. members who know something of this issue for being so brief, but the time allotted to us is limited. There is another important question which must receive consideration by the government. It is: what is to be the future role of the supply of automotive parts in Canada. This section of the industry is presently of importance to more than 100 communities in Ontario alone; they depend for their livelihood on this sector of the industry. Right now, over 30,000 Canadians in 100 communities are not protected by the automotive agreement because automobile manufacturers are meeting Canadian added value requirements out of their own production and plant facilities. In addition to the 100 per cent CVA requirement for the industry as a whole, we need a further requirement which would make it mandatory for the assemblers of automobiles to meet their CVA requirement by getting at least 50 per cent of the CVA share from independent parts producers in Canada. I think it is essential to preserve the jobs we already have, and also to expand the number of jobs in the industry in order to meet in a rational and just way our increasing population needs.
I add that I am not simply making a protectionist argument in the traditional sense. We must have the one requirement or safeguard we need to protect the automotive industry in Canada in general since it is totally foreign owned and acquired. That is the gut purpose, if you like, of one of the original safeguards. We also need the related safeguard in order to ensure that we in Canada
Control of Canadian Economy
maintain facilities in this country to produce parts or components for automobiles. If this facility is not protected, and especially if the government, as I am sure it will, gives up the safeguards for two years, you can be sure, Mr. Speaker, that instead of people in Kitchener, Hespel-er, Galt, Oshawa, Oakville and countless other Ontario communities producing automobile parts, these jobs will go to the United States.
We need to protect the parts industry in Canada in the sense that we are almost an integrated market in terms of tariff policy in North America. We are not talking about protection in the old narrow, chauvinistic and technically irrational sense. My point is that we must protect the industry in the event that the automotive pact itself collapses in the next year or two. If the United States decides it is in its interests to repeal the pact, it can do so, as we know, by giving one year's notice. What is going to happen to the Canadian automotive industry if at that time we no longer have a parts industry in Canada? If that is the situation then no longer will we have an automotive industry of our own.
Therefore, I conclude with the following point. The leader of my party spoke very eloquently this afternoon about the need for more control of the Canadian economy and the development of manufacturing industries. He argued that this required an expanding use of public funds as well as a viable private sector. My final point is that the government has completely failed to make the private automobile sector viable on a continuing basis. The Conservative party has offered nothing at all in terms of constructive suggestions. It is the New Democratic Party alone which has a viable, creative and imaginative automobile policy for this country.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: A point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. member permit a question?


John Edward Broadbent: Certainly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. That will be very difficult unless the hon. member has the unanimous consent of the House since his time has now expired. Does the House agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, it is with a sense of fairness to my fellow members that I prefer not to cut into their time.


Mr. E. B. Osier (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am interested in the way in which this motion is phrased. It is obviously phrased by a man of far greater education and learning than I, and I mean that quite sincerely, but it does present to me a technical difficulty. The government of Canada is asked, without further delay, to frame programs which, among other things, would regain control of our natural resources. To me that seems to be a provincial responsibility and presents a genuine dilemma. How does one sitting here in Ottawa control natural resources when governments in various provinces do what they like with their natural resources and encourage others to exploit them? I enter that one small caveat; otherwise, I think it is an interesting, though somewhat provocative, motion.

December 9, 1971
Control of Canadian Economy
The speech of the leader of the New Democratic Party I found interesting and more or less to the point. The second speaker from that party made a perfectly legitimate plea with regard to a problem in the hon. member's own area, indeed in Ontario generally, but his speech did not have the broad range his leader's speech had. I hope that other members from that party who follow will get back to the broader, national plane because there are several points that should be developed.
I should like to have one point clarified by one of the members who speaks later from that party. We often refer to Carter and say that a buck is a buck is a buck. I should like to know if a buck is not a buck when it is a United States buck. I have in my hand an impassioned plea that was made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) in the form of a letter dated in April, 1970, in the middle of the province of Manitoba's centennial year, which he addressed to the Bristol Aerospace workers in Winnipeg. In this letter the hon. member said that although he did not like involving himself in these things he felt he should recommend that they take certain action in a dispute involving two unions that were vying with each other in a forthcoming election. The hon. member said he had followed the dispute with interest and went on to say this:
The policy of the restraint which the Trudeau Government has prescribed as a way of dealing with inflation, has been taken by employers as a directive to hold the line on wages.
That is a political statement, one that the hon. member has a right to make; I could argue with him about it but I will not. That is his view of action taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of this country. Then, he went on to say this:
Under these conditions it seems obvious to me that workers would be wise to belong to large, strong unions . .. which have the financial resources to help any of their members unfortunate enough to be involved in a strike . ..
For these reasons I have no hesitation in joining with the members and officers of the International Association of Machinists and with officers of unions affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress and the Manitoba Federation of Labour, in urging you to support and vote for the I.A.M.-
Now, I do not give a damn which union Bristol has in its plant; that is entirely a matter for the workers in the plant to decide. The point I want to make is that this hon. member, whose party is so violently opposed to United States capital, United States corporations and United States investment in Canada, urges these workers to vote for a United States union solely because they are going to have to fight the Prime Minister of Canada and the policies of the government that are endorsed by this parliament.


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


Edmund Boyd Osler: I find it difficult to reconcile the presence, on the one hand-


David Orlikow: A point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order. The hon. member for Winnipeg North is rising on a point of order.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I do not have before me the letter I wrote from which the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre is quoting, but if he is going to quote from

my letter I wish he would quote all of the relevant parts. One of the relevant parts indicates-


Mr. Francis:: Why don't you make your own speech?


Edmund Boyd Osler: Is that a point of order?


David Orlikow: Yes, it is a point of order because the hon. member is misquoting me. The point of my letter was to urge people to belong to large unions, whether they be national or international, which is not what the hon. member is leading people to believe I said.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I suppose it was not a point of order, Mr. Speaker, so you are not ruling on it. However, I would be quite happy to table this letter if anybody wants to go through the procedure of allowing me to do so. There is nothing secret about the document. It was distributed to hundreds of workers and I received one copy.


David Orlikow: Read the whole thing.


Edmund Boyd Osler: I do not want to take the time to read the whole thing. The point is that the document reads as follows:
For these reasons I have no hesitation in joining with the members and officers of the International Association of Machinists and with officers of unions affiliated with the Canadian Labour Congress and the Manitoba Federation of Labour, in urging you to support and vote for the I.A.M. in any representation vote which may be held.
So, I am not wrong. The document urges union members to follow this line. I am not quarrelling with the fact that he can do this. All I am saying is that it seems very inconsistent of a member of his party to take that line when the party is so definitely against the use of American capital for other purposes.


John Edward Broadbent: Why don't you listen to somebody for a change?


Edmund Boyd Osler: I will quote directly from the Canadian Aerospace Worker. The workers were not taken in by this plea. In fact, they did not vote for this international union. It reads:
Not long ago, Dave Orlikow, NDP Member of Parliament for Winnipeg North, saw fit, to use the taxpayers government stationery-
To which I do not object.
-to send a letter to the workers at Bristol Aerospace. From this letter it is obvious that he is being used as a pawn, at the hands of the Washington based Machinists Union. What a tragedy-
While the NDP as a political party has been supported by workers of unions generally, large or small, local, national, and international, it now becomes abundantly clear that Mr. Orlikow at least is not at all interested in the small, the local, or the Canadian Unions.


Colin David Gibson: Shame.


Edmund Boyd Osler: It strikes me as very ambivalent that he should be a member of the same party as his leader who feels so strongly and passionately about the rape of this country. As somebody has said, if there is consent there is no rape. Surely, he does not like what is going on, and yet, by God, he uses public stationery to advocate it. I presume he mailed it at public expense, and he has a perfect right
December 9, 1971

to do so. So there is an ambiguity there which I hope somebody will clarify before this party lets the subject die and descends into local issues like the one which the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) has brought up.
The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) spoke very well and constructively, I thought. He said that we needed an industrial strategy. In his view this is probably a legitimate statement, and it was echoed by the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. I would disagree with the statement because I think we are not as bankrupt as he would make us believe. But I would also point out to him, and to the people of Canada, that it is very easy to say we need an industrial strategy, just as easy as for your wife to say she needs a new fur hat or something. However, to adjust to the emergency situation into which Canada and the rest of the world have come in the post war era and to establish a new strategy, is not something that is accomplished by dreaming. Talking about this is far easier than doing anything about it. People are trying to do something about it.
As a matter of fact one of the greatest criticisms is this whispering campaign that goes on about the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) cosying up to this country or that country or travelling to some other country. What do you think he is trying to do but develop a new strategy for trade?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edmund Boyd Osler: It is not as easily done as one might think it is, especially when he is sabotaged and all his backers are sabotaged by people who go around whispering that all he is doing is having fun. Anyone who has been in business or in politics knows that it is no damn fun flying for a five or ten day visit to a country as vast as is Russia and doing it in an official way. It is no fun going to India and Malaysia for ten days on an official visit. Anybody who has been on business trips and compares them with pleasure trips knows that.


Erik Nielsen: I will take some of that.


Edmund Boyd Osler: A man on an official trip cannot stay up all night, drink, and do a lot of other things, because he knows he has work to do the next morning. He cannot be like an ordinary man.


David Lewis: Move a motion of sympathy for the Prime Minister.


Edmund Boyd Osler: Very well, I wish you would move it; but I do not think he needs any sympathy. He is doing all right.


John Edward Broadbent: He is getting all the sympathy from you.


Edmund Boyd Osler: My point was that it is easy for the Leader of the Opposition to talk about a new industrial strategy, but surely he must know, as the former Premier of Nova Scotia, that to talk of such a thing and to make it effective are two different things. The Industrial Estates Limited has had its successes and its failures. It has been a very human organization. It has tried. I do not think it has tried as successfully as has the Canadian government, nor has it had as good results, but results are not all that easy to obtain.
Control of Canadian Economy
As against this illusory, terrible ogre which has been brought up by the NDP and as against the gallant, dashing, knightly calls for a new strategy, what are the facts? It seems to me that the facts are very interesting. We may not have a new strategy but Canada and Australia are the only two countries of any major significance in the industrial world which lack a domestic market or its equivalent of at least 100 million people, and Canada, in spite of this drawback, has not done too badly. I am not sure how Australia has done. Last year we exported $16.9 billion worth of goods and we imported $13.9 billion. Relative to the United States, we achieved a surplus in trade of $3 billion. It is to our success that the Americans have been objecting because they were hurt by it since they had an imbalance in other areas. We may not have a strategy, but that is a good substitute for one.


John Edward Broadbent: Let us hear some facts.


Edmund Boyd Osler: The problem is that Canada's total exports of goods and services amount to 25 per cent of our gross national product, whereas in the United States they are only 5.3 per cent. So, the Americans are not as concerned with our problems as we are with theirs. We may not have a policy, but 50 per cent of all the goods produced in Canada are exported and 40 per cent of these exports are finished goods, whereas 10 years ago only 12 per cent were finished goods. This is progress in the direction of the creation of jobs when we do our own finishing in Canada. It is illusory to say we have lost control of the situation and that jobs are being lost. We are frightened that if Mr. Nixon continues with his present policy it is certain that jobs in this country will be lost. But talking of the past, and of the record today, it is stupid and untrue to say that we have lost control of the situation because the situation is improving. The amount of manufactured goods we have exported has increased from 12 per cent to 40 per cent in 10 years.
We realize that the fact the United States is our largest market makes us vulnerable, but we continue to try through GATT to work for free trade and to expand in worldwide trade. We abhor tendencies toward the formation of trade blocs, abnormalities in currency values, U.S. economic measures against Canada and the world, but we abhor those against Canada and the world because we want a freer trade world; we want the United States to remain in that freer trade world with us and we want to remain in that freer trade world with the U.S. There is no way in which we who share this North American continent can separate from each other. Belligerent talk will not do it. Malevolent predictions that the United States are raising absolute Cain with us will not do it. We have to live together. In trade, Canada and the U.S. have exchanged last year the $19 billion worth of goods that I spoke about, which is 65 per cent of Canada's total exports. It is possible that that can be redirected to a certain extent, and we are trying to do that.
Certainly the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) had little or no success when 10 or 12 years ago he tried to do the same thing. Perhaps under the present climate and world conditions we will have more success. However, the fact remains that anybody who

December 9, 1971
Control of Canadian Economy
ignores the fact that 65 per cent of our exports go to the United States, and that we are terribly dependent on that market, is not facing reality. We know that 72 per cent of Canada's imports come from the United States. That should make us very important in the eyes of the United States. But this 72 per cent of our imports, of course, is only 20 per cent of United States exports. So, the United States does not feel as strongly about our trade relationship as we do. Nevertheless, United States sales to Canada are very significant.
I think the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Pepin), the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) have managed to get the message home. I believe President Nixon realizes, both from the point of view of trade and political stability, that he has to be sure his policies in no way hurt us unduly.
Each American bought $50 worth of Canada's goods last year. Every single American is a good customer. We each bought $500 worth of their goods. Every Canadian, to an American, is a very good customer. Thus, we are inseparable. There is no way we can be separated. This is the reality. Belligerent attitudes of undue nationalism will not solve problems because they are not part of this reality.
In reality we are together on this continent. There is no way for us to be anything else. Canada's external trade surplus was achieved in spite of the high value of the Canadian dollar last year and in spite of the serious increase in the volume of imports. This trade surplus is in the order of about $500 million in favour of Canada, which is another reason we have to think of the United States as being a good friend. In addition, the United States market is a finished and semi-finished market for our agricultural produce. This must become greatly expanded in the view of western Canada. We have to find new markets for our products and ways in which to finish new products so that workers can find jobs which are no longer available on the farms. We must find ways to bring these finished or semi-finished products to markets. What is better than the highly populated Pacific rim of the United States along the coast and what is wrong with carrying it on to Japan, China and Malaysia in that way? Without the springboard of the southwestern United States and its large markets, we could not begin to develop economies of scale in respect of the refinishing of agricultural products to allow us to compete in these other world markets. This is another reason, particularly in respect of western Canada, that we must treat the United States as our best friend and as our best trading customer.
Quebec and the Maritimes have similar problems with which I am not familiar, but I have heard from members of these areas that they are very concerned about the health and wealth of the United States because it is a good market for them. It is not all a one-way street.
The fact remains that we do need capital. Capital is mobile and capital can come from anywhere. If too much comes from the United States it causes anxiety and imbalances in our industrial structure. But surely it is up to us as Canadians, and especially as Canadian politicians, to decide what ground rules we want to make and what laws we want to operate under. That is not something to blame

the United States for and is not a reason to drive away investment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in this important debate today. This is the second time within a few weeks that the general subject of the relations between the United States and Canada, and in particular the economic relations and the independence of our own country, has been raised as a matter of debate by opposition parties. I think this points up again, regardless of differences which may exist between hon. members, the rising importance there is in this question. It is certainly not a new question. Indeed, apart from the continual question of the relationship between English and French-speaking persons of this country, it is difficult to find a subject which goes further back into our history than the relations between those who live in the northern half of the North American continent and those who live in the southern half.
In 1971 a new sense of urgency arose. I think the initial guns were fired on August 15 when President Nixon announced a number of economic measures which were taken, not with specific direction toward Canada but because of the internal and external problems faced by the United States, of a nature which had a major impact on Canadians. Certainly, I for one have had to reflect again on the intimate relationship which exists between Canada and the United States. It is a cliche used so often it is like a smooth stone found on the beach to say no two nations have the kind of intimate relationship which exists between Canada and the United States. By the nature of that relationship, similar only I suppose to the marriage relationship, there are bound to be elements both of love and hate. In the last few months we have seen ample evidence of both. On Tuesday of this week, at the same moment the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made his report to the Commons on his recent talks with President Nixon, outside this building a group of people were protesting the sellout, if you like, or loss of Canadian sovereignty to the United States.
Canadians have lived for a long time with this ambivalent attitude. This may be one of the principal problems we have to deal with. When you live with a continuing problem like this day after day, year after year, and century after century, you tend to think the problem never really changes, that the factors are essentially the same and that how you feel and react to what our country or the United States does is really not of very much consequence because somehow the relationship will go on forever through good times and bad, as the marriage oath has it, in sickness and in health, for rich or for poor, and so on.


An hon. Member:: I never heard of "and so on".


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: "And so on" is a new revised version I have added. In respect of a marriage between Canada and the United States, it is important to reflect on the fact that a marriage can be dissolved not just by death, but by divorce or separation, and that there can be
December 9, 1971

difficult and almost intractable human problems. I think it is wrong for us to assume that all factors remain the same and that nothing changes. Life essentially is dynamic. It is not static. There are a number of factors that are quite new and which make it very important that we examine these questions specifically.
If we consider some of the events of the past few months, the sale of a major national press, Ryerson Press, which prints many of our text books, to an American interest, the loss of control of major oil companies, the earlier inroads made by American banking institutions into the Canadian scene, even more recently the controversy surrounding the leaked Gray report, the almost immediate visit of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to Washington and his comments on the discovery of a new understanding on the part of President Nixon about the nature and the authenticity of the Canadian nation, and only yesterday the release of a document on foreign ownership by the government of Ontario, it must be obvious that there is tremendous interest in this question.
Yet we are told by the Gallup poll released today that when people were asked what they thought would be the overriding issue in the next federal election, overwhelmingly they said it would be unemployment. American ownership was not even in second or third place. It was down in an almost imperceptible percentage position. Only a few people replying to the survey said they thought American ownership, American investment, would be a critical problem. Even the report released yesterday by the government of Ontario has warned us to think carefully about the promotion and exploitation of our natural resources, about allowing for greater foreign inroads into our natural resource sector to the discrimination of secondary manufacturing in Canada and said that this could create extensive unemployment.
I would say one of the problems with which political leaders, provincially and federally, have failed to grapple is the relationship that may well exist between either cyclical unemployment or increasing unemployment and inattention to the question of domestic priorities for the Canadian economy. If it is in fact true, Mr. Speaker, that we have inadvertently ignored some important questions in terms of the way in which we control investment activity in this country, and that this has discriminated against employment, we have misled the Canadian public on two counts.
We have to be circumspect about further American involvement in our resource industries. We must begin now-in fact, now is very late and possibly too late in some sectors-to define those areas wherein it is in the Canadian interest to discourage further American involvement and prohibit continued American monopoly. We have to define these areas and in some cases proceed to a process of rectification almost regardless of the cost.
These will not be popular words to certain segments of Canadian society but I feel they must be said if we are to protect the over-all standard of living that seems to be uppermost in the minds of many. I think it is fair to say that in our willingness and desire to achieve a standard of living equal to that of the United States we have often taken a shortsighted approach to the development of our 24725-25
Control of Canadian Economy
economy and particularly to tne development and utilization of our natural resources. This, again, is part of the Canadian ambivalence.
We cannot live so close to our neighbours and absorb as much of their culture as we do, from the moment we open our eyes in the morning until we close them in slumber at night, without experiencing a desire to achieve a standard of living equal to that of the Americans. And if the price of that standard of living is some loss of control over sectors of our economy, in the past we have not considered that cost to be too great. It appears that if we suffer loss of control over our natural resources we may also suffer a loss in our standard of living and so will have gained the worst of all possible worlds.
It seems to me that we must be extremely careful to examine where our present economic policies, our present taxation proposals and our present regulations, both federal and provincial, are leading us. It is obvious that we have not looked very carefully into this question. Indeed, one of the real problems for us in examining this question is the lack of trust that has existed in the federal government in exercising jurisdiction in these matters. If there is anything that the present government can be blamed for, it is its lack of trust in the Canadian people regarding this issue. The government has succeeded in the last few months in fogging-up or, if I may say so, "Graying-up" the key points that are involved in this area to the extent it is becoming increasingly difficult for Canadians to see the essentials of the issue in order that a reasonable and sane analysis might be made.
Even though cabinet ministers have resigned on much these same issues, to date the government has been unresponsive to these important questions. One of the fascinating things to indicate the dilemma presently facing us was the immediate reac ion of provincial Premiers following publication of the Gray report. It was fascinating to watch four Premiers from different parts of the country indicate the horror with which they viewed the suggestions in that report in terms of the adoption of a screening agency and such kinds of bureaucratic intervention that might take place on the part of the federal government. This said as much to me about the deteriorating situation with regard to confidence between the federal and provincial governments as it did about the nature of the problem itself.
It is understandable that the governments of the provinces become uneasy when federal initiatives appear to threaten their own efforts at bringing development to their jurisdictions. We can understand all too well the anxiety of the poorer provinces-I may say in passing that I represent one of those poorer provinces-that are faced with continuing uncertainty by foreign investors who through their investments might succeed in aiding the development and economic expansion of those provinces. That is an anxiety that must be dealt with by any group wishing to deal in a realistic sense with this problem.
In the first instance we will require an integrated approach that will have more to it than inflated rhetoric or nationalistic fervour. It requires more than leaked reports and unilateral policy positions. It requires, in the first instance, that there be the fullest possible consultation. Indeed, I think the word "consultation" for this government is too weak because in effect it means a telegram

December 9, 1971
Control of Canadian Economy
sent at some strange hour of the day. The government calls that consultation and then proceeds to do exactly what it had decided in the first instance.
That is not what we mean by consultation. Consultation must allow for a continuous interchange and exchange of views and the establishment of goals and priorities on which there is a consensus within the country. It is interesting that Premier Davis, in releasing the report on foreign ownership in Ontario yesterday, suggested that the government of Ontario would not move until there was some clear direction from the federal government.
Second, Mr. Speaker, there would have to be some form of agreement by the provinces-


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Do you agree with that?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I do.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Why?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Because we are talking about a federal system, not a unitary system as is sometimes conceived by members of the government. If they are not prepared to recognize that we are in a federal system, this will have a very serious effect on the important question of economic self-determination. We must deal with the anxiety of the provinces, and that can only be dealt with in terms of ongoing federal-provincial development of national criteria on foreign investment and national economic goals.
I agree with my leader when he suggests that we must have an industrial strategy which takes into account the realistic economic situation of this country. We will not get that until there is consensus as to goals. Perhaps it points up the way in which the government has failed to grapple with this question when we consider what kind of priority it has given to the elaboration of goals in regard to regional disparity. Unless we take these issues seriously, none of the provinces should be asked to take this government seriously when it talks about a strategy for foreign investment and Canadian economic determination.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It is not a unitary system. The provinces also have a responsibility to put forward a policy.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am glad that some members on the other side are beginning to see what is involved in a federal system. I hope the hon. member will say that in his caucus.
Another thing to be taken into account is the dramatic change in the direction of activity of the United States economy. It is too soon to predict with accuracy the course on which the United States is launched, but it is obvious that they have taken a firm hand in the direction in which they wish their economy to go. This will have a continuing impact upon us and will call upon us to make new decisions with regard to our economic situation.
I would remind hon. members that the decisions being taken by the United States are not only because of individual or short-term problems concerning abnormally high unemployment or rising inflation, but they are also related to the changing nature of the American economic

structure. This has changed very dramatically in the area of natural resources. It is only in the last decade or so that the United States has had to rapidly increase its importation of natural resources in order to meet consumer and industrial demands. We must pay attention to this matter because of our own situation, sitting as we do on the northern part of this continent with tremendous untapped natural resources.
It would be very easy for us in this decade to enter into attractive, short-term options which would make a variety of natural resources available to the Americans to satisfy their needs. However, we might discover in the latter part of the decade or early in the next that the requirements of the American economy would make it necessary for them to exercise the kind of choices and controls that would be completely unpalatable to the effective working of our economy short of a full economic and political union with the United States. In spite of the ambivalence that all Canadians feel with regard to the United States, I doubt whether there are many who would look forward with pleasure to an eventual and total absorption into that nation.
What is our task, then? Surely, our task for the moment is to consider in the widest possible way and with the greatest possible public discussion what our goals should be. We have talked about this in vague generalities in the past. I think the time has arrived when we should be specific.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Have you any ideas?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I had the opportunity, and I hope we will have a further opportunity, to discuss this. I think in the short time that is available I can do little but set forth something to which I hope members on the opposite side will respond favourably. We must establish machinery for consultation that will work both ways. It must be identifiable machinery for the establishment of these goals which will involve provincial administration, which will involve key sectors of our economy such as industry, labour and the growing academic communities so there can be the fullest possible input in the discussion.
There must also be consultation beyond our borders. Sometimes I think we live in a kind of fool's world where we allow ourselves to be caught out because of lack of information of what is happening beyond our borders. Obviously, we must have machinery to receive information and for consultation in Washington and in the European countries where there is increasing economic activity.
There is also a need for comprehensive industrial planning. This includes an approach which will recognize that there are certain sectors of our economy that are crucial to our own development and the maintenance of economic independence. I think we have to begin the experiment and explore the possibility for diversifying our trade pattern which at the moment is extremely bilateral with the Americans, as well as diversifying the investment pattern and also enlarging it within this country. In many instances the main banking institutions in this country are more favourably disposed to large multinational American corporations than to Canadian business enterprise.
December 9, 1971

We must consider what steps can be taken to encourage Canadian participation in the investment in and development of industries in this country. Our industry is less efficient than it is capable of being, and does not use the industrial structures available. We must look to the development of our own technology and management expertise.
"he Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel): Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, this debate on the subject of American control and foreign policy arises from the motion which reads:
This House calls on the government to institute without delay policies and programs designed to arrest further expansion of foreign control of Canada's economy and to regain control by the Canadian people of our natural resources and manufacturing and service industries in order to assure our country's independence and jobs for Canadian workers and to enable Canadians to shape their own national identity and social values.
This motion was moved by the leader of the New Democratic Party and is the subject of this debate. I shall deal with his speech later in my speech. First, I shall try to be constructive with the knowledge that I have, some of which was gained in the Canadian-American study conducted by the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. We heard many witnesses from all walks of life who had investigated this problem. They were both Canadian and American. I believe that study was useful and the report has received the serious attention of this government.
What are the problems, Mr. Speaker? Any Canadian government seeking to formulate a policy on foreign investment faces the difficult problem of finding a balanced position. On the one hand it must consider the continued need in Canada of the new technology and highly skilled entrepreneurial technique which has traditionally accompanied United States investment in Canada. There is also the need to supplement the small Canadian domestic market with foreign markets, which accompanies United States investment in many cases, in order to permit economies of scale in Canadian production. Of concern is the integrated financial market between the two countries in which there is a large, twoway flow of capital and also the interdependence of the two countries in trade.
At the same time there are the following, additional complications to be kept in mind: (a) the provincial desire to promote regional development which leads the provinces to compete with each other in granting concessions to foreign investment bidders, and (b) the geographical and social proximity of Canada to the U.S. which makes unacceptable a markedly inferior standard of living for Canadians.
The government will be mindful of the advantages of U.S. investment, namely, the large capital inflows available for Canadian resource and industrial development, the advanced technology, the highly developed managerial skills, production techniques, financial and marketing skills which usually accompany U.S. investment, the resulting expansion of employment, the possibilities for
Control of Canadian Economy
increased exports due to access to expanded or new markets, the stimulus, at times only, to competition and the capacity of the multinational firms to develop economies of scale in production which may be impossible for Canada to develop indigenously in some cases.
There are also increasingly evident disadvantages connected with U.S. investment to be considered, particularly disadvantages related to the extraterritorial application, through Canadian subsidiaries, of U.S. laws and policies dealing with control of exports, anti-trust regulations and balance of payments, disadvantages associated with the leverage and manipulating power of huge multinational corporations and disadvantages related to the high concentration of U.S. ownership in key resource and manufacturing industries, with the attendant fears that important decisions made by such U.S. companies which have interests extending far beyond Canada may not be in Canada's best interests. These would include decisions regarding purchases, sales, research, processing, production, pricing and export sales.
With these considerations in mind, the government has open to it the following possible lines of policy and could use a mixture of both. First, there are restrictive policy possibilities. As in several countries, a government foreign investment agency could be established to regulate to a greater or lesser degree foreign investment. Second, there are positive policy possibilities. A bill to create the Canada Development Corporation was passed recently. The corporation is expected to be a leader in positive and imaginative government policies to increase Canadian control of the economy. It is intended to be a new and major source of equity capital for large-scale industrial and resource development, to help finance new Canadian-owned projects and to play a leadership role in organizing small, potentially uneconomic Canadian companies into larger, more viable enterprises through mergers or rationalization schemes. This is particularly likely to be applied in sectors of manufacturing where technology dictates economies of scale beyond the scope of the small firm or of the Canadian market.
It may enter into joint venture schemes. It will probably try to provide an attractive alternative to entice back to Canada extensive Canadian investment, both institutional and private, in the U.S. and will eventually offer its shares widely to the Canadian people. However, the corporation will not become a buy-back agency solely to protect Canadian companies from sales to foreign buyers. If those who keep knocking the Canadian Development Corporation will stop playing politics with it and give us their best ideas on the subject, the corporation will work.
The government could also introduce a whole range of incentives for companies to increase Canadian equity participation or Canadian personnel or to follow other of the government's guiding principles. As was suggested in the government white paper on taxation, capital gains on U.S. investment could be subjected to heavier taxation than capital gains or Canadian investments. Legislation could be enacted that would countervail the effect of the extraterritorial application of U.S. laws; for example, those relating to the U.S. anti-trust laws which may inhibit necessary rationalization schemes of Canadian industry. We must undertake research in technology and scientific development, expand our economy and make efforts to
24725-25',

December 9, 1971
Control of Canadian Economy
produce those things that are produced in foreign lands. All this is within our capability. We are a young, strong country. We have the will to do it, and with the help of the good Lord we will do it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, the government could
introduce policies in other areas which would help to stimulate industrial development, strengthen competition and improve Canadian technological and managerial skills. These are policies which might tend to reduce the Canadian industrial dependence on foreigners. Measures could be adopted which would provide incentives for Canadian firms to expand their operations and investments abroad in order to capture new markets for Canadian exports. Also, the government could initiate talks with European countries which face similar problems regarding the extraterritorial application of U.S. laws and powers of the U.S.-based, multi national corporations with a view to possible concerted multilateral action.
Having said that, I believe that the government acted with courage and initiative in approaching the gigantic problems created by the United States. What did the government do? Immediately, as soon as it was aware of the difficulty, the government introduced the Employment Support Bill which in the short run will protect many jobs in Canadian industries. This was done without panic, with deliberately planned initiative. The step was taken promptly and was well thought-out. The measure appears to be working well, in this interim period, to alleviate some of the uncertainty that has been brought on by the American decision.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair. The House will meet again at eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Colin David Gibson: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), representing the Official Opposition, droaned through a long list of pessimistic, dull, unimaginative, fairly critical statements I was reminded of the day I came to this place in 1968. One of the things I told myself was that we must be optimistic if we are to succeed, for an atmosphere of pessimism has to a certain extent permeated Canada in the past few months.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Guess why?


Colin David Gibson: I believe part of the reason is the irresponsible conduct of leaders and members of the opposition parties. Some concrete examples of these forms of pessimism which are damaging the Canadian economy are statements given by party leaders over television bemoaning the economy, the actions of the government and the

activities of cabinet members who work hard with their representatives at meetings, in their constituencies and in this great House of Commons.
Day after day we are treated to pathetic, insipid criticism of a banal type which does not behoove any Canadian Member of Parliament. I respectfully submit that the role of a Member of Parliament is not to run down his country, particularly when the United States of America has put great pressure on the men who hold the reins of office in Canada be they federal, provincial or municipal. The hour has come for Canadians of every political stripe and colour to band together, use collectively their brains and initiatives in order to work out a solid policy of co-operation with the United States and bring this country back to the "good neighbour" policy of Mackenzie King and Roosevelt. That can be done, Mr. Speaker, and it shall be done.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Colin David Gibson: Mr. Stanfield-excuse me Mr. Speaker; I apologize for naming him.


An hon. Member:: That is not a good name.


Colin David Gibson: To sum up his speech, the Leader of the Opposition suggested that we have guidelines. We have guidelines but they are not working well enough. I may be a backbencher in this party but I am not satisfied that everything is milk and honey in our economic relations and policies. We will build a policy. We will do it with the help of Canadians of all parties. In this debate some useful suggestions have come from across the floor.


Mr. Mahoney:: Name one.


Colin David Gibson: The hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis), who is a member of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence-and has studied Canadian-American relations, made many useful suggestions in his speech. There was some scholarship and initiative in his speech.
I do not intend to refer to all the other speakers, but the Leader of the Opposition failed to be really constructive. He delivered his speech carefully but monotonously. It was a monotonous, pedagogic, trite speech, one you might have heard from Mr. Graydon, Mr. Hanson, Mr. Drew, Mr. Bracken and all the other unsuccessful opposition leaders of the Conservative party. I speak from direct observation. When I was 16 years old, I sat in the gallery. My father was a member of this chamber. I remember hearing the same old doom and gloom being preached to the government of that day.
This government will lead the country back to a successful, sound economy. Who are the unselfish bureaucrats who will replace the business leaders? That is what the Leader of the Opposition asked. That is a ridiculous generality. It is a trite, outdated, antiquated sentence which should be struck from all government or opposition speeches. Let us get down to practical analysis as was done by the hon. member for York South in the part of his speech when he was serious.


An hon. Member:: He is alright, then?
December 9, 1971


Colin David Gibson: Yes, on certain aspects, because he did face the problem of export credit and some kind of control commission to screen capital when he complained of lack of strategy and development guidelines. The speech of the Leader of the Opposition added up to a string of undefined guidelines floating uncertainly in the air like a rudderless Tory party to the tune of many dangling participles and split infinitives, signifying nothing.
In the other part of his speech the hon. member for York South displayed a callous indifference to the likelihood of success of the Canada Development Corporation. Despite his cynicism displayed in a dull and unimaginative way, he ended by trotting out the same recommendations as were made by the largely Liberal-drafted external affairs committee report. If there was anything new in what he said, it was renewed arrogance mingled with humorous hot air. He should move over and make way for a new vigorous leader, perhaps his son.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Colin David Gibson: In the event his party's ideas are always as unimaginative, there will always be great hopes for gains by Liberal supporters contesting NDP seats. No new ideas are being advanced by members of the opposition except as earlier referred to, whereas members of the Liberal party have shown imagination, courage, firmness and a desire to succeed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Colin David Gibson: The hon. member for York South merely repeated many of the conclusions of earlier trite speeches. [Translation]
I would now like to express my feelings in my second language.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Try German!


Colin David Gibson: No, that is not possible. But I must say, Mr. Speaker, that we in the Liberal party can speak both languages, contrary to the members of the opposition, and that we shall continue, with these hon. members, to make progress.

I am sorry the hon. member for York South has not been here while I was speaking. The hon. member's speech was a bitter, frustrated, partisan, NDP speech. It was delivered by a frustrated member annoyed by the misguided wafflers in his party, the impractical visionaries and inexperienced professors, most of whom have never suffered the agonies of unemployment and who cannot themselves be dismissed from their secure university positions due to monopolistic rules governing the teaching profession. I resent the stagnation that comes from many parts of this House and I encourage all members to come forward as some have done in this debate with constructive, positive suggestions to make Canada a great, strong country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Doug Rowland (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether I should check for dangling participles before or after I have spoken.
Control of Canadian Economy
There comes a point in any discussion of the necessity for Canada to maintain its political and economic independence when someone must pose the question: why do we wish to maintain political and economic independence? An attempt must be made to answer that question.
I think that the inarticulated major premise of any argument for Canadian political and economic independence is that there are some aspects of the Canadian culture which are unique and different. They are valuable and worthy of preservation, partly because of their unique quality. If that is not part of the thinking behind calls for economic and political independence there would seem to be precious little reason for pursuing those goals.
Human awareness of a situation is seldom, if ever, contemporaneous with the birth of that situation. There is a time lag between the creation of a new reality and a human perception of awareness of that reality. Thus, while Canadians were busily disentangling themselves from Britain whose power was on the wane another and very real danger to the continued existence, not to mention the flourishing of, a distinct Canadian identity, crept up on us. Donald Creighton, writing in MacLeans Magazine of November, 1971, describes the new threat in the following words:
The truth is that Canadians, in accepting American capital, American management and American technology, have unwittingly received the spirit that animates all three. They have not only become subjects of the American continental empire, but they have also become converts to its characteristic philosophy of life, to what might legitimately be called its religion. The central doctrine of this religion is a belief that progress is the only good in life and that progress means a liberation of man for the progressive conquest of nature by technology.
Professor Creighton went on to say:
This new doctrine (the doctrine of continual economic growth) has captured the minds of Canadians, just as it has those of every other people in the western world. To achieve economic growth, they are prepared to sacrifice their independence, pillage their natural resources, contaminate their environment and endure all the hideous evils of modern industrialization and urbanization. The American empire is taking over the birthright of Canadians; and its imperial religion has taken over their minds.
What is this new religion, as Professor Creighton calls it, replacing? What have we got to lose? Tolerance is one thing. Tolerance is a peculiarly Canadian virtue-a virtue and a vice, I suppose. Peter Newman made one of the best stabs at describing what is unique in Canada in the same edition of MacLeans in which is to be found Dr. Creighton's article. He said:
What we tend to say when we are exhorting our countrymen to stand up for Canada is that we need as a people to be more energetic in tackling our trade problems, to develop a stronger technology, to be less timid in our patriotism, more aggressive in pushing our own point of view-to be, in other words, more like the Americans.
But surely, what we have that is ours, the quality that makes us special as a nation, is almost antithetical to all of these admonitions. It's what Creighton himself calls our "inherited Canadian belief in an ordered peaceful society and a gentle and simple way of life! The Canadian character, by definition, displays a reticence, a disdain for xenophobia, a dislike of bombast, and a genuine desire to let each other be. In part, it comes out of being small, out of not having to be first, out of being able to encompass the indigenous in very different cultures of the regions without having to savage them in the name of some monolithic concept called Pan-Canadianism. There is something very special about a man from the outports, say, that may seem very strange to a man from

December 9, 1971
Control of Canadian Economy
the Peace River country. He is a Newfoundlander and he is a Canadian, but he can be both.
It is that which stands in danger of being lost. Realizing the fact that it stands in danger of being lost is perhaps the first step to preserving it.
To see that it stands in danger, we need only look around us. American-inspired fads and fashions, techniques of production and modes of consumption, standards of living, economic, social and religious ideologies and philosophies of life generally have become increasingly popular in Canada. It is probably safe to say that most Canadians eat much the same kinds of food, wear the same kinds of clothes and live in the same type of house or apartment as do Americans. Our respective educational systems teach much the same subjects, use similar techniques and attempt to inculcate much the same values. English-speaking Canadians and Americans read much the same books, magazines and comic strips, watch the same movies and television programs, respond to the same type of advertising and buy the same kinds and brands of automobiles, household appliances, clothes, packaged goods, cosmetics and patent medicines. They participate in the same types of sports and other recreational activities. They join branches of the same lodges, fraternal societies, service clubs, scientific, trade or professional associations. But in all of this similarity there is one hitch for those of us interested in preserving what is unique in this country: all of the similarities are American oriented, American initiated and American dominated.
This process has gone so far that many Canadians have come to think that making the effort to remain Canadian constitutes a sacrifice. They believe that instead of gaining something in strengthening our ability to be ourselves, we would be losing something. This is the most insidious thing about the situation in which we now find ourselves.
The manner in which our thinking is directed is both subtle and direct. Take as an example our social organizations. As I have said, historically Canadians have organized and joined branches of the same lodges, fraternal associations, service clubs, trade, scientific and professional associations as Americans. The presence of a large number of American social organizations, whether formal or informal, in Canada may well serve to reintroduce or reinforce American values which are already being presented to Canadians through the media of communications which are also American dominated. That may or may not be considered a threat to Canada. However, these social organizations, by acting as informal lobby groups for American interests or by determining the direction of social research, do conflict with Canadian cultural, social and political goals.
I mentioned a moment ago that the influence of the American media is exceptionally profound. Through the various communications media Canadians are made constantly aware of American social problems and America's reform tradition. Social issues which may or may not have originated in America are often popularized first by the United States. Due to the extent to which American technology, people, ideas and methods of operation are already present in the Canadian social structure, Canadians tend to absorb the popularized version-which is

American-of social issues in such a way that it tends to affect our ability to deal with similar social problems which become apparent in our own society. We accept the package deal. The reform element often adopts the style, the jargon and the literature of the American reform element. The rest of the Canadian population often acts on the judgments made about the similar American situation.
All of this process tends to ignore the fact that Canadian social institutions and Canadian social problems are often difficult clearly to define; in fact, the American influence makes their definition even more difficult. It also tends to ignore that Canadian social institutions tend to operate and respond in a different manner from American institutions and to respond to situations in a different fashion from their American counterparts.
Thus, through the American influence we may well be misdefining our social problems and misdirecting our efforts to correct them because both the statement of the problem and the structuring of the solutions are based upon experiences alien to our own in fact, but which seem to be our own because of the presence of the American thinking pattern in our media. We are perceiving our own country in a very confused manner and are not able adequately to deal with our problems because of this confused perspective.
Let us look at the situation in Canada with respect to our culture and the things that affect our culture. Of the 20 top television programs, only three are Canadian. Only 5 per cent of the book publishing industry is Canadian owned. Only about 20 per cent of text books found in Canadian schools are Canadian in origin. Forty-nine per cent of professors at Canadian universities are of foreign extraction. Only three out of 16 National Hockey League teams are located in Canada. Many of our outstanding artists and dramatists must leave this country to find employment and challenges that are commensurate with their abilities. Hume Cronyn, William Shatner, Lome Greene, Donald Sutherland, Norman Jewison, Rich Little, Paul Anka, Douglas Raine and a legion of others have left Canada in order to find a suitable outlet which did not exist here, for their talents.
This fact has produced some ridiculous situations which, if they were not so painful, would be laughable. For example, in today's Globe and Mail it is noted in Blaik Kirby's column that the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation has purchased from New York a new dramatic anthology for its next summer's programming. This program was made by Canadian stars with supporting players from Toronto. Some of the plays are written by Canadians. It was produced by CFTO in Toronto, yet our national broadcasting system had to purchase it from a United States company.
Having said that, I do not want to leave the impression that nothing has been done to preserve Canadian culture, because that is not correct. For example, the Massey commission gave rise to the Canada Council which has done excellent work in fostering the dramatic arts and the fine arts in Canada. A few years ago an attempt was made to assist Canadian periodical publications through changes in the Income Tax Act which quite deliberately discouraged Canadian advertisers from placing their ads in United States periodicals. However, the only thing
December 9, 1971

wrong with that was that two of the most popular United States periodicals in Canada, Time and Reader's Digest, were excluded from the provisions of the Income Tax Act, so that the purpose of the changes was defeated in the end. This part of the Income Tax Act must be changed and the exclusion of Time and Reader's Digest dropped. This will do more to encourage Canadian publications.
In the field of radio and television the CRTC has been taking bold and imaginative steps to increase Canadian content. It is a measure of how far down the road toward integration with the United States we have gone that most of the efforts have been met with screams of protest from special interest groups and the public alike. But if I may be permitted an aside at this point, not all of these protests lack justification. In its endeavour to ensure that the Canadian electronic media remain Canadian both in ownership and in content, the CRTC has not really looked beyond the nationality of the owners and actors who are employed. It has done very little to ensure that the distinctive character of Canada is reflected in our electronic media.
Thus, Winnipegers can perhaps quite justifiably scream about the potential dangers of suggested changes to the Income Tax Act for a local American television station because in all likelihood if the American television station is forced to close, and if the CRTC's anticipation that more money will be available for the production of Canadian television is realized, production facilities will probably be centred in eastern Canada. The actors will have to move to eastern Canada and once again the Atlantic provinces, British Columbia and the Prairies will be left out in the cold. Therefore, it would seem that in our attempts to solve the problem of cultural assimilation we must make sure that the solutions we propose will have the effect of accurately reflecting Canadian realities, the regional nature of this country, and we must ensure that the insensitivity of American capital to the nature of this country is not simply replaced by equally insensitive central Canadian capital.
A beginning has also been made in the film industry with the creation of the Canadian Film Corporation to ensure Canadian content in the area of popular culture. The Canadian Film Corporation has sponsored some films which have received deserved wide acclaim. It has also produced some real dogs. But I think the idea of the Canadian Film Corporation should be expanded and perhaps the corporation should start producing films specifically for showing on television since movies on television have a high audience appeal. The only major fault with the Canadian Film Corporation is that perhaps it is not adequately funded.
I think we are unduly sensitive about producing the odd bad film. Every nation in the world with a film industry produces more bad ones than good ones, and I do not know why Canadians should expect to be any different. That is not to say that criticism is not legitimate. It is. And the more criticism, the better the end product. But the critics should remember that experimentation is the essence of creativity and experiments have, by their very nature, a high failure rate.
Control of Canadian Economy
I would be very much remiss if I did not mention, in the context of the Canadian film industry, the contribution of the National film Board. I know that every member of the House is acquainted with the excellent work of that body and I need not go into detail. What is distressing to me is that when this government felt the need some three years ago to cut back on government expenditures, one of the first places to feel the axe was the National Film Board. This would seem to me to be a drastic mix up in priorities.
There is less reason for optimism in other facets of the Canadian culture. Our book publishing industry is 95 per cent foreign owned. In the last two years we have seen the sale of major Canadian publishing houses such as W.J. Gage Limited and Ryerson Press. We have seen the threat of the sale of McLelland and Stewart prevented, perhaps only temporarily, by the action of the Ontario government. We have seen the Secretary of State (Mr. Pelletier) holding conferences with Canadian book publishers in order to hear their suggestions for improvements. We have heard statements from the minister that action must be taken, but no action has been taken.
We need to ensure that the decisions about what we are to read are made by Canadians with a Canadian point of view, attempting ,to meet Canadian needs, rather than by Americans. We must immediately embark upon a five-point program. First, we must establish a Canadian book development corporation which would operate similarly to the Canadian Film Corporation. It would provide loans for the publication of books in the expectation that any profits derived therefrom would be shared by the corporation. Moreover, those loans should not necessarily relate to a single book but, perhaps, to a group of books so that the losses sustained by some would be covered by the profits of others. This would be necessary in order to assure adequate diversity in the kind of books published.
Second, the federal government should provide longterm, low interest loans to Canadian book publishing houses through institutions such as the Industrial Development Bank. Third, funds should be made available by the Humanities Research Council and the Canada Council for the publication of scholarly and artistic works by Canadians. Fourth, a Canadian-owned book distribution system should be established in competition with those systems which already operate in Canada but which are American owned. Fifth, there should be efforts made by the government to get Canadian publishers to co-operate in the establishment of a Canadian book publishing house in the United States which would potentially increase the volume of sales of Canadian books. The need for such measures is well documented.
I have been informed, in answers to questions placed on the order paper, that in 1968, when W. J. Gage Company was still Canadian owned, 22 Canadian companies supplied textbooks to Canadian schools and provided only 40.3 per cent of the total textbooks employed by the schools. Since then, W. J. Gage and Ryerson have been sold to American interests, so the percentage of Canadian textbooks being supplied to Canadian schools by Canadian publishers is now probably down to about 20 per cent.
In the universities the situation is worse. A survey prepared by Mr. Rod McDermitt and Mr. Art Skolenski entitled "The Textbook Racket" points out that 80 per cent of all library and 92 per cent of all university bookstore

December 9, 1971
Control of Canadian Economy
purchases are books not published in Canada, that only 17 per cent of all post-secondary textbook sales are from domestic publishers and roughly half of this number are published on the basis of adapted rights, and that therefore less than 10 per cent of all university texts are of Canadian origin.
As schools and universities move into machine teaching the situation is likely to become even worse. Most of the material used in machine teaching is prepared in the United States. The results of this domination of our publishing industry by U.S. publishing firms is one of the major factors producing the kind of situation recently revealed in a survey conducted by York University in which it was disclosed that Canadian students identify more closely with American presidents than they do with Canadian prime ministers.
I have much more to say on this subject of culture. I wanted to deal with sports, for example, but I see I do not have the time. I would like to conclude with this final thought, that economic, political and cultural independence are closely linked and interrelated. If we are to have any one of the three we must also have the other two. That fact must never be forgotten by the government in its efforts to meet the situation. I hope with that thought in mind the government will get down to work and present us with the policies and the legislation we require to keep this country ours.


William Gordon Ritchie: Mr. Speaker, the motion we are debating today is a timely one, even though it was debated two weeks ago, because the problem of foreign ownership is so much in the public mind today. It was said that one of the prime reasons for which the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) went to the United States last Monday was to inform the President that there would be new restrictions placed on foreign investment in Canada, meaning in our case American investment in Canada. Indeed, the newspaper pundits have been suggesting that this is a carefully planned move on the part of the Prime Minister, because they point up the following event. On June 18 the government introduced a tax bill which incorporated major reforms in the field of tax advantages for Canadian businesses and tax disadvantages for United States-owned businesses operating in Canada. It contained other provisions to force Canadian pension funds and certain additional passive investors in this country to invest less in stocks listed on U.S. exchanges and more in Canadian equities. Then on June 29 the competition act was introduced in the House of Commons, containing major innovations in the field of regulating the activities of foreign firms entering the Canadian market through takeovers and similar devices.
Finally, on June 30, an act to establish the Canada Development Corporation was given royal assent but has not yet been proclaimed. The major, unstated purpose of the CDC is to give Canadian vendors of major profitable enterprises an alternative buyer. In the past it has been stated that only the United States has been able to acquire them. There is no doubt that the brunt of Canadian policy to curb foreign takeovers will fall most heavily on U.S. firms which have the greatest propensity to invest in Canada. There is no doubt that if there is a change in the Canadian receptivity to U.S. direct ownership capital, this

could precipitate retaliatory action by the United States. This would mean cutting off or limiting access to the United States bond markets or borrowing by Canadian provinces and municipalities.
Canada, as usual, in dealing with the United States does not want the United States to curb trade or to shut-out borrowing by our provincial governments in the American market. So it seems, from the answers given in the House by the Prime Minister, that he went to Washington to inform the Americans that he is about to make a significant announcement as to what Canada will do in the matter of foreign investment. Therefore, it seems likely that in the near future we can expect a significant announcement by the Prime Minister with regard to the value of keeping out foreign investment in particular areas.
The ill-fated Gray report which was leaked has been deliberately designed so that its main arm and its main weapon against foreign investment is the so-called screening agency. And we no doubt are to be shortly treated to an announcement by the government that such an agency will be set up. It seems doubtful that such an agency will be able to act in a fundamental way to safeguard our national interest. It will act only to safeguard the regional interests of Canada, and the area to be safeguarded in Canada by the screening agency is, of course, central Canada. That a better method of dealing with foreign investment must be devised, in view of what has been an ad hoc basis of this government's intervention, can readily be seen.
There is the former Dennison Mines case, where the government intervened at the last minute to prevent the sale of uranium resources. There is the Home Oil case, where at the last minute the intervention of the government prevented the sale of a Canadian company to a United States company on very doubtful grounds. Then, again, the government allowed the sale of a Canadian oil company to BP Supertest, presumably on the basis that this was an English company and not a United States company and therefore more desirable in respect of foreign capital.
In the recent action of the National Energy Board in barring the export of natural gas to the United States we have a further example of how our ad hoc system of dealing with foreign investment is being brought about. The price of natural gas has risen because of its pollution-free qualities. Since 1959, about $100 million has been expended by American gas companies in finding reserves in Alberta. The Alberta energy board had okayed the export of natural gas and felt the reserves would be adequate, but the National Energy Board, acting in some divine manner, reversed this decision and did not allow the export of natural gas. In appearing beforg the miscellaneous estimates committee, representatives of the National Energy Board revealed that their prime reason for doing so was that two plants in industry were experiencing difficulty operating in high pollution areas in Ontario, that it would probably be necessary to change to a less pollutant type fuel and that these hydro plants would have to be protected.
December 9, 1971

Even the National Energy Board admitted that the use of natural gas in hydro plants would almost certainly be short lived because coal is a much cheaper fuel and it is only a matter of the time and money, mostly time, necessary to allow the thermo generating plants to get in a position to use coal as a pollution-free fuel. So the decision of the National Energy Board was made not to export gas. This was a political decision made with a minimum of political effort.
These decisions of the government to move on an ad hoc basis were made easy from a political point of view. They discriminated against western Canada, which the present government feels it is entitled to do at any time. They discriminated in the field of natural resources, the nonrenewable resources which are such an emotional issue and which everyone has a vague fear some day will be used up. The general feeling is that we should conserve these resources for our own use. We perhaps forget that we sometimes use other people's resources, which we think is quite all right.
In any discussion as to limiting foreign capital in Canada we could well consider Mexican experiences. It was been widely suggested that Mexico has maintained political independence at low economic cost. Mexico's policy of expelling foreign equity investment from certain industries has been achieved largely by foreign borrowing, due to inadequate internal capital sources. Thus, dependence on foreign financing remains, although with greater emphasis on foreign debt financing. At the same time, the country's ability to service this debt has been undermined by inadequate export earnings, resulting partly from a declining world demand for Mexico's traditional raw materials and partly as a result of its protectionist policies which have not stimulated manufactured exports. As the balance of payments situation has deteriorated, Mexico has been forced into further foreign borrowing both equity and debt. In this sense, the Mexican strategy has backfired and the country as a result of its policies is being driven back into the arms of the foreign investor.
Mr. Speaker, the one way that Canadians can retain control of their economic affairs, unless they live in a regimented society, is by their own economic efforts. The government has been making the suggestion that we can limit foreign investment in a manner that is beneficial to us, with the assumption that all investment whether Canadian or foreign will go where the government directs for the public good. In effect, this is what the National Energy Board did in the recent refusal to allow the export of natural gas. Having first implied that gas exports would be available to foreign capital and allowing the investment to occur, the National Energy Board will not now allow the export of gas. Presumably this is for the public good. But whether this money would have been invested had it been known that gas would not be allowed to be exported is doubtful. Perhaps this is the reason one-third of the drilling rigs are now idle. If Canadians are to have economic independence and maintain the standard of living they fully expect, will publicly demand and will receive, unless we enter a police state this will require a high level of economic activity.
If we are to adopt a new economic strategy that will lead to some predetermined objective, we must face up to 24725-26
Control of Canadian Economy
the much more fundamental question of what type of economic structure we want in this country, and the choice seems to be between whether we want more and more of our goods and services to be produced by the government or whether we want a great amount of our economic activity to be in the private sector. It has been variously estimated that about 47 per cent of the gross national income is being taken up by the three levels of the government. This is still growing rapidly and will likely do so for some time.
Canada in the last 25 years has been fairly successful in achieving reasonably full employment, relatively stable prices, viability in the balance of payments and a more equitable distribution of income among regions. In this, although we followed inconsistent policies we were aided in the post-war period by the great movement toward freer and more international trade which accounts for about 25 per cent of the Canadian gross national product. Second, during much of this time Canada was able to maintain its exchange rate at below that which the market dictated. This stimulated economic activity. Third, during most of the time since the last war we have been able to import large amounts of capital to finance plant and equipment expansion and we have had a very special economic relationship with the United States.
Now all four of these basic factors that have worked so much in our favour have changed. There is no guarantee that international trade will expand, and there are signs that we may be entering a period of protectionism and trade restriction. We will not be able to maintain an artificial exchange rate for the dollar and, whether or not Canada takes any action, there will be much less inflow of capital to finance domestic expansion. We are entering a period of new economic relationship with the United States. It would seem very likely that what the Prime Minister considered his great breakthrough in Washington was really only a Mutt and Jeff statement. He received sympathetic understanding from the President but a rap on the skull from the President's officials.
Mr. Connally is not likely to be one who discriminates amongst his enemies, and Canada and its contribution to the United States deficit must reasonably be considered in this category. But, with this change in the international situation, will not Canadians still want a reasonably high standard of living, with relatively full employment and fairly stable prices?
I was most interested in the speech of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) in which he discussed the auto pact and its history. He pointed out that in 1965 the option open to the auto industry was integration as we have presently, with a wide variety of models, or one or two models with the Canadian auto industry going it alone. When we consider the latter course, with the Canadian auto industry going it alone, we must ask ourselves whether Canadians would be willing to accept the choice of only one or two auto models, and we should remember that the production of even a couple of models would have to be carried out under protection. I do not know if we can do this under present government policies that are consistently phasing out the private sector and replacing it with the government sector.

December 9, 1971
Control of Canadian Economy
In the process of passing Bill C-259 we witnessed a significant step in the direction of diminishing activity in the private sector. Today the Globe and Mail reported that there was 40 per cent less staking of mining claims in Ontario during the first nine months of 1971 as compared with 1970. In Alberta, one-third of the oil rigs are idle. There is almost certain to be diminishing activity in the private sector in the near future.
The emphasis in the new tax bill, decreasing by at least 50 per cent the value of the small business vis-a-vis tax, will not encourage the starting of new companies and their growth. The imposition of a capital gains tax, especially on long-term capital gains, is certainly not a good proposal at a time when Canada needs the best investment climate it can provide for its citizens. The taxing of international income of Canadian companies at a time when the Americans, under DISC, are reassessing their tax in this respect seems a particularly foolhardy move.
Canada is the only nation of a highly industrialized type-this was vividly pointed out in a recent survey by the Economic Council of Canada-that does not have tariff access to a market of at least 100 million people. The government keeps pointing out that Canada has the fastest growing labour force in the world and will continue in this situation for a decade. Surely, if Great Britain, with its 55 million highly industrialized population, felt it necessary to join the Common Market we must take a long, hgrd look at our trading relations with the United States. The present is not the time to be dampening private initiative with a restrictive competition act, with changes in the labour code that will prevent innovation and technological change, all of which must surely hamper industrial management in its attempt to meet competition.
Much has been said to the effect that we should have a highly developed manufacturing industry, but in fact only the Americans can afford to buy our high-priced manufactured products. All indications show that if we are unable to sell in the American market we will have to produce much more cheaply than we are now doing. The western grain farmer has learned this lesson to his sorrow. He is now selling grain in the markets of the world at a price below that which he got in the 1940s and with little indication of future improvement.
The best way for Canada to maintain its competitive position and its economic independence in the world is through the ability of its citizens to sustain the private sector in a healthy manner. Only this will allow the creation of the wealth that will benefit the community. The restrictive measures introduced by the government will only result in the production of less wealth for the country as a whole.
We must live on the North American continent, Mr. Speaker, and we must be a neighbour of the United States. We should be at least thankful that we are not a neighbour of the Soviet Union, something which the Poles and the Czechs have experienced to their sorrow. Just today a newspaper item reports a massive build-up of Soviet naval forces in the North Atlantic and the Mediterranean. Surely no one in Canada believes those forces are there for our protection. As a nation we may not have all
the things we want, but in our neighbour we have much for which to be thankful.


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the issue of foreign investment in Canada is obviously an important one for Canadians generally and for the government. Therefore, I listened carefully to the remarks of the leader of the NDP and the leader of the Official Opposition earlier today. I was very curious to see if, after calling on the government to state its policy on foreign investment and criticizing it for failing to do so, they themselves had clear cut, definite policies of their own to put forward on this vital issue. I think it is clear, after listening to their speeches, that they do not seem to have such policies as yet. Although, Mr. Speaker, I will admit that the leader of the NDP at least made a sincere effort to appear to be saying something definite on this matter. But I submit that even he, in spite of his efforts, was in reality no less vague and contradictory than the Leader of the Official Opposition.
The leader of the NDP admitted, and I think this is quite a change from what he and his party have been saying over the past few weeks, that we must maintain close and friendly relations with the United States. I think these were his exact words. But then he complained when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) held what were very useful and important discussions with the President of the United States for that very purpose. The Leader of the NDP went on-this may be a switch also-to praise Canadian entrepreneurs, lauded the ability of Canadian tycoons and said we should have more of them. But then he said that they were selfish, that they were out for a fast buck and should be replaced by public irlvestment and public corporations. However, I noticed that one of the NDP speakers just a few moments ago was complaining that one of the public corporations he favours so much, the CBC, has just spent a lot of money buying American TV programs.
At one point the leader of the NDP called for policies to be developed and implemented with provincial co-operation, but a few moments later he complained that the federal government may want to see what provincial reaction may be to its policy proposals on foreign investment. I do not think he was able to answer completely the question of the hon. member for Don Valley (Mr. Kaplan) when that hon. member asked whether he thought a provincial government should have a real say in a decision not to permit foreign investment to be made within its borders.


John Leroy Skoberg: Where were you?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I was in the House, and if I could allude to something to which we are not supposed to allude until it is in printed form, we could check the accuracy of my remarks on this point. He complained about the degree of foreign control of the economy but I think the evidence indicates that the NDP, on the few occasions it has gained political power, has been quite active in seeking foreign capital. The hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Whicher) gave the example of what the Premier of Manitoba did. And if I am not mistaken, when the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) was Premier of Saskatchewan its legislature passed legislation offering

December 9, 1971

incentives to new ventures without any regard to whether they were Canadian or foreign.
I sympathize with the leader of the NDP because of the difficult task he has of satisfying the various wings of his party. There are the Wafflers, there is the Quebec wing with its separatist tendencies, and there is the so-called moderate wing. He attempted in his speech to balance the demands of these groups and I think we will all give him full marks for a good try, but I do not think the balancing act really succeeded.
The Leader of the Official Opposition might argue that he should be excused for his own vagueness and generalities since he is awaiting the result of voting on policy resolutions presented to his recent party convention. Perhaps once the results are available he will be able to be more definite. However, he may already have some feeling about the way the voting may turn out since in his remarks he said he does not rule out a screening process, although I recall that the press reported him a few weeks ago as being definitely against it.
The leader of the opposition has quite correctly pointed out that foreign investment has been important to us in our past, given our lack of an accumulation of savings. But it has been pointed out by others in this debate that this situation has changed considerably in recent years. Also, there has been growing concern in Canada in recent years about the growth of foreign investment here and the implications of this on Canada life. Contrary to what has been suggested by the leader of the NDP, Liberal governments, since 1963 particularly, have in fact taken a number of important steps in the area of foreign investment policy.


An hon. Member:: That must be the Gray report.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: The Liberal government led by Prime Minister Pearson legislated with regard to banks, federally incorporated trust, loan and life insurance companies. It was also responsible for measures dealing with newspapers, magazines, radio and television broadcasting. The present government has continued these efforts, Mr. Speaker. It has acted to ensure a Canadian presence in the uranium industry and the oil producing industry.
The investment companies act contains a provision to help maintain a Canadian presence in the sales/finance industry. The revised Canada Corporations Act now provides for greater disclosure of the activities of federally incorporated firms above a certain minimum size, including foreign subsidiaries. This is the kind of action for which the leader of the NDP was calling.
Mr. Speaker, the tax bill before us contains incentives for Canadians to invest in Canada. There are the proposals on the investment of Canadian pension funds, proposals allowing the deductibility of interest on money borrowed for the purpose of acquiring a Canadian firm. There is the proposal for special tax concessions for Canadian-controlled small businesses, and the more general tax credit incentive to Canadians to invest in Canada rather than abroad.
The competition bill introduced by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford) earlier this session contains provisions aimed at minimizing the
Control of Canadian Economy
extraterritorial impact of foreign legislation and decrees on Canadian business and trade and the Canadian competitive environment. It also includes a proposal which would ensure that international mergers should be reconciled with a reasonably competitive environment in Canada.
The Canada Development Corporation is now in operation, and in spite of critical comments from the other side of the House I am convinced that it will play an important and successful role in creating and strengthening profitable Canadian business activity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: At the same time, Mr. Speaker, over the past months efforts have been made within the government to determine what further policies on foreign investment of a more comprehensive nature may be required to take into account present and future trends.


Mr. Paproski:: I will let you bring in the Gray report tonight.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I will send over another book and see if you can tear it. The Prime Minister has said that the government would be announcing its position on this matter when it publishes further background material. It is aiming to do so at an early date as it feels it is important that the statement of policy and this material should be presented at the same time to assist in developing a public understanding of its position and to assist the discussion that I am sure there will be on it across the country. While I am therefore not able to indicate this evening what the government's position will be, I think I can make some general comment about various aspects of the issues before us.
Firstly, Mr. Speaker, I think it can be said that domestically the total volume of savings generated within the Canadian economy has now reached a level which is by and large adequate to finance a fairly rapid rate of economic growth. In other words, in the aggregate we appear to have adequate savings in Canada, though this does not mean that sufficient capital is always available for particular needs and application. Secondly, internationally, recent years have seen a continued rapid growth of the multinational enterprise with all the challenges it poses for smaller business concerns and for national governments. These are merely illustrations of the kinds of factors which I believe must be taken into account in the development of policy.
There is also, Mr. Speaker, a growing feeling on the part of many Canadians that this high level of foreign control of economic activity poses problems for the performance of our economy and for our ability to decide on our economic priorities and our ability to implement them, as well as problems for the development of a distinctive Canadian culture and identity. As the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has suggested can be the case, foreign investors can create problems for Canadian industrial priorities. Let me make two points about what some consider to be the economic problems caused by foreign investment here. Firstly, these kinds of problems are likely to be only in part attributable to foreign investment. Such investment has in many cases come in to fill gaps
24725-26'

December 9, 1971
Control of Canadian Economy
that have existed on the economic scene-gaps in technology, management or capital market. Therefore, there is a role for general policies in the creation of an economic climate to encourage further efficient industrial activity, high levels of production and high standards of living.
Secondly, it would be incorrect to ignore the benefits that Canada has derived from foreign investment over the years in terms of economic growth, development of some of the outlying regions, access to relatively cheaper technology, access to foreign markets, and so on. These considerations suggest some of the elements that could form part of a foreign investment policy which would not involve Canadians paying an economic price in terms of their standard of living. In the first instance, I submit there is a place for measures to support and encourage Canadian entrepreneurship and Canadian abilities to undertake more of our own industrial development. I refer here to further measures to support innovation, technological development and greater efficiency in capital markets.
There is also a role for policies aimed at improving the general economic environment to help in the further development of sound industrial structure, with strong internationally competitive firms whether they are Canadian or foreign controlled. I think there is also a place for other measures pertaining to foreign investment. These measures must be flexibile, recognizing Canada's continuing need for foreign investment in some areas and the fact that both costs and benefits are involved and associated with it.
I should also like to point out to hon. members that a Canadian policy which seeks to ensure that foreign investment plays its part in the achievement of Canadian objectives would not isolate Canada in the international community. After all, other successful western industrialized countries have had comprehensive policies in this field for many years.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, the government has been working to develop a more comprehensive policy on the role of foreign investment in the Canadian economy. I look forward to this policy being announced shortly. I am confident that it will be consistent with the desire of Canadians to have at one and the same time continued economic growth and the ability to make fundamental decisions with regard to their destiny as a nation.


John Leroy Skoberg: May I ask a question, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is the hon. member rising for the purpose of asking a question?


John Leroy Skoberg: Yes, Your Honour, if the minister would permit a question.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes, I will.


John Leroy Skoberg: I wonder if the minister would read me what he said. I had a hard time getting it down in shorthand.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I referred to my notes to no greater extent than did the hon. member for York South. I gather that our glasses have the same strength, because I held my notes in about the same position as he did.


David Lewis: That is the only valid statement the minister has made this evening.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, even though we may differ sometimes with our good friends of the New Democratic Party because of our divergent views, I must say that I give my unqualified support to the motion submitted by the opposition as introduced by the hon. member of York South (Mr. Lewis).
It is obvious, in fact, that the present government is playing a double game. On the one hand, it hints to the Canadian people that it would welcome an independent economy mostly controlled by Canadians. On the other hand, it asks, begs or even insists that Americans invest in Canada.
I would like to attempt to show that these contradictory practices stem from the false principles on which our present economic system is based. Yes, in trying to render the financial system unshakable and immutable, we show contradiction and ridicule.
The motion before us is therefore very appropriate. We must come up with policies and programs designed to restrain increasing foreign control over the Canadian economy by foreigners, for it is urgent.
We are really and truly at the mercy of foreign control and to a large degree, at the mercy of the American giant.
On September 29 last, the hon. Minister of Industry and Commerce (Mr. Pepin) was explaining, during the symposium of contemporary Canada in Houston, Texas, Canada's economical dimension in the North American context. He said and I quote:
Every American bought for $50 of Canadian products in 1970 while during the same year every Canadian spent $500 on American products; this gives a per capita ratio of 10 to 1. If the Canadian economy is not prosperous, we are not able to buy all those products from your country.
Of course if we are not prosperous, we cannot buy for $500 of American products per head. But why do we have to buy? Why buy when those products are available in our country? Why buy when we can manufacture those products ourselves? In short, why base our own prosperity on that of the United States?
The whole speech of the minister, during that symposium, reflected the sickly timidity of the complex-riddled person, of the sheep that would all of a sudden like to be a lion. And I quote excerpts from the conclusion drawn by the minister on that occasion:
It seems the United States are moving in the direction of a policy of self-sufficiency and this country considers it would be more advantageous for it to import our raw materials and energy resources but at the same time to inhibit the development of our secondary industries we would be forced to reconsider very seriously the whole of our relations with the United States. In that case, we would have to reassess entirely our industrial and trade policies. It would no doubt be a "reassessment that would break our hearts"! However, I can assure you that we could not in any way drop the high priority that we have given and that we will continue to give to the manufacturing and processing sectors of our economy which are essential to an increase in employment in Canada.
It can be seen here how difficult it is to escape the erroneous basic principles of our economic system. We
December 9, 1971

are wearing blinders which prevent us from looking at other solutions that are so very simple.
When will we stop thinking of terms of foreign interests. When will we decide to change what needs to be changed, the economic system? We are so locked up in this foolish system that we forget elementary notions of mathematics and logics.
Mr. Speaker, it is true, as the motion indicates, that we lack policies and programs to give back to Canadians the control over their natural resources and their goods and service industries in order to ensure the independence of our country. Why? Because none of those who have been called upon to govern this country, the right hon. Prime Minister included, have had the courage and the strength to introduce the required changes. The recent Nixon-Trudeau meeting as points out Claude Lemelin in Le Devoir of this morning can open the door to a solution which we are all wishing for. I quote an excerpt from Claude Lemelin's column in Le Devoir of this morning:
One century of common life under the shade of the United States and their "manifest destiny", almost half a century of economic dependence on that ever growing power, the precariousness of their national identity, the frailty of their political unity have overburdened the Canadian people-whatever their language or their locality-with a serious inferiority complex coupled with deep intellectual alienation. How could they conquer that resulting collective feeling of helplessness which, for instance, threw the provincial premiers into a panic weeks ago when the Gray report leak dropped a hint of possible federal control over foreign investments?
No doubt, not very dignified was the decision made by the Prime Minister of Canada, in order to ever so slightly lighten that psychological mortgage, to go ask the American People: "Are you going to swallow us? Are you going to retaliate if we withdraw from your jaws?" However, taking into account once more the Canadian context, such canvassing could well have a liberating and disalienating effect on Canadian public opinion.
Mr. Speaker, this journalist is convinced the situation can be corrected. But I would emphasize that if we truly want to bring about changes we must first reinforce the weak foundation. If we want employment for Canadian labour, if we want to let Canadians themselves create their national identity and social values, we must endeavour to find the true answers to the following questions: Do we have the required natural resources? Do we have enough products? Can we produce or manufacture ourselves what we need? Do we have the required manpower?
Mr. Speaker, answering these questions is finding the solution.
Let Canadian industry have the exclusive opportunity, up to a certain point, of manufacturing all the products required by 23 million Canadians, let the farmers feed those same 23 million Canadians, in other words let us make here without foreign participation everything physically feasible by making it financially possible and this will be the beginning of a genuine solution to those problems we are all concerned about.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am astonished. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) rose in this all-day debate and spoke for 15 minutes.
Control of Canadian Economy


An hon. Member:: You mean he read for 15 minutes.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) may suggest that he delivered an excellent speech, but I wish I had heard something excellent in it. I listened very carefully, as we all have listened on this side of the House and as the people throughout the country have been listening, to hear this government come forward with some sort of policy. We expected to hear about it from the only minister of the Crown who has participated in this major debate. The government has brought forward absolutely nothing.
What did the Minister of National Revenue say? He chided the opposition. He chided the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Lewis) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) for not coming forward with a constructive policy. He gave grudging credit to the leader of the NDP, but he said we are all waiting for something to come out of the resolutions put forward at our annual meeting, which gives you some idea of this government's thinking. That simply emphasizes what we have been saying all along-the people over there do not know what government is all about.
Some hon. Members,: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: They are responsible for formulating policies. Did we hear about any tonight? We heard nothing at all. We heard the Minister of National Revenue say that the government had taken a number of steps in order to curtail foreign investment in this country. Immediately there came to mind the Reader's Digest situation mentioned by some hon. members to my left.
The minister also said that he cannot indicate what the government's position will be. That is what this motion is all about. It is criticizing the government for failure to come forth with some kind of industrial strategy for this country. He talked about economic growth. He told us that everything is rosy and everything is fine. He said this in the face of unemployment figures that are staggering, and in face of an announcement today that the cost of living index has risen by 4 per cent. He asked us to believe that everything is rosy. He gives these piddling examples as illustrations of how everything is going so well.
The minister talked about protection of our culture and our Canadian identity. One can almost use a southern accent and say, "With this government, we over on this side have nothing to fear about our culture and identity and we do not intend to be assimilated by those rascals down south." That is the size of it. There is a paranoid, almost pathological preoccupation with something they are trying to make political hay out of over there. They are trying to erect a great big bogeyman, as are the New Democratic Party members to my left. This great bogeyman of the United States is about to come here, clutch us to his bosom, suffocate all our Canadian identity and culture and squeeze us dry.
The minister also talked about Canadian entrepreneurship. I will tell him, as well as my friends to the left, what will bring about Canadian entrepreneurship. It is not more controls, suffocating tax measures, competition acts, investment incentive acts and new labour codes which insert government management into private man-

December 9, 1971
Control of Canadian Economy
agement control; it is incentives that will bring about entrepreneurship.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: A free enterprise society will die without incentives. I still do not know why the members to my left are there. They should be on the other side. They are one of a kind. It is incentives that will bring this about, not more controls, more government bureaucrats, boards, commissions and the civil service beating the back of individual enterprise in this country and restricting freedom at every turn.
The leader of the New Democratic Party and other members of that party said that we are trying to straddle both sides of the fence in respect of this policy. I have not seen a finer example than that demonstrated today. When they speak they say, "Oh, friendship is very necessary. We must keep the United States as our friends. But if they do not behave themselves we are going to bring down the guillotine and shut off this flow of private investment." Their answer is not incentives, free enterprise and individual freedom; it is state control and absolute socialism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: They want American money. They say their money is welcome, but only if it is going to be controlled by the government. Members opposite are not very far off that same philosophy, having regard to the kind of inventory of legislation we have seen since this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took office. We have seen the Gray report and its suffocating recommendations, if indeed what we read-


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member opposite applauds. That only confirms my belief he should be on my left or those on the left should be over with him. The new tax bill completely inhibits mining productivity in this country, now our second largest industry. We see foreign ownership clauses springing into every bit of legislation coming from this government. We see such invidious pieces of legislation as the investment incentives act which is nothing more nor less than the complete socialism of investment in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: We see the Canada Development Corporation being set up, ostensibly to promote more Canadian ownership but in reality a vehicle to permit this government to nationalize everything in this country. We see the competition act and the labour code, which I have already mentioned. These are just a few of the things this government is doing. If the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) is a responsible minister and was levelling with the House when he was speaking about what the government had done to encourage foreign ownership, he would have dealt with this question. He cannot justify what he has said unless it is on the basis of supporting the motion that the NDP have advanced and which caused this debate. There have been all kinds of criticisms but nothing constructive.
The leader of the New Democratic Party said that he is all for a screening agency. He would like to see the one recommended in the Gray report that was leaked, but he would like it to go a lot further. In fact, what he would like to see in the Gray report is absolute control in a bureaucratic monstrosity set up by the government for the purpose of saying when, where, how, how much and in what manner any capital that comes into this country can be invested.


Mr. Cote (Longueuil):: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: I again hear "Hear, hear" from the other side. Naturally, it is their legislation. It is the Postmaster General (Mr. Cote) who is saying that. I can see his whole department being taken over by the Canada Development Corporation, so he should not be saying "Hear, hear" too quickly. He may be out of a job.
The leader of the New Democratic Party also wants to see a revamped Canada Development Corporation. He wants to see it with power to buy into the multinational corporations. We hear so much about these multinational corporations that Canadians generally must now be having nightmares every time multinational corporations are spoken about. They see a great octopus crunching down on us with the tentacles of the great multinational corporation squeezing the very lifeblood out of Canada. What is all the talk about? Multinational corporations have assisted Canada to get where it is today. If it were not for the multinational corporations that come forward with all the risk capital being poured into this country, particularly in the north, there would not be any development in the north.
I know their views, Mr. Speaker. Their leader has stated them on previous occasions in this House. He is now entering the chamber. I hope he will contradict me if I misquote him. He would like to see the resources of the north put into deep freeze until we need them. Those are his words. That is what he wants. That is not my idea of national development or regional development. It is not my idea of the various parts of Canada making a contribution to the over-all fabric of this country.


David Lewis: How many natives are employed in your development in the north?


Erik Nielsen: Only a few. The leader of the NDP should not direct this inferential criticism at me. It is the people over there who are responsible for conditions under which these people are able to work. It is their failure.


David Lewis: You are developing the north for the south.


Erik Nielsen: I do not look upon national development in such a narrow way. I come from a part of the country where there are relatively few people. In fact, my colleague from the Northwest Territories (Mr. Orange) and I together represent over 40 per cent of Canada. That 40 per cent has a contribution to make, and it will not be able to make it if we put the resources of that part of the country into deep freeze. No development either of the North or elsewhere is possible without foreign investment capital.


David Lewis: Boloney!

December 9, 1971


Erik Nielsen: The leader of the NDP says "Boloney". I can assure him that if he enunciates that policy in the North his party might as well not run a candidate there because they would not have a snowball's chance in Hades of success. The hon. member and I share common ground in one respect. He says more government initiative is needed in research and development. But there is one thing he did not put on the record. It is that private enterprise puts eight times as much capital into research and development as does the government. So the government is sadly lacking in that area.


An hon. Member:: Explain.


Erik Nielsen: If the hon. member had done his homework he would need no explanation. The mover of the motion says the Canada Development Corporation has a duty to expand and develop the public sector of the economy. This is nothing more or less than saying that what we really want to use the CDC for is to nationalize all development in Canada.


John Leroy Skoberg: Why don't you read the speech?


Erik Nielsen: Today's Hansard is not out yet. I will tomorrow. The second member of the NDP who spoke says we need a mixed economy at the present time. He added that qualification. What he was really saying was this: private enterprise is all right for the time being, but if by any remote quirk of circumstances we should find ourselves in power, then it will be quickly eliminated until we reach the Simon Pure, socialistic state. Talk about hypocrisy! Talk about straddling both sides of the fence!
They cannot have it both ways. They cannot say they are in favour of private enterprise and at the same time tell us they want to nationalize it. They go on the hustings and tell all the farmers and all the monkey-wrenchers and all the so-called little men, "We are all for you. We shall redistribute the wealth of the country. You will become rich." But all they are looking for is power. All they are looking for, as a matter of fact, is to get re-elected, if the truth were known. I have let my leader lay down the policy of our party and I think he made a most comprehensive and appropriate statement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: Consider the ten points the leader of the NDP trotted forth in his motion. He says there ought to be a government export trading agency. In other words, more control. It is like the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) when he introduced the minerals legislation for the Northwest Territories; he wanted to be able to determine when, whether and, if so, what volume of minerals could be exported. More state control, more state intervention.
Members to my left say they want standards of resource planning and development. Standards set by whom? By the government. More bureaucrats, more control. If they had their way everybody would be getting a government cheque, everybody would be employed by the government and told when to work and how much to work, when to go to bed, when to breathe and when to sleep. But that is not my idea of enterprise in this country. It is time we got back to good old, solid Canadianism, Canadian free enter-
Control of Canadian Economy
prise, Canadian initiative and Canadian incentive. We shall not get it if we listen to the half-baked philosophy which comes from my left, and we shall not get it from a government whose feet are directed solidly upon the road to socialism. We shall only get it if we increase opportunities for initiative in this country.
The mover of the motion wants to see an increase in public investment in the resource industries. What else is that except nationalization? I want someone over there to tell me if I am wrong. More public investment in the resource industries means only one thing-control of those industries by the state. The hon. member criticizes the tax concessions which have made the mining industry the second largest in the country. What is wrong with concessions which stimulate incentive and increase investment in the country? The hon. member favours planned shutdowns and the control of management decisions. He talks about myths. He says it is a myth that Canada needs foreign investment. He says businessmen do not believe they have the entrepreneurial skills which made this country what it is. I have not heard them say they lack these skills. Of course they have these skills, but they will lose them rapidly if the government pursues the road it is presently following and continues the kind of stifling and suffocating legislation which is halting the growth of the country.
He says there must be co-operation with the provinces. You bet your tiddly there must be co-operation with the provinces.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Steven Otto (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, there are about three minutes left before the division bells are due to ring and I want to see whether in that time I can get the House to face the real problem.
I have heard it said that this whole problem is connected with America, that it is an American problem. I have heard it said that the Americans are lovely people. It doesn't really affect the issue much. The fact is that our ills arise from corporate control. This mechanism, which was devised to allow people to build an enterprise, has grown so big and powerful as to become almost a Frankenstein. The government and this nation has a purpose in mind, which is of course the interests of the people of Canada. Similarly, the United States has its purpose in mind. But the only purpose a corporation can have in mind is to make money. Profit must be, and always has been, the main and only purpose of corporate structures.
What our real problem is is not anti-Americanism or Canadian control of our own economy. The United States is having the same trouble with its corporate structures as we are. United States multinational corporations have invested in Europe and elsewhere, taken advantage of production facilities in Taiwan and other countries, and have brought goods back to the United States. This cannot be the fault of the people of the United States or

December 9, 1971
Control of Canadian Economy
the government of the United States. If hon. gentlemen opposite regard IBM, Minneapolis Honeywell, and other large corporations as an adjunct of the United States government, surely they must say that Seagrams is an adjunct of our government, and I do not think they can say that.
So we must face what is the real issue here. To bypass the issue by saying that it does not exist, as did the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), is not the way to tackle the problem. The problem is vast, and it is vast because it has created in Canada the situation where the growth, its distribution and direction, of our life style is no longer within the control of our elected representatives but is really under the control of corporate structures that have served their purpose. Let us not deny that there was a reason for this. There is always a good reason for a corporate structure. But to say that free enterprise must go on in perpetuity is no answer to the problem.
I see my time is just about finished, so I am unable to deal with the other aspects I wanted to mention. But let me say this. If I have gotten across to the members of this House that we should not be anti-American, then I have done a lot. It is easy for a politician to be anti-something. I agree with the hon. member for York South (Mr. Lewis) that it is easy to say that Americans are our enemies, but this will not do the nation any good.


David Lewis: No, I did not say that.


Steven Otto: In all his comments-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Order, please. It being 9.45 p.m. it is my duty, pursuant to section (10) of Standing Order 58, to interrupt the proceedings and forthwith put every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply before the House, including any bill or bills based thereon.


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board) moved:: That vote 1A in the amount of $715,400 of the Department of Finance, for financial and economic policies, for the fiscal year ending March 31,1972, be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Laniel):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, the same situation applies as applied last evening when I missed 29 votes. I would have voted this evening with my party but I was paired with the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Macdonald).


Donald MacInnis: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My point of order arises from the same situation as the one on which I based my point of order last week, Sir, when you admonished members on the government side for moving about during a vote. I draw attention to the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) left his seat during the vote.


An hon. Member:: Oh.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That Vote 1A in the amount of $745,400. of the Treasury Board for Central Administration of the Public Service, Program Expenditures, for the fiscal year ending March 31,1972, be concurred in.
Is it the pleasure of the Bouse to adopt the said motion? All those in favour of the said motion will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, perhaps it could be agreed that the members are in.


Stanley Howard Knowles: We are agreed to that as well.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: That Supplementary Estimates (A) for the year ending March 31, 1972, laid before the House November 19, 1971, except those Votes concurred in this day, be concurred in.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Drury thereupon moved that Bill C-273, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service for the financial year ending March 31, 1972, be read the first time and printed.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the second time?


Some hon. Members:: Now.
Mr. Drury thereupon moved that Bill C-273, for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service for the financial year ending March 31, 1972, be read the second time and referred to the committee of the whole.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Laniel in the chair.	[DOT]
Gérald Laniel: Order, please. May we have order please?


André-Gilles Fortin: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.


Gérald Laniel: Is the hon. member for Lot-biniere rising on a point of order?


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Chairman, first of all I want to protest against the lack of decorum in the House tonight.


Some hon. Members:: Stupid!


Gérald Laniel: Order. I would point out to the hon. member that the committee has just begun sitting. If there was disorder in the House, that should not be discussed in committee.


André-Gilles Fortin: I wonder if the committee can do its work as "he who leads the House" has just torn to shreds his copy of the bill. Is it still in order to study it if it is not good anymore?


An hon. Member:: Sit down, stupid!


An hon. Member:: Stupid!


An hon. Member:: He does not even have a sense of humour.

Clauses 2 to 5 inclusive agreed to.


Gérald Laniel: Shall the schedule carry? Schedule agreed to.


J. Michael Forrestall: On division.


Gérald Laniel: Shall clause 1 carry?


J. Michael Forrestall: On division.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Preamble agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
p m.)
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


John Angus MacLean: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I can ask the President of the Privy Council (Mr. MacEachen) to confirm the business for tomorrow.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Bill C-259, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Friday, December 10. 1971