1971-03-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works-Mr. Hopkins.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Thomas S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House under Standing Order 43 to present a motion of urgent and pressing necessity arising out of the pending conclusion to a hearing which may reach a decision on the establishment of an oil tanker route on the Pacific coast of Canada. In light of the recent suggestions by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) that Canadians should speak out, and in light of the fact that Canadians in British Columbia are speaking out in the form of a petition, I ask leave of the House to move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Howard):
The House of Commons express its appreciation that the Legislative Assembly of the province of British Columbia unanimously passed the undermentioned resolution namely:
"That this House expresses to the federal government their deep misgivings over the ecological disaster which will engulf the coast of British Columbia following the construction of a trans-Alaska pipeline and attendant super tanker transport of oil off the coast of British Columbia.
We ask the federal government to use every available resource at their disposal to persuade the American government to use alternate methods of transporting crude oil from Alaska to the United States."
And further this House of Commons urges the government to carry out the wishes of the legislature of the province of British Columbia forthwith.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Comox-Alberni. Under the terms of Standing Order 43 unanimous consent is required. Is there unanimity?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimity. The hon. member's motion cannot be put.


Mr. Howard (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Some days ago the leader of the House on the government side drew attention to the difficulty which arises in our proceedings under Standing Order 43 in that an explanation by the member who seeks to move such a motion is permitted but no opportunity is provided for anyone who may object to the motion to indicate his reason for doing so. I suggest it might be appropriate at this time to seek the consent of the House in order that the government, which has indicated its opposition to this motion, might explain its reasons for taking this position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member knows the terms of the Standing Order. They are very simple. The Chair has to determine whether there is unanimity. As I pointed out the other day, and I think I should reiterate it, it is not the consent of the government which is sought in accordance with the Standing Order but the consent of the House. Any one member, even from the party of the hon. member who is proposing the motion, can object and the motion cannot be put. When there is not unanimity, the moment an hon. member on one side or another of the House calls "no" or indicates he is not prepared to give his consent, the motion cannot be put. It is as simple as that. I would not think it would be in order to invite anyone to indicate, on his own behalf, why he is withholding consent.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he has anything to report on the dispute among the ship repair groups in the dockyards at Halifax and Esquimalt? Can the minister tell us if he

March 2, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
intends to take any measures with a view to achieving a solution to this dispute which could disrupt naval operations if it resulted in a walkout?


Hon. C. M. Drury (President of the Treasury Board):: The House is probably aware that a ballot has taken place on the question whether or not there is to be a strike. As yet, the result of this ballot has not been communicated to us. Subsequently, I would expect that further discussions would take place between the bargaining unit and the Treasury Board.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether he or his associates have in mind any method of ensuring the continuity of the search and rescue operations which would be prejudiced should a walkout take place?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: To some extent, this is a hypothetical question. However, we have been holding discussions with the Minister of National Defence with the object of ensuring the provision of essential services.


Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Will the negotiating team, when it meets the dockyard spokesmen again, adopt a more flexible approach or will it be tied to the original formula?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I believe the hon. gentleman is aware of my constitutional unwillingness to negotiate across the floor of the House, but I cannot, with grace, accept the notion that the Treasury Board is not flexible and reasonable.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Darimouih-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is flexible but it is darned unfair. May I ask the President of the Treasury Board whether or not he can indicate if an arbitral award has been made with respect to the general trades and labour group? If not, when can these people, who have had a contract with the government for only three days in the last five or six years, expect some kind of settlement so that we will not have a complete walkout of the civilian support staff employed by national defence on both coasts? If the minister is interested, the balloting was pretty positive.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, along with the hon. member I deplore the slowness with which bargaining generally takes place in this area and also the delays that have arisen in connection with arbitral awards. However, I think the hon. gentleman knows that the arbitrators are in no wise either appointed by or under the control of the government.


J. Michael Forrestall: I wonder whether the hon. gentleman can indicate to the House what the position of the general trades and labour group will be-this is not a hypothetical proposition; it is something that will have to be faced within the next day or two-vis-a-vis picket lines at Esquimalt and Halifax?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that I understand the question. Is it: What would be the position of the bargaining unit in relation to picket lines?


J. Michael Forrestall: The general trades and labour group.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that the question is hypothetical. I suggest that the hon. member rephrase his question.


J. Michael Forrestall: Would the minister indicate whether or not the general trades and labour group will be permitted to cross the picket lines of the ship repair group at Halifax and Dartmouth?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, this is something that is not dictated by the employer. They will neither grant permission nor withhold it. The crossing of picket lines is a matter to be determined by the bargaining unit themselves.


Mr. John L. Skoberg (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, can the President of the Treasury Board say whether or not he is contemplating a lockout in this particular situation, and does he consider that there may be a speed-up in the bargaining process if the regional disparity recommendation is taken into consideration?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that a public taking into consideration of the factor mentioned would help speed up or hinder a walkout, if one is to take place, but the fact of the matter is that the regional disparities have been discussed during the course of these negotiations.


John Leroy Skoberg: Mr. Speaker, my question is whether or not the President of the Treasury Board was considering a lockout, not a walkout. I presume he understands that terminology.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member will consult the law I think he will And that under the Public Service Staff Relations Act the government is not in a position to declare a lockout.


Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton-Easf Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I wonder whether the minister would consider consulting the Minister of Labour so that he will get a clear indication of who decides as to who crosses the picket line, instead of what he himself said?



FINANCE


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minis-

March 2, 1971

ter. Have there been discussions between the Canadian government and the government of the United States regarding the intention of the United States government to cancel the exemption that Canada has had with regard to the interest equalization tax and, if so, what was the result of those discussions?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I believe there have been no such discussions. According to my information the matter has still to be brought before the United States Congress, and we are not anticipating any representations in advance of that event.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. May I ask if-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member would like to continue his supplementary question. I appreciate that he is taking into account the consultations that are going on, but while they are taking place we might go on to the next question.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I was just waiting while the Prime Minister was being briefed. Am I to take it from his statement that reports from Washington are correct that as a result of the Canadian government's representations the government of the United States has decided to continue Canada's exemption with regard to the interest equalization tax?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member noticed, my briefing on this is not up to date.


An hon. Member:: That is obvious.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We had decided, as I implied in my previous answer, not to do anything until the matter reached Congress. I understand it has reached Congress by now and that there have been representations made by the Canadian government.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not really answer my question. He did answer the first part of it by saying that there have been discussions, but I wanted to know what the results were and if the reports in the press are correct that the United States government has decided to continue the exemption? The purport of my question to the Prime Minister is this: When this previous exemption was granted there was a quid pro quo under which Canada agreed to keep a ceiling on its reserves of United States currency. Has the United States agreed to continue that exemption and what concessions has the Canadian government agreed to make in return?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I answer this under reservations because, I repeat, I am not aware of the latest developments.


Mr. Horner:: There are reservations in respect of any of your answers.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Woolliams:: Don't get petulant.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I think the Prime Minister was about to make a reply, and I hope he will do so because it is an extremely important matter. If the Canadian government-


An hon. Member:: Take your bat and ball home.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -has
made some concession, reservation or agreement in return for an exemption under the interest equalization tax, the House is entitled to know what that reservation or concession is. If the Prime Minister was about to give that information I hope he will not refrain now simply because someone interrupted him while he was speaking.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, the interruption was to indicate that I did not seem to be too much aware of the answer, and that is the case. I think the hon. member might obtain a more informed answer if he would direct the question to either the Minister of Finance or the Secretary of State for External Affairs.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister.
A radio commentator launched yesterday a fairly violent verbal attack against all members of Parliament, saying that they are ignoring the unemployed and that they do not put forward any viable solution, a statement with which my party and myself disagree.
I would nevertheless ask the government whether, in addition to the measures which have been announced, it will announce shortly in the House more effective programs in order to solve unemployment.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If other measures are considered, Mr. Speaker, they will be announced in due course.



SUMMER JOBS FOR STUDENTS-INCREASE IN SCHOOL ALLOWANCES

Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Since a majority of students will not be able to find a job next summer to enable them to pursue their studies, would the Prime Minister recommend increasing their school allowances and extending payments to the end of their studies?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, we have indicated that a policy would soon be announced to the House with regard to youth.

March 2, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



UNEMPLOYMENT-ACCEPTABLE NATIONAL AVERAGE

Hon. George Hees (Prince Edward-Hasiings):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As he indicated yesterday that an average level of unemployment of 3 per cent across the country was unacceptable to the government because of the likelihood that it would reintroduce inflationary pressures in some parts of the country, would he indicate to the House what general or average level of unemployment across the country the government is aiming at in order to maintain a stable and satisfactory economy?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have the impression this question was asked yesterday and gave rise to a lively debate-


Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: But there was no answer.


Mr. Speaker:: -but perhaps the Prime Minister might be allowed to reply to the hon. member's question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You are
quite right, Mr. Speaker. There was no indication on my part or on the part of any minister that this was government policy. What happened in the exchange was that I asked the executive of the Canadian Labour Congress if they had any thought about the problem of the consequences of a 3 per cent average meaning something considerably less than 3 per cent in some provinces and something more in other provinces. It was just a question discussed with them. There was no enunciation of government policy or, for that matter of CLC policy. They themselves rejected a 3 per cent unemployment average.


George Harris Hees: As I was at the meeting and heard the Prime Minister speak when he said that 3 per cent, in so many words, was unacceptable because in Ontario it would cause inflation, would the Prime Minister advise the House what average percentage of unemployment across the country the government considers to be an acceptable one to promote a stable and satisfactory economy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes. The lowest percentage possible consistent with a stable economic growth.


George Harris Hees: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister for once give an honest, straightforward answer to a serious question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



UNEMPLOYMENT-APPLICATION OF FISCAL AND MONETARY POLICIES ON REGIONAL BASIS

Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the original question. May I ask the Prime Minister if it is now the policy of the government to apply monetary and fiscal policies on a regional basis in this country?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The
member knows that in recent budgets we did in effect apply fiscal policies on a regional basis, and we intend to continue to apply these tools in the future in one form or another.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. R. E. McKinley (Huron):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Can the minister give us any assurance that when he announces the new dairy policy for the coming fiscal year there will be no further reduction in the assistance to milk producers?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the program for the year beginning April 1, 1971 will be announced some time prior to that date. The hon. member knows, of course, that we have had a number of discussions with representatives of the dairy industry who are aware of the many considerations that have to be taken into account with regard to the entire year so that, hopefully, there will be no changes necessary during the course of that year. Whether there will be any increase or decrease will of course be announced at that time.


Robert Elgin McKinley: How soon will the minister be able to announce that policy?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Some time before April 1.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Transport. In view of the assurance the minister gave me on February 5 that he would make known to the Canadian Pacific Railway the desire of this House of Commons that Canadian Pacific pensions be increased in line with the increases announced by the Canadian National, can he tell the House what progress he is making in persuading the Canadian Pacific Railway to follow that course?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I met yesterday afternoon at approximately five o'clock with the president of the Canadian Pacific Railway. Among a lot of other matters we discussed was the matter raised by the hon. member. I conveyed to him the wishes of the hon. member and the House in this regard and he noted same. I cannot really indicate beyond that what they intend to do about it.



March 2, 1971


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg Norih):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Transport whether in his discussions with the president of the CPR the request of the CPR to the government that it be permitted to extend to 60 years the time within which it may qualify its pension plan under the Pension Benefits Standards Act was raised in connection with the question of pensions?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: Yes. This was one of the matters discussed, as I suspect the hon. member knows. I understand that some of the workers concerned have also endorsed this proposal. Questions with regard to government policy on this request should properly be directed to the Minister of Finance.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Did the
minister make clear to the president of the CPR that it might be easier to meet that request if something were done about the pensions of those now retired?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



CANADA DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION


Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: My
question is directed to the Prime Minister. While the Canada Development Corporation bill is before the House one is unable to secure any information because it will not be debated in Committee of the Whole. Therefore I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether there is any basis for the contention that the head of the corporation is to be, after the bill has been passed, the Hon. Louis Robi-chaud, P.C.?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Similar questions have been asked in the past, but as the question has been asked perhaps the right hon. gentleman may want to reply.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must confess that we have not thought of it, but I will consider it with care since the hon. member has proposed it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John George Diefenbaker: The Prime Minister says he has not thought of it. I take that to be a loose statement.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Roland Godin (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Has the minister seriously considered the brief which the Montreal Board of Trade addressed to him in February, and does he intend to implement the recommendation of that association to the effect that a subsidy of $10 per ton be granted for all western feed grain used in eastern Canada since November 1?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have examined it.



NATIONAL PARKS


Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: I have a question for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. Can he advise the House if he has issued a directive ordering an investigation into the findings of the Vegreville Fish and Wildlife Association which revealed that elk and other wildlife in Elk Island National Park in Alberta are suffering and dying because of an inadequate food supply and also that there is little evidence to indicate that any attempts are being made to feed these animals by park attendants?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of that situation. Of course the problem is due to the early winter, heavy snow-falls and the hardening of the top layer. In fact, a certain number of animals have died.
However, I must say that the officials of my department have arranged for the conveyance of six tons of feed daily in the park, in order to help the animals to survive throughout this winter which has been as hard for them as for us.



YOUNG OFFENDERS BILL


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: My question is directed to the Solicitor General. Since the young offenders bill appears to be ready to come back for debate, is the Solicitor General now prepared to have this bill go before a committee or study group prior to second reading in view of the opposition from academic groups and also practical groups involved with young offenders?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I have taken advantage of the delay to check with various associations and with the representatives of the

March 2, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
provinces about the truth of certain charges made against the bill and I finally realized that there is widespread confusion and that many questions are not well understood. I suggest that the bill could very well be debated in the House and referred to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: In view of the minister's admission that there has been misunderstanding and as the Prime Minister has been complaining about getting legislation through, would the minister be prepared, as requested and suggested by members of his party and this party, to have this matter considered, because the bill has been opposed not only by the academic world but also by those who are involved in a practical way with young offenders?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, we have been waiting for 42 years for a new act respecting young delinquents. If the hon. member is proposing that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. minister but it seems to me that the debate could be resumed when the bill is once again under study.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I understand it is 42 years old, and that is why everybody is against it.


Frank Howard: May I ask the Solicitor General a supplementary question. Inasmuch as he seems determined to proceed with the bill, could he give the House any indication when it might be called again?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: I have had no such indication, Mr. Speaker. That question should be put to the government house leader. I want to say that hon. members will certainly have the opportunity to improve the bill. It is not an act-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

[English}



URBAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Perry S. Ryan (Spadina):: My question is for the
Minister without Portfolio responsible for urban affairs. Would the minister tell the House which two provinces have not yet indicated support for a national urban council and why not?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister without Portfolio):: have no formal indication that any provinces have rejected or failed to support a national urban council in the sense that this means tri-level consultation.


Sylvester Perry Ryan: I understand that the minister does have indications of interest and support from eight provincial ministers of urban affairs. Is this the case, and does the minister consider it necessary to have all ten provinces in agreement before proceeding or is he prepared to proceed with the support of only eight?


Robert Knight Andras: My indications from the actual letters received and verbal conversations that are taking place is that there is no resistance from any province. If such is not the case, then I have not been so informed.



NATIONAL HARBOURS BOARD


Mr. Barry Maiher (Surrey):: I have a question for the Minister of Transport. A few days ago, in answer to a question by myself, the minister undertook to check the wording of a federal employment questionnaire being circulated among employees of the National Harbours Board in Vancouver, to which some of them have objected on the ground that it infringes on their civil rights. Is the minister in a position today to state what the situation is?


Donald Campbell Jamieson: The
form in question is a standard one that has been used for some considerable time. The first impression that legal counsel within the department have is that probably it should be altered in view of the Act to which the hon. member referred, and I have now referred it to the Department of Justice. I suspect that alterations will take place virtually right away.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture.
In view of a statement by Mr. Philippe Parizeau, president of the Granby Agricultural Cooperative, which is the largest in our country, that there is now a shortage of milk in Canada and particularly in Quebec, is it the intention of the Minister of Agriculture to increase, as from April 1, 1971, the total figure of dairy production quotas of the Dairy Commission for the year 1971-72, and also to put an end to the penalizing of dairy producers?
[English}


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, under the new market sharing quota arrangements that have been agreed to by Ontario, Quebec and the

March 2, 1971

Canadian Dairy Commission, the amount of milk that will be brought in under those quota arrangements to fill domestic requirements is set by these provincial boards.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture.
As the Canadian Dairy Commission is answerable to his department, does he intend to increase the quotas authorized by the Commission in order to allow the organizations he has just mentioned to set their market quotas too?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure you will not allow me to go into the details of how these market quotas are set, but in one sentence I can advise the hon. member that the market sharing quotas are substantially higher than the old subsidy eligibility quotas, and I do not believe there will be an over-all shortage for any type of manufacturing requirements.



FINANCE


Robert Lorne Stanfield: should like to ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs whether he still plans to proceed with the idea of a national securities regulatory commission or whether he has now abandoned this concept and is settling for a more uniform approach among the provinces?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, a uniform approach among the provinces is of course of great value to Canada, and I think considerable progress was made both last week and this week in this regard. However, I think there is a useful role to be played by some other form of organization in addition to what has already been done-and a great deal has already been done-and therefore we are continuing to pursue that route.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Is it the intention of the minister to provide another level, another tier of regulatory commissions, namely, a national commission in addition to the provincial regulatory bodies, and is it his intention to proceed with this regardless of the declared and vigorous opposition of at least one province?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Well, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman would read my important speeches on this subject-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Ronald Basford: -he would know that I said-


George Harris Hees: There is just so much we can stand.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Stanley Ronald Basford: Obviously hon. members are not interested in an answer at all.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister simply whether he intends to establish a national level of regulation in addition to the provincial levels, and whether he intends to proceed with this despite the opposition of the provinces?


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, in the speech to which I was referring I said it was surely desirable to avoid just another tier for the sake of having another tier, and this is why we have had discussions with the provinces and will continue to have discussions with the provinces in order that some desirable form of-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



RADIO CANADA


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It arises out of the minister's strong comments on separatists and terrorists in Radio Canada, made at a recent convention of the Quebec wing of the federal Liberal party.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The question may arise out of a statement, but the hon. member will realize that if he wishes to allude to a statement made outside the House he has to direct the question to the Prime Minister and inquire whether such statement represents government policy.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Perhaps I can put my question in this form. Has a resolution gone from that convention to the CRTC calling on the Canadian Radio-Television Commission to look into Radio Canada operations?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is asking a minister whether a resolution has gone from a convention. I am not sure what meeting he is referring to when he asks whether there has been a communication between the two. But in those terms, I am sure the question is out of order.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: May I rephrase it to put it in order. In light of the concern of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development with respect to terrorist and separatist elements in Radio Canada, what action is the government taking to deal with this matter?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Obviously the question cannot be asked of the minister himself. The minister may make statements outside the House about different matters which do not relate directly to his department

March 2, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry
but he cannot be asked about such statements in the House. The only questions that can be asked of the minister are questions relating to the administration of his department. I have to point out to hon. members that we are running short of time, so perhaps we should try to limit supplementaries. The hon. member for Egmont.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, this is a very urgent matter, especially because it included the words "the very existence of Canada is threatened." Perhaps I can address the question to the Prime Minister, if he will take the responsibility for it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What is the question?


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, apparently the Prime Minister has not heard the question or is not concerned about the question. Perhaps I could rephrase it for his benefit. Has any action been taken on the part of the government to deal with the very serious charges levelled against Radio Canada, with respect to terrorist and separatist elements in that organization, by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am not aware of such charges having been made, Mr. Speaker. I will look into them.



POST OFFICE


Mrs. Grace Maclnnis (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, last week I asked the Postmaster General if it was the intention of his department to curtail services to businesses in the Vancouver area by cutting out afternoon mail deliveries. The minister said he would take my question as notice. Has he a reply?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Cote (Minister without Portfolio):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have a reply.


Malcolm MacInnis: May I hear it now?


Joseph Julien Jean-Pierre Côté: Mr. Speaker, if the Speaker will allow me I would like to say that in Vancouver the frequency of delivery was reduced in one city block only, and before any action was taken all concerned were canvassed and the situation was explained. No objections were received.



FISHERIES


Mr. Albert Bechard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the

Minister of Fisheries and Forestry a question on an urgent matter of national and even international interest.
Does the minister intend to make representations in order to prevent the realization of the stupid, unbelievable, outrageous, indecent, inhuman and provocative project-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Albert Béchard: -of an association-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. From his great experience, I am sure the hon. member knows that the question as asked is hardly in order. If he would get to the question proper.


Albert Béchard: Does the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry intend to protest against the project of an American animal care association to bring half a dozen young Americans on the ice of the Gulf of St. Lawrence on March 11, the day before the seal hunt opens?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: Mr. Speaker, if this organization is as concerned about the fate of human beings as it is about seals it will keep the children off the ice.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. David MacDonald (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the recent submission by the National Farmers Union to the government in which the union recommended that the government enter into negotiations with the United States government for the reduction of potato import quotas imposed by that government, can the minister inform the House whether any plans have been made for these negotiations and, if not, why not?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, more than a year ago I had discussions with senior officers in the United States government, and I might advise the hon. member that two years ago I had similar discussions respecting the quotas on potatoes. Indeed, I raise the matter with them at every opportunity.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Would the minister inform the House whether there has been any indication from U.S. officials of when we may expect a favourable change in these quotas?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.



APPLE JUICE-REQUEST FOR RESTRICTION OF IMPORTS

Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of

	
March 2, 1971

Agriculture. Since the importation of concentrated apple juice is working a hardship on apple growers, would the government give consideration to placing some restriction on the importation of this product?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I cannot give the hon. member a categorical answer that this will be done. It has been considered in response to representations, but I can give no indication whether it will or will not be done.



RAPESEED-AVAILABILITY OF SEED FREE OF ERUCIC ACID

Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. In line with the department's recent announcement that a major effort has been made to develop and introduce new rape-seed varieties free of erucic acid, can the minister say if adequate stocks of these varieties are available for this year's planting, and whether any restrictions will be imposed on the sale of present varieties containing erucic acid?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is any restriction at the moment on the sale of rapeseed with erucic acid in it. We are aware that concern has been expressed by some health authorities. Enough seed will be available for Canadian production this year so that, if it should become desirable, we can have enough seed in 1972 for a complete change-over.


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, I asked whether restrictions will be imposed this fall on rapeseed containing erucic acid. May I also ask whether varieties that mature rapidly in a short growing season such as the present Polish varieties will be available?


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, there are now three varieties. Some of them are the Argentine type and the others are Polish varieties.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are running short of time. There will be no further supplementaries between now and the end of the question period.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said that an announcement would be made
Inquiries of the Ministry
regarding Home Oil of Calgary within a week or two weeks at the most, and since the minister is not here, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether any decision has been reached with respect to Home Oil? If not, when does he expect that a decision will be announced by the government?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, there has been no decision of which I am aware about the transaction concerning Home Oil and any other company. I cannot indicate if and when such a decision will be reached by the private sector of the economy. I can merely emphasize, as the minister has been doing, that the government has been closely following the negotiations.



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Solicitor General a question.
Is it true, as claimed by certain leaders of the Parti Quebecois last week, that federal agents have infiltrated their party?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, as far as I know, the Parti Quebecois is a democratic party that accepts within its ranks all kinds of people who have a right to protest against the decisions of the party's establishment. Members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police are free to join.
In any case, there is no active police action within political parties. But some parties seem to conduct purges among their members-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Red Deer.



NATIONAL REVENUE


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Revenue. Since the end of February is the cut-off date for the issuance of T-4 slips and since many thousands of government employees have been unable to obtain their T-4 slips, can the minister tell the House when they will be available?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to get a report on the matter and inform the hon. member tomorrow.
3870

March 2, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry NATIONAL DEFENCE



SUGGESTED STATIONING OF TRACKER AIRCRAFT IN NEWFOUNDLAND TO MAINTAIN SURVEILLANCE OVER FOREIGN TRAWLERS

James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Does the minister propose to leave the Tracker aircraft presently stationed in Nova Scotia there, or will he move this squadron of aircraft to eastern Newfoundland in order to conduct daily surveillance and protect Canadian sovereignty from further infringements by foreign trawlers around the coast of Newfoundland?


Hon. Donald S. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it would not be our intention to move the squadron to Newfoundland. Of course, we would keep the aircraft based at Shearwater operational in the Newfoundland area for as long as they are needed.



POLLUTION


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport arising from the question I asked the Prime Minister yesterday in the minister's absence. I received a partial answer in a communication from his office, for which I thank him. My question arises from the statement in this communication to the effect that the Ministry of Transport has no jurisdiction in respect of the cleaning of beaches. Under what jurisdiction was the clean-up of the beaches at Chedabucto Bay undertaken?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suggest to the hon. member that this question might be placed on the order paper or discussed at the time of adjournment. I am not sure whether this kind of question is in order, in any event.


Thomas Speakman Barnett: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Further to two previous questions I have asked during the last two or three weeks, can the minister now indicate whether there is in effect a system of quotas for recruitment into the armed forces, province by province?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, there is not in effect a system of quotas. There is for recruiting offices a series of targets
across the country. They are based on geography and past experience and are set for the recruiters so they can have them as targets.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, February 26, consideration of the motion of Mr. Benson that Bill C-219, to establish the Canada Development Corporation, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and the amendment thereto of Mr. Saltsman (page 3648).
Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, as a three-word phrase, "Canada Development Corporation" is a success. There is a certain ring to it that is pleasant to the ear as well as to the mind. We are all in favour of the development of Canada, and we want that development, to the fullest possible extent, to be done by and for Canadians. This is not because we are chauvinistic, but because we believe it is normal that any country make its own internal decisions in its own interests. Any country wants its own citizens to have the necessary skills to play a predominant part in its own development, and any country wants to ensure that its own priorities are respected. We believe too that, even in an economy such as ours, where decision-making is largely a private and decentralized matter, there is certainly an important place for the central government to encourage economic development.
In the past year, we have witnessed the power of the central government to harm the economy through the deliberate creation of mass unemployment. I have said time and time again that the decisions which led to the present situation were bad decisions, and I shall continue to say so. They were decisions that displayed the essential character of this government, arrogance and unconcern. But they also illustrated the power that lies with the federal government. They illustrated the importance of the decisions that are made right here in Ottawa; and they demonstrate the necessity for careful use of that power today and in the future. It is not the government that is going to develop Canada. It is the people of this country who are going to do that. But the federal government has a tremendous amount of power that it can use either to encourage that development or to hamper it. This power must be used with foresight and imagination. And it must be applied with care.
The general idea of a Canada Development Corporation is a defensible one. But we are not faced here today with a general idea. We are faced with a specific piece of
[Mr. Gray.)
March 2, 1971

legislation which we must judge as best we can. And as soon as we begin to look at this bill, difficulties begin to appear. They begin to appear, in fact, when we look at the self-proclaimed goals of this legislation.
First, we are told that the CDC is supposed to help develop and maintain Canadian presence in private industry in this country. Then, we are informed that the corporation is designed to give greater opportunities to Canadians to invest profitably in Canadian industry. In themselves, these two goals are not necessarily incompatible; but neither are they one and the same thing. There will inevitably be occasions when they do come into conflict with one another. This raises the question as to the situation of the directors who are to have the responsibility for running the corporation. In the normal course of events, the goal of a company director must be to work in the interests of the shareholders of the corporation, which is to say that his goal must be the maximization of profits. However, this corporation will be different in that it is a government-sponsored corporation and therefore, presumably, is to some extent at least responsible to the people of Canada. From that aspect, the directors must always consider the national interest. They must remember that one of the aims of the corporation is to help develop the Canadian sector of the economy.
One has only to raise the question to see that right at the very base of the Canada Development Corporation, as envisaged in the present bill, there is ambiguity and confusion. The question that poses itself immediately is the following: Will the CDC, in the form it is given under this bill, be anything more than a publicly sponsored private investment company working along the traditional lines for the interest of the people who hold shares in it? Is this what it is? Is it anything more than a publicly sponsored private investment company? If it is something more, what more precisely is it supposed to be? After all, a vague statement of goals is simply not enough. In other words, apart from the question of the maximization of profit, what else are the directors of this corporation suppose to achieve? It is all very well to say that they should work in the national interest as well as the interest of the shareholders, but what does this mean in practice? To what extent if any will the national interest justify or indeed require investments offering less than maximum profits to the shareholders of the corporation? Let us take a specific example.
We are told that the CDC, if it so desires, will be able to take over Polymer Corporation. This firm is currently making money for the government and, therefore, for the Canadian taxpayer. How will the directors of the CDC view the national interest when they are negotiating the price to pay for Polymer Corporation? In the interest of its own shareholders, CDC must, of course, pay the lowest possible price, but in the interests of the Canadian people it should pay the highest possible price for Polymer. There is an interesting conundrum, and one that points out once again the ambiguity that lies at the base of this measure.
Let us look at the more general picture. Supposing the CDC, as it is proposed, had an opportunity to participate
23966-33i
Canada Development Corporation
in a development which was widely considered as one that ought to be controlled by Canadians. Supposing this was the general impression in the country. Suppose there was reason to believe that such a development could stay afloat, but it would be likely to produce only very low profits for the Canadian owners. In other words; this would be a case where you would have low profitability versus considerations of national interest as widely understood in the country. Where does the responsibility of the directors of this corporation lie? To what extent, if any, should they take lower profits to achieve Canadian participation in such a development even though it means substantially lower profits to the shareholders of the CDC? That is not an easy question to answer. It is certainly not easy to answer from reading this legislation. It will be all the more difficult, because in such a case the corporation would inevitably be subject to tremendous pressures from opposite directions, economic from the shareholders on the one hand and political, social and nationalistic from the government and organized public opinion on the other.
I feel sincerely sorry for the eventual directors of such a corporation. I hope that none of them will have any latent tendencies toward a split personality, because they wouldn't be helped any by having to work within the schizophrenic structures and goals that this present measure is setting out.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Given this schizophrenia in the bill, it is not surprising that criticism of it has also gone in different directions. Some critics on the left charge that the CDC as proposed would be nothing more nor less than a giant government-sponsored investment corporation designed to provide another profitable outlet for the money of corporations and of wealthy Canadians. On the other hand, there are those who say that this is simply another step toward socialism. In the words of the Globe and Mail, and I quote:
The CDC will be, in the public mind, a Crown Corporation, subject in Parliament to all the political pressures of the electorate's nationalism and caution, inhibited from the boldness and ruthlessness that is essential to success.
With its usual complacency, this government through the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) says that, being criticized on both sides like that, it must be right. Things are not that simple. Things are not that simple because, in this case, both criticisms-contradictory though they might be-are at least partially valid. Each one puts the spotlight on a major weakness of the present bill. The first points up the fact that there is nothing in the proposed CDC to define exactly what the directors may properly consider other than maximum profits of the shareholders of the CDC. The second points to the fact that neither is there any assurance that the proposed body would act with any consistency in the interests of its shareholders. The question must therefore be asked: What is the relevance of this bill to the whole question of Canadian control over our own economy? And what is its

March 2, 1971
Canada Development Corporation relevance for that matter to the whole question of economic development in the national interest? The provisional answer must be that there is no evidence that it is relevant in either case.
The point is that there are many, many questions left unanswered both by the present bill and by the whole concept of the CDC that is contained in the present bill. For example, there are questions that have been raised by economists as to whether, even were they possible, the tasks, as laid down in the present government proposals, are realistically desirable.
This measure is based on the assumption that it is the shortage of capital which is the main reason not only for foreign take-over of Canadian firms, but also for the general lack of development ventures that are taking place under Canadian control. However, as several economists have pointed out, there may well be several reasons other than the unavailability of Canadian capital to explain the situation. There are a variety of reasons why foreign interests may be able to offer far more for control of a Canadian company than Canadian interests can offer. Similarly, there are a variety of reasons why a particular Canadian development might be far more profitable for a foreign owner than for a Canadian owner. It might be, for example, that the technological resources at the disposal of a large United States corporation would be the deciding factor in some cases. It might be, too, that the resources of a foreign corporation, as well as its requirements, would play a deciding role in many instances, making it worth while for a foreign corporation to pay considerably more, meaning that control of, or participation in, a Canadian development was much more profitable for a foreign corporation.
Then, of course there is the whole question of the comparative tax structure as between Canada and other countries. We have had occasion to raise some questions about this. Economists such as Professor Neufeld have pointed out that the availability of capital is not the only consideration. In that event, the CDC as envisaged in this bill could involve an approach which would be altogether inappropriate to our needs, especially when one considers the schizophrenic nature of the corporation to which I have already referred.
Presumably, we will be given answers to some of the questions I have raised presumably we shall be given some of the reasons why there is so much foreign takeover, why outside interests are in so many cases controlling our resources. Presumably some of these answers will be contained in the report on the whole subject of foreign investment which is supposed to be tabled in the near future-the "Gray" paper, if I may refer to it as such. Certainly, we ought to get a good many answers. Before being asked to establish the CDC we ought to have before us the government's analysis of the reasons we are losing control of the economy and the reason Canadians are not participating more fully in the development of that economy. We ought to be told the measures the

government proposes to take in the light of this analysis of the situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: After all, it is only when we have this information before us that we can determine what the proper response should be, having regard to the condition in which we find ourselves. It has been suggested by some economists, for instance, that for both capital and managerial purposes such a corporation could operate most effectively as a broker helping to bring together the need on the one hand and the money and the talent on the other. This is a possibility which has been ignored by the government in the preparation of this legislation. There may be a need and a justification for the use of government sponsored equity capital on some occasions. Once again, we come back to the inconsistency and confusion of aims embodied in the bill before us. In its present form, I have to say, this is a bill which raises more questions than it answers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Why, for example, are we faced with a bill which talks pretentiously about the public interest without ever defining that public interest, and making no effort to show how it is to be achieved? Why are we faced with a bill which involves a modification of the tax structure in the realm of investment at precisely the time when the Canadian people are living in a climate of extreme uncertainty as to the government's intentions with regard to tax reform? We are still waiting to find out what the government intends to do about investment incentive in general. Why this piecemeal approach, now? Why are we faced now with a bill which touches on the field of foreign investment when in a few weeks, we are told, we are to receive the long awaited report of the government on foreign investment in Canada? This brings me to the general question: why has this bill been brought in now? What affected its timing? After hanging around for eight years, the concept of the CDC has suddenly been dusted off and presented as an example of the determination of the government to protect Canadian industry and help Canadians develop Canada. The question many people are asking is: why could the government not have waited until the appearance of its report on foreign control of our industry? The Minister of Finance, in his genial way, disarmingly replied that the bill was being presented now simply because it is ready.


Mr. Benson:: A good reason.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Does this indicate that the government does not have too much ready? I ask myself seriously why the government has insisted on seeking to establish the CDC right at this time. It is not even a four-letter word, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edgar John Benson: You have been drinking heavy water.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: They are finding the going a little heavy. I suggest another reason is this. Had the government
March 2, 1971

waited for the report on foreign ownership, the "Gray" paper, it would have been forced to take a comprehensive look at this whole question. It might have been obliged to take a stand on the issue of economic nationalism and its relationship to Canada's economic development and economic identity. By coming out with this flashy but irrelevant proposition, the government hopes to take the pressures off before the report comes forward in the form of the "Gray" paper.
I can tell the government that whatever happens to this empty measure before us, the pressures will not be off. The Canadian people and this Parliament want to know where the government stands, if indeed it stands anywhere. This bill is authentic in one way. It is another reflection of the uncertainty and ambiguity which characterized the government in its economic and social policies. This bill, and the so-called CDC it is supposed to spawn, takes all the emptiness, the uncertainties and the ambiguities of the government's policies and rolls them into one meaningless package.
To expose its hollowness, one has only to ask: what would have happened had the CDC been in operation at the time of the sale of Ryerson Press? From the standpoint of national interest and national concern there would have been tremendous pressure, both moral and political, for the CDC to step in and save one of the few remaining Canadian textbook publishers. But from the standpoint of profit, evidently there would have been no way in which the CDC could properly have become involved. This appears to be obvious. Either way, the response of the directors of the CDC would have been bitterly disputed.
Let us not forget there will be many occasions in the future when there will be clear conflict between national interest, or what appears to be the national interest in the eyes of many Canadians, and the profitability of a particular deal. This is why it is inevitable that any sort of publicly-sponsored development corporation of this kind would be embroiled up to the hilt in political pressures of all kinds. If it succumbs to these pressures, the shareholders will suffer, and if it does not, there will be a tremendous amount of disillusionment on the part of those who really see this organization as an instrument for preserving Canada as they see Canada. In short, Mr. Speaker, I think this measure in its present form, offered at the present time, is both futile and dangerous. It is futile because there is no evidence that it will be relevant to the national interest it is supposed to defend, and its merit is certainly unpredictable to the eventual shareholders it is supposed to benefit.
Leaving aside for the moment the question of Canadian control, let us look simply at the question of risk. If this corporation is really to serve Canadian development in a way that private investors cannot, it is going to have to take risks. It is going to have to invest money in spheres where not only is there no sure return, but there is no return available in the near future, and where such
Canada Development Corporation return as there may be is remote in time and relatively low in amount. That is why I really wonder just how the government plans to appeal to the potential shareholders of the CDC. Will it be an appeal in the name of patriotism, or will it be an appeal in the name of self-interest? The government has at least given itself lots of time before issuing that appeal. In fact, I have already predicted that the appeal will never come, regardless whether or not this bill is passed, and I make the same prediction today. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that the government will never issue shares in the CDC, at least not in this CDC, because the whole concept is too confused, too ambiguous and too self-contradictory.
I have said that this measure is futile. It is also a dangerous piece of legislation, dangerous because of the disillusionment that would result from its failure in the sphere of national interest and development, which would be proportionate to the hopes that it would raise. I do not want to see disillusionment and cynicism among our people about the future of our country; but by falsely raising hopes, this sort of bill would certainly contribute to that result.
Full of contradictions and confusions in its goals as in its methods, what is the purpose of such a bill? The minister himself admits that it is useless to small business, as it is to regional development. Certainly it will be of no use at all to small business in this country. The one million dollar minimum investment called for in the bill is a guarantee that no help will be available to small businessmen, as we understand that expression. Certainly, it will be of no use in the fight against regional disparity. On the contrary, the criterion of maximum profitability will, if anything, act as an effective damper on any suggestion that we take a chance on a poorer region.


Mr. Mahoney:: You should know.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: That is right, I should know.


Mr. Muir:: Is that the buffoon from Calgary South again?


Robert Lorne Stanfield: So one asks again, what is the purpose of the bill? Suddenly, the answer shines through. After its PR fight against inflation, the government has now embarked on another PR effort, this time against foreign control and in favour of large scale Canadian participation in the economy. As far as I can tell, it is not going to be a very costly fight because the government does not have to do anything very much for quite a while, so it can just talk. With the usual vague words and pretentious language, the government is out to convince the Canadian people that it really cares-in fact, that it cares doubly. It cares about Canadian control over the economy, and it cares about economic development. So do we all, Mr. Speaker. But in this case, it is only the government that can act. This is why we of the opposition are so keenly disappointed that this government has once

March 2, 1971
Canada Development Corporation again preferred image to substance and come up with a hybrid and unworkable monstrosity that is of no use to anybody except the ever-busy image builders in the employ of the government.
In reality this is a shoddy public relations gimmick which is designed to refurbish the image of this government among those millions of Canadians who do care very deeply about what happens to this country. In terms of possible accomplishment it is not only highly questionable; it is worse than questionable because it is a betrayal of hope. It is an empty and insulting gesture unworthy of any competent government but eminently worthy of the one across the aisle from us today.
I must say that we of the official opposition cannot accept the amendment put forward by the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) because we see no evidence that the creation of yet another crown corporation would at this time do anything effective either to increase Canadian independence or to help development of regional industrialization which the amendment takes as its goals. We believe that the government bill before us and the present amendment put forward by the hon. member for Waterloo are simply leaps into the dark at a time when hopefully we look forward to acquiring in the near future the information necessary to allow us to go forward, knowing where we are going and what we are proposing. I do not want to end on a negative note, even though I believe that the government deserves the harshest kind of criticism on this measure. This whole area is too important to the Canadian people to reject out of hand any and all action that must be taken. However, I do feel that we cannot accept this hasty and ill-conceived bill as it now stands.
I, therefore, give notice that a member of the official opposition will be moving a reasoned amendment to refer the subject matter of this bill to committee to be considered when we receive the Gray report as to the real situation regarding foreign ownership, and when we receive the package of measures that the government proposes to take as well as the government's legislative proposals regarding tax reform and changes in the tax structure.
We think that the sensible course to take with regard to a measure such as this is to refer it to a committee to try to make some sense out of it in light of the general program that the government will be putting forward. But if this proposal is refused and the government does not refer the bill to committee with this sort of directive, we shall have no alternative but to vote against this particular measure on second reading. If this government has any sense of responsibility toward the Canadian people it will accept our suggestion.


Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I deeply regret that the legislation before the House, Bill C-219 to establish the Canada Development Corporation, is throwing away a golden opportunity to contribute to the solution of one of Canada's basic problems. I refer to the problem of regional disparities.

At the 1969 constitutional conference the governments in Canada declared as follows:
This constitutional conference agrees that the promotion of the full development of all parts of Canada is an essential objective of confederation.
On February 8 and 9 of this year, the third working session of the constitutional conference recalled the conclusion reached on the subject of regional disparities by the working session of the previous September. The first ministers agreed that the constitution should include a recognition of the importance of equality of opportunity for all Canadians.
This, it said, should not only be in the new preamble to the constitution but in the body of the constitution. The preamble should state that one objective of Confederation is the social, economic, and cultural opportunity for all citizens in whatever region they may live. The Constitutional Conference went on to say that in the body of the constitution there should be a statement of obligation on all governments, federal and provincial, to promote equality of opportunity and well being of all individuals, to ensure, as nearly as possible, that essential public services of reasonable quality will be available to individual citizens, and to promote economic development which will reduce disparities in the social and economic opportunities of individual Canadians in whatever region they may live. These pronouncements would enshrine in our fundamental law the obligation to deal with regional inequalities.
Nevertheless, the present legislation throws away an essential tool in implementing these basic national purposes. It fails to maintain public control by giving into the interests of individual shareholders. It stresses maximization of profit. It gives no more than impotent minority rights to those representing the public interest and it makes sure that what should be a basic purpose of the Canada Development Corporation is ignored.
A major cause of disparities in the social and economic opportunities for Canadians in the different regions has been the natural tendency of those who control private investment to channel their investments into central Canada in search of maximum profitability. It is precisely this that a properly constituted and equipped CDC would remedy. The Canada Development Corporation proposed by this legislation entirely fails for this purpose.
The hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) has pointed out in this debate and on many other occasions that the conception of a Canada Development Corporation held by this party is that it is something that can and will act as an instrument of Canadian government policy and secure Canadian objectives. He has said:
In our view, the CDC should be involved in regional development policies with provincial bodies and agencies in order to ensure that every part of Canada capable of supporting viable development is extensively involved in the industrial future of this country.
It seems to me that the future unity of this country depends upon the federal government demonstrating that
March 2, 1971

March 2, 1971
Canada Development Corporation buying back foreign controlled industries, except perhaps in certain limited cases where an opportunity presents itself.
I believe the resources of the Canada Development Corporation should be available, subject to proper research and adequate planning, for investment in the development of Canada as a whole. That is what is lacking in the present legislation. In 1968 the Economic Council of Canada pointed out that:
Nowhere in the federal government structure is there a central focus-to ensure the allocation of funds to secure the maximum benefits for the region and the country as a whole. There is a clear need for a complete reappraisal of administration and procedural means of putting federal support of the Atlantic Regional Development on a more rational and well-integrated basis.
Has this changed with the creation of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and its new programs? The answer is no. As recently as last Wednesday in the House of Commons, as recorded at page 3709 of Hansard, the minister in reply to a question by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) said that his department could not co-ordinate its activities under the Regional Development Incentives Act with the responsibilities of other departments. Thus, the hoped for coordination and central focus in government has not been achieved.
In the report of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence on Canada-U.S. relations, the evidence of Mr. Claude Lemelin is quoted as follows:
We might even ask if the new federal incentive programs for investment in the underdeveloped areas will be able to modify by themselves, the repartition of investments and employment in favour of these areas. And this is because the private investments, which result more often than not from decisions taken in the U.S., are not in agreement with the Canadian development requirements which are based on east-west axis, but are in terms of continental requirements, i.e. a north-south axis-
A publicly directed Canada development corporation such as has been proposed by this party in the nature of a Crown corporation, borrowing its funds from the Canadian public by bonds and by required investment of some part of the funds available from financial institutions in Canada, could do this essential job for Canada. The Canada Development Corporation created by this legislation will be torn between profit maximization and concern for national interests. It will be directed by those with a traditional outlook. It will not be subject to direction of the government or the interests of national policies. Its only justification is that it is a sop to economic nationalism.
It might be asked why a representative of Ontario and Toronto-by no means a disadvantaged area when it comes to regional disparity-should be raising an issue which is of more direct importance to other regions such as the Maritime provinces, perhaps Quebec, and some of the western provinces. I raise this question because I believe in the long-run it is in the enlightened self-interest of all parts of Canada, including central Canada and Ontario, that regional disparity be ironed out and that depressed areas be given special attention in the invest-
[Mr. Brewin.l
ment policies of Canada. Canadian unity requires this and in the long-run the prosperity and well-being of Canada require it. It is just too bad that a wonderful opportunity to establish an effective instrument to this end is being allowed to go down the drain.
Instead of legislation to provide for effective mobilization of Canadian resources for Canadian purposes, we are asked to accept a phony substitute. We are getting a fagade in place of the real thing. The House should reject this bill or should accept the amendment.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, the House is now considering a very significant piece of legislation, that is Bill C-219. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has voiced his objection to the overall bill. Personally, I have looked pretty closely at this bill and I think hon. members are entitled to question the advisability of introducing at this stage of the session a bill which at first sight appears to be most important.
As far as the principle of this act is concerned, I hardly believe that any member would object to it on the basis of the contents of clause 2 which reads as follows:
The purpose of this Act is to establish a corporation that will help develop and maintain strong Canadian controlled and managed corporations in the private sector of the economy and will give Canadians greater opportunities to invest and participate in the economic development of Canada.
If we confine ourselves to clause 2 of the bill, it seems to me that all hon. members should support it. This bill purports to encourage Canadians to invest in Canadian companies instead of investing, as they did in former times, in foreign companies established in Canada which reinvest their funds outside our country. Indeed we have often seen Canadians lend money to foreign finance or insurance companies which reinvested it in foreign countries and not in Canada, and in this way channelled the savings of the Canadian people into foreign companies.
If one of the aims of this semi-public corporation is to encourage Canadian people to invest in Canadian firms so that the latter become full partners in the industrial development of this country, I will say that this is a very commendable intent indeed.
But how could we believe it without having a deeper knowledge of the direction the government is going to take with its so-called economic nationalism policy?
Briefly, this is the policy of this government respecting the operations of foreign companies in Canada. We recall that during the last electoral campaign the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) as well as the members of his cabinet and of his party, realized certain electoral benefits from this economic nationalism.
For the last three years, Mr. Speaker, this government was to provide clear-cut leadership to Canadians and policy statements made on the subject either by the Miniter of Finance (Mr. Benson) or members of the cabinet have so far been obscure, hesitant and timid.
March 2, 1971

One cannot talk about a Canadian Development Corporation without a thorough knowledge of this government's policy on foreign concerns operating in Canada. Will the CDC be strong enough, both from the management and capital standpoint, to compete equitably and viably with foreign corporations?
When the bill was introduced, the hon. Minister of Finance did not speak on that aspect. We are justified in asking the government today to take a firm, unequivocal attitude, so that Canadians who invest in this new corporation will be able to assess in advance the risk of their investment.
If I understood the objects of this corporation correctly, it should first seek to invest its equity in the establishment of new industries and in the expansion of industries which have already proved profitable and viable; in short, this corporation should be an effective incentive for the creation of new jobs. If this is a priority-and it should be a priority for the government, in view of the disastrous unemployment situation in which Canada now finds itself, when 8 per cent of the work force is idle and when Quebec has 243,000 unemployed'-I say this should be a long term program to create jobs.
As stated this afternoon by the Leader of the Opposition, we know that this Corporation will not immediately assist small concerns. It will again be meant to help large industries. Today, as I just said, when economic conditions in Canada are disastrous as far as employment is concerned, the government must take various means in order to help small industries.
The Department of Regional Economic Expansion is already trying to attain that objective. We know that the department was indeed trying to create new industries to promote the development of small concerns and boost employment in Canada. Perhaps the Quebec members have read in weekend newspapers that the problem exists everywhere in Quebec, especially where the doldrums are so acute that they are discouraging for some classes of society.
During the weekend Mr. Speaker-and I think that this is related to the subject of this debate-I attended a meeting in Sacre-Coeur in the Saguenay constituency. Those people have been working for 8 years at the development of a cardboard manufacture with the co-operation of the CFU. By the way, the CFU spent $200,000 solely for the industrial promotion of that plant.
Mr. Speaker, people get discouraged when they see that the government does not intervene, when circumstances warrant it, to assist more directly in establishing industries that would create employment.
At Sacre-Cceur, Mr. Speaker, we have seeked to get Quebecers and Americans interested in setting up a cardboard factory. The Catholic Farmers Union did what it could, spending $200,000 for that purpose. Now, the experts' report assures us of the viability of that factory, but $25 million would be needed to implement the project.
Canada Development Corporation
Could the Minister of Finance indicate whether, once Bill C-219 to establish the Canada Development Corporation is enacted, it will overlap the purposes and objectives of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?
To come back to the example I mentioned a moment ago with regard to Sacre-Cceur, in Saguenay County, if the regulations of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion are followed, a grant of $6.5 million will be paid to this plant in order to create 500 jobs, that is $30,000 per job. I would like the minister to tell us whether this act could not be invoked to finance the balance of $17 million required to establish the cardboard factory at Sacre-Coeur.
I think that the minister should be able to answer our questions.
Once again, I want to know whether the Canadian Development Corporation will duplicate the Department of Regional Economic Expansion or whether it will merely make it disappear. To my mind, the people are worried.
One must admit that department has helped the people in some respects. The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) recently stated that since his department was set up, 60,000 jobs have been created; still, the minister must tell us whether this new act is intended to complement the services of his department or merely to replace them.
Will the CDC also be authorized, as I said a while ago, to have access to the funds of the Canadian government when there will be a financial contribution from the Department of Regional Economic Expansion?
Mr. Speaker, the new corporation must be structured in such a way as to avoid the errors of the General Investment Corporation of Quebec.
First of all, we must know if the corporation will compete with organized financing companies operating in several provinces of Canada. Is there provision for investment planning in this corporation in co-operation with other companies of a semi-public or private nature operating in other provinces of Canada? Will this new corporation extend preferential rates to its shareholders so that finance corporations in Quebec and elsewhere in Canada will find themselves in a precarious situation?
We must avoid the mistakes that have been made by the Quebec General Investment Corporation whose objectives are similar to those spelt out in Bill C-219. We believe that the discomfiture of the Quebec General Investment Corporation in some areas can be attributed to the human factor. It may be that the men who set up this financial system lacked the necessary competence.
In many case, the Quebec General Investment Corporation has not been able so far to appeal to serious investors who could have turned it into a stable institution from an economic and financial point of view. This Corporation stopped paying quarterly dividends in September last.
3878

March 2, 1971
Canada Development Corporation This action did not have much impact on the stock market since the government of Quebec holds only-deferred dividend shares while the Caisses populaires own two thirds of the General Investment Corporation shares.
Since its inception eight years ago, the Quebec General Investment Corporation has not been able to gain the confidence of investors because the value of its share on the Montreal Stock Exchange has never gone over the $10 mark of their face value. They are presently trading at $8.50 after considerable variations over the last eight years. If the new legislation introduced by the Minister of Finance seeks to achieve the same objectives as those aimed at by the Quebec General Investment Corporation, I believe that the minister and the cabinet must closely consider the mechanism and structures of the said Corporation: as everybody knows, it is now going through difficult times.
Although its aggregate firms are well established, the General Investment Corporation has met with unequal results. In fact, not so long ago, SOGEFOR folded. On the other hand, the SOMA almost went down many times; it was also financed by the General Investment Corporation. In 1969, before amortization, it had lost $346,000. The largest subsidiary, Marine Industries, registered a 48 per cent loss on its net profits for 1969, and its shareholders are now impatiently awaiting its financial report for the current fiscal year.
Mr. Speaker, on Saturday last, Entreprises Soucy, a Riviere-du-Loup pulp and paper industry in which the General Investment Corporation had invested funds, closed its doors. It laid off 200 people. To reopen, the firm needs over $1 million.
The Montreal newspaper La presse, under the signature of Mr. Jacques Tremblay, has published an article in which the life of the General Investment Corporation was described as follows:
When the General Investment Corporation was created in 1963, people still entertained very optimistic ideas: "everything is possible", "we shall achieve a quiet revolution". A series of well-defined operations were to make us masters in our own home: nationalization of electricity, deposit fund, investment corporation, replacement of family enterprises by modern "industrial complexes", and so forth.
-Every project based upon an old national economic mythology seemed like another step towards paradise. In the end, there are naturally a few downfalls. Our professorial economics proved more effective at making speeches than at controlling our economy.
The seventies should be the decade of realism. Should the minor downfalls of the General Investment Corporation help us to become conscious of that fact, they will have proved useful. Of course, the fanfare accompanying every move of the General Investment Corporation is now likely to create some kind of defeatism in the face of its difficulties. But such defeatism is no more founded than the fanfare.
Mr. Speaker, this shows that the aims of the General Investment Corporation are apparently similar to those of the measure now before us. It should be a lesson to us before we lay the foundations of the Canada Development Corporation.

If moreover, this corporation enters into competition with existing provincial investment corporations their economic influence and power will surely be jeopardized. It is therefore logical, Mr. Speaker, to draw the following conclusions:
First, the government must make sure that the Canada Development Corporation will consult the provinces as to the operation of similar corporations having similar objectives.
Secondly, since the CDC will be wholly financed first through public funds and later on through public outlays, it is essential for Parliament to supervise and control its operation.
Thirdly, why would the law not give Parliament the right to ask this semi-public and semi-private corporation, that will use taxpayers' money, to report on its operation to the people's elected representatives?
Fourthly, how can we avoid that CDC's competition be detrimental to our existing financial institutions such as banks, trust companies, mutual funds and other similar organizations which, thanks to their structure and their operations, have already rendered valuable services to Canadians?
As the hon. Leader of the Opposition said a moment ago, some clauses of the bill are so vague that the government must absolutely accept his proposal so as to enable us to know the CDC's financial structure before ereating this organization so important to the Minister of Finance.
Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that the minister is a responsible man since he is in charge of the taxpayers' money. Doubtless he will accept the proposal which was made by the Leader of the Opposition this afternoon and which would enable us to study this bill more thoroughly and to know all its consequences.
But if the minister is so impatient to have it adopted, it is because he is looking forward to the presidency of this new corporation. He hopes to secure a new position for the future as has already been done by the former Minister of Transport who is now the President of the Canadian Transport Commission. If it is so urgent for the minister to get this position, I am prepared to vote right away in favour of this bill.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, this bill to set up a Canada Development Corporation could have been a legislative landmark heralding a new era for economic development in Canada and the maintenance of a much greater degree of Canadian economic independence. Unfortunately, the government has approached the matter both reluctantly and half-heartedly. The minister's speech the other day gave one the impression that he was introducing this measure merely to fulfil some of the political commitments that had been made by his predecessors. Let me just review briefly the history of the idea of a Canada Development Corporation.
March 2, 1971

The New Democratic Party at its founding convention in 1961 put forward the idea of a publicly owned and publicly controlled Canada Development Corporation as a means of expanding the Canadian economy and of guaranteeing a greater measure of Canadian economic independence. In the election of 1962, we fought the campaign with that as one of the major issues. In 1963, Hon. Walter Gordon, who at that time was masterminding the Liberal campaign, put the concept of a Canada Development Corporation at the masthead of the Liberal campaign. When the government came to office after the election of 1963, Mr. Gordon, who at that time was minister of finance, introduced a measure on June 20, 1965, for the setting up of a Canada Development Corporation. Of course, it caused great distress in the ranks of the corporate establishment. Apparently, tremendous pressure was brought to bear on the newly elected Liberal government and the measure was dropped.
Then, in March, 1966, the present Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp), who then was Minister of Finance, said that the Canada development proposal would be introduced, "as soon as the parliamentary timetable permits." In October, 1966, Prime Minister Pearson denied that this project had been shelved. In July, 1967, the minister of finance of the day, who now is Secretary of State for External Affairs, said that a draft of the Canada Development Corporation bill would be ready for cabinet shortly. In March, 1968, the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) called the Canada Development Corporation a "valuable tool". It was promised to the people of Canada in the Speech from the Throne in September, 1968. In that month of that year the present Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) said, "I have the CDC bill in my hand. I expect to introduce it as soon as my fall budget is through." In April, 1969, the Minister of Finance said that he hoped to present a draft of the CDC proposal to the cabinet in the summer.
This has been long awaited legislation, Mr. Speaker, and now it is here. It is a pale version of what was first proposed by Mr. Gordon in 1965.


An hon. Member:: It surely is not.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: It certainly is a completely emasculated version of what the New Democratic Party has been talking about since 1961. It is quite apparent that the opposition of the corporate elite in this country has forced the Minister of Finance to denigrate and emasculate this concept so that we have before us today a legislative monstrosity. Someone said that a camel is the picture of a horse drawn by a committee bent on compromise. Certainly, that is exactly the kind of distortion that has finally emerged from seven years of Liberal gestation. I said, Mr. Speaker, that this bill is a monstrosity. I say so for three distinct reasons.
First, Mr. Speaker, under this legislation the taxpayers of Canada will take all the financial risks, and a comparatively small group of investors will get the major part of any profits which may eventually accrue to this enterprise. Under this measure the government will em-
Canada Development Corporation bark on what the minister calls a partnership. Speaking on February 22, as reported at page 3640 of Hansard, the minister said this about the Canada Development Corporation:
It will represent a new and significant partnership between the public and private sectors in the dynamic development of our economy.
Let us look at the Liberal party's idea of a partnership. This is a partnership in which the people of this country will put up, under this legislation, initially some $350 million, $250 million in equity capital and a loan of $100 million. In addition, the government will turn over to the corporation the assets of certain Crown corporations, valued anywhere from $300 million to $400 million. This money and these assets are being put up by all the taxpayers of this country, by the poor, the disadvantaged, the ordinary workers, the farmers and old age pensioners who pay taxes into the federal treasury. Yet, if this corporation does not operate successfully, they will lose the money which this government has invested.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question. He implied that the money invested would be tax revenue raised by the government of Canada. I am sure that he did not mean to leave that implication in his statement. It will, instead, be money raised by the government of Canada through the issuance of bonds.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Of
course. Yet surely the minister is not naive enough to think, and surely he does not think the public is naive enough to think, that if the government puts $350 million in cash plus all the assets of some Crown corporations into Canada Development Corporation, and the corporation fails, that the Canadian taxpayer will not have to make good the loss. In the event of failure, the responsibility being assumed by the government of Canada will be met by the taxpayers of this country. It is the money of the taxpayers which is being used. If there are losses, the Canadian people as a whole will have to pay. If the corporation is a success, as I hope, then it is clear that the major part of the profits will go to that small sector of the Canadian economy which is able to invest, probably between 7 per cent and 10 per cent of the population of Canada.
When I was a boy we used to play a game called "put-and-take". You put so much into the pot, and if you got a lucky number you were able to take. This bill, too, is like a put-and-take game.


An hon. Member:: It is a gamble.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The
Canadian people will put in the money and take all the risks; and if the corporation is successful the investment groups in the country will take the major part of the profits. This is the liberal idea of a partnership. The government takes comfort from the fact that it will be the largest shareholder and that its share will not go below 10 per cent. It may well be the largest shareholder, but it may not necessarily be the controlling shareholder.

March 2, 1971
Canada Development Corporation
A combination of companies each holding, say, 3 per cent of the equity of this corporation could well form the controlling group. Of the 18 or 21 directors on the board, only four, unless the government chooses the other option, will represent the government. The other alternative would be for the board to vote according to the number of voting shares held; but the government has given no assurance whatever that it intends to seek that alternative.
It is significant that the bill itself provides that the corporation is not responsible to Parliament. The people of Canada are being asked to underwrite a corporation that is not responsible to Parliament, not responsible to the elected representatives of the people. What we are going to have is a partnership in which the Canadian people take all the chances, undergo all the risks, put up in the initial stages all the money and assets and, if this project succeeds, then eventually those who are able to buy stock in this company will own 90 per cent and the Canadian taxpayers will own 10 per cent.
The second reason why I call this bill a monstrosity is that it proposes to sell out four Crown corporations. It proposes to sell the Polymer Corporation, which produces synthetic rubber and which has been a very successful operation; the Eldorado Mining Company; the Northern Transportation and the government's 45 per cent equity in Panarctic Oil. Later, if the government decides by order in council, it will sell Northern Transportation.
The minister has never explained why the Canadian people are being asked to go from 100 per cent ownership of these public enterprises to an eventual 10 per cent ownership. The Canadian people took all the risks. The Canadian people pioneered these projects. They have been brought to a point where they are self sustaining, and in some cases, revenue producing. Why does the government now propose to turn them over to a corporation of which the Canadian people will eventually own only a 10 per cent equity? As his reason for this, the minister stated on February 22, as recorded at page 3640 of Hansard:
Some of these enterprises are in a position where their further growth and development could be facilitated by giving them the greater flexibility to operate and better access to capital markets which would come from CDC ownership of their shares.
Do they lack flexibility now, Mr. Speaker? Polymer Corporation has branched out into a wide variety of activities, even outside this country. Do they lack access to capital? No one in this country can borrow money as cheaply and easily as the government of Canada. The government is really saying that it wants to divest itself of these public enterprises now that they have become successful.
If the government were really interested in developing the public sector of economy, the government could provide both the flexibility and access to the capital requirement to expand these industries rather than turning over 90 per cent of them to the private sector. This means that

the ordinary people of this country whose tax money or credit has been used to develop these Crown corporations are now going to see their share reduced from 100 per cent to 10 per cent. I think that this is a sop which the Liberal government is offering to their friends in the corporate structure at the expense of the Canadian people. This is exactly what the Liberal government did after World War II, when they took Crown corporations which had been set up during the war to provide essential economic services and sold them at firesale prices to the corporate establishment of this country. This action by the present government betrays the Liberal party's bias toward the financial establishment and its basic dislike of public ownership. After this demonstration, let's have no more talk by the Liberal party about its belief in public ownership.
The third reason why I have described this Canada Development Corporation, as envisaged by this government, as a monstrosity is that it will not be an instrument of national policy. The sole value of setting up a Canada Development Corporation is that it should be enabled to do the things which the private sector of the economy has either been unable or unwilling to do. Some years ago when I was involved in the matter of the industrial development agency in the province of Saskatchewan, I visited a number of countries to study the question of government development corporations. Whether you go to the Scandinavian countries, West Germany, Italy, France or Israel, you will find that in each of these instances the government's industrial agency is used as an instrument of national policy to do things for the nation as a whole. This government is proposing to turn that responsibility over to a private corporation in which the maximization of profit will be the principle motivation.
In Israel, where most of the large industrial enterprises are on a tripartite basis, one third of the equity is held by the government of Israel through its industrial development corporation, one third held by the Histdruth, which is the co-operative trade union organization and one third is held by private companies, many of them foreign, which also have the management contract to operate the business. This gives to those areas the best of both worlds. They get the benefit of the technical knowhow, expertise, managerial skill and the patents of private entrepreneurs while at the same time keeping the control of the industry in the hands of the people of that country and retaining two thirds of the profits in the country where it is being earned.
The minister made a passing reference to which I want to refer. I quote from page 3639 of Hansard:
We do not want another fiasco such as the one in Saskatchewan when the present leader of the NDP was Premier of that province.
I am not going to spend the time of the House discussing Saskatchewan. I do not mind if some Liberal backbencher out of a vast sea of ignorance makes comments about Saskatchewan, but the Minister of Finance (Mr. March 2, 1971

Benson) has access to the records and knows much better. He has on his staff some of the people who were largely responsible for carrying out the programs and policies of that government. He knows the facts. He knows that in the 20 years in which there was a CCF government in Saskatchewan, all the public sector, that part which was monopolistic, public utilities such as telephones, the sale and distribution of electric power and natural gas, showed a return of 9 per cent. The balance of the public sector, which covered such things as insurance, sodium sulphate, bus transportation and Northern Air Lines, showed a return of 16 per cent. That is not a bad record. Reference was made to the fact that a shoe factory or a woollen mill closed down. Mr. Speaker, the total losses represented less than one per cent of capital investment in the public enterprises, which is a better record than any private consortium can show. As a matter of fact, the sodium sulphate corporation could in one year, making as it does at this time profits of between $800,000 and $900,000 a year, pay off any losses incurred in these other operations.
But profits are not the whole story; there are also the services which were provided to the public. Power rates were reduced four times consecutively. Natural gas was sold to the people of the province at 25 cents per thousand cubic feet less than any private company was prepared to charge and, in addition, communities were served which no private company was prepared to reach.


Mr. Otio:: Per cubic foot?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I said 25 cents per m.c.f. less than any private company was prepared to charge.


Steven Otto: Per thousand.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In addition, there were the jobs which were provided. Investment in the public sector in Saskatchewan provided jobs at much less per employed person than is being spent today by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion which is handing hundreds of millions of dollars to private corporations which are producing relatively few jobs. So, I want no more talk referring to a "a fiasco" in the Province of Saskatchewan.
What should be the purpose of the CDC? It should be used as an economic tool to do some of the things which must be done in this country, and which the present government and preceding governments have failed to do. It should first of all be used to stop the increasing takeover of Canadian corporations by foreign multinational corporations. I agree with my hon. friend from Greenwood; we are not asking the CDC to begin at this point to buy back foreign ownership. This may come in the future. The immediate task facing the government is to halt the rapid acceleration in the takeover of Canadian businesses. The CDC should be doing this. Will such a task be possible, having regard to the very limited control and narrow influence which the government will retain in this company?
Canada Development Corporation
The CDC properly constituted, should be designed to help reduce the regional disparities which are tearing this country apart. This does not mean taking industries into areas where they are bound to lose money; if we are to invest money provided by Canadian taxpayers there have to be feasibility studies, we have to make sure that industries which are established have a reasonable chance of success. But a Canadian Development Corporation, properly established, could, on the basis of the necessary studies, having decided what industries are indigenous to the area concerned, develop undertakings which private corporations have so far neglected to bring into being. A properly constituted CDC could speed up the whole process of the rationalization of industry in this country, something which is badly needed. I will not repeat the story which has been recited so often to the effect that we have developed in Canada a branch plant economy producing for a limited market. Contrast this with the achievement of a small country such as Sweden, with a population of 7 million, or Norway, with a population of 3 million. Norway and Sweden have rationalized their industry, specializing in areas which are natural to their resources and expertise, and are presently competing in the markets of the world against the industrial giants. This is what Canada must do, and it can only be done if there is an instrument of national policy which is constituted to achieve that end.
The corporation should be using the savings of the Canadian people to set up industries which will process more of our raw materials in order to provide jobs for our people and give us a better return in world markets. To my mind, this is the most important task which should face such a corporation. Everyone knows that in Canada we are shipping out our raw materials and increasingly divesting ourselves of control over our energy resources. We are shipping to the United States and to Japan the raw materials on the one hand, and the energy resources on the other, to convert our raw materials into finished products which are then sold back to us. For as long as I can remember, it has been Liberal doctrine that if only we had a favourable balance of trade Canada would be wealthy.
Well, we do have a favourable trade balance, the highest in our history. But what are we doing? We are shipping out our raw material at relatively low prices and buying back finished goods at relatively high prices. What is the result? Last year, 200,000 young people came on to the labour market and we could provide jobs for only 77,000 of them. How can we provide jobs when our whole economy is being devoted mainly to extraction industries? The government keeps saying: we need more capital. But this capital goes into the extraction industries which are capital intensive but are not labour intensive. For example, we develop a great coal industry to supply coal to Japan on the basis of automated equipment which needs relatively little manpower to run. We are shipping out iron ore, again an operation which provides relatively little employment; the employment is to be found in turning this ore into iron and into steel and, eventually, into steel products. This is the only way in

March 2, 1971
Canada Development Corporation
which we shall develop a nation; we shall not develop a nation by sitting back selling our raw materials, selling our energy resources, and committing them for years in advance.
One has only to look at what happened last fall with respect to gas. We in this party protested the fact that the government was agreeing to the export of 6.3 trillion cubic feet of gas to the United States over the next 20 years without having given adequate consideration to our own probable needs. Now, what do we find? We find that before a hearing of the National Energy Board the President of Trans-Canada Pipe Lines says: We shall have to ask our customers in eastern Canada not to demand more gas; we are completely surprised at the increased demand in a period of only five months; it has increased by 122 billion cubic feet and we cannot meet this demand. We are mortgaging our energy resources decades in advance and shipping out our raw material. Then, we wonder why we have three-quarters of a million people unemployed.
Under this bill the Canadian economy is being sold out to the corporate elite of this country. There is no guarantee that if the Canada Development Corporation puts money into a Canadian company without having majority control, that company is not going to sell out to a foreign corporation. The Canada Development Corporation will be able to do nothing about the fact that the same company that it has helped to bankroll may decide it is good business to sell out. We might as well face the fact that Canadian business has been selling out to foreign investors, and there is nothing in the bill that prevents them from continuing to sell out.
The Minister of Finance in introducing this measure on February 22 said that it was not the only thing the government intended to do to maintain Canadian ownership. But what other things does the government intend to do? We have not heard a word as to that. Certainly, this measure will not do very much to guarantee Canadian ownership of the major part of the Canadian economy. This is a sell out, not only to the corporate establishment of this country but so far as the expectations of the Canadian people are concerned.
I think the Canadian people expected when the government was talking about a Canada Development Corporation it was going to be a tool which the government would use to make sure that the vast resources of this country were developed by Canadians and for Canadians; that it would be used to expand our economy under Canadian control, to the end that this country might once again have a measure of economic independence, something that is rapidly vanishing before our eyes. Three thousand years ago a wise man said: "Where there is no vision the people perish". If this government stands accused of anything, it stands accused of lacking the vision to do something about the economic plight of Canadians. Canada is a country with more resources per capita than any nation in the world; a country not only with natural resources but with the energy resources to

convert those natural resources into consumer goods; a country with a trained labour force and managerial skill; a country which, if it were prepared to plan its economy in terms of human need, could be one of the wealthiest and happiest nations in the world.
This government had a great opportunity to forge an instrument which could be used to build a greater and finer Canada. The government has failed to seize that opportunity. Instead, it presents us with this hybrid that ensures there will be neither public ownership nor private ownership but a mixture which, though it may result in some investors making a few profits, will deprive the Canadian people of what they require, namely a government agency designed to make Canada a great nation with a great destiny, something which our forefathers envisaged but which to date we have failed to bring to fruition.


Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, the act to
establish the Canada Development Corporation is no doubt an indication of the desire of the government to make this country's companies more Canadian. We agree of course with this principle. Its good intent must be emphasized and recognized. We have a duty, however, to criticize as objectively as possible the conditions of government action with respect to this development corporation.
The misgivings expressed by citizens of the province of Quebec will be better understood in the light of the results arrived at by a similar corporation established in Quebec a few years ago and known as the General Investment Corporation. My colleague from Compton (Mr. Latulippe) already referred to it. I shall not repeat here the arguments that he put forward.
May I nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, give the basic reasons for which, in my opinion, this act will perhaps not achieve its stated aims. First we must remember this major concept which daily experience invariably supports: the soundness of a concern and its success are based upon the work, the energy and the leadership of its members.
Now nobody can deny the necessity of a large measure of independence in the setting up of a sound company. Shareholders must feel they are competent and fully responsible. Any arbitrary and foreign control will soon paralyse all the good will in the world. Nothing is more serious than relying upon others.
I do not intend to demonstrate the viability of private enterprise as opposed to the financial problems generally encountered in state-owned enterprises, but I shall point out the basic reason why people do not work as much or as well when they know they are working for the government. Taking life easy is in style. Nobody wants to do more than the other guy, and who needs a rat race? In other words, one is less responsible when co-managing a company with the government. From which proceeds the principle that the government must provide assistance- on this we agree, Mr. Speaker-without interfering
March 2, 1971

Therefore, if we refer to the objective set forth on February 22 by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson), we certainly do agree, and I quote:
-help develop and maintain strong Canadian-controlled and Canadian-managed corporations in the private sector of the economy, and
-second part of that objectiveto give Canadians greater opportunities to invest and participate in the economic development of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, we all agree on this point. The question is invariably how and by what means will those purposes be achieved. And since more or less unfortunate experiences have been made, these should not be repeated.
The Minister of Finance stated in his speech on February 22nd that:
Business and industry have entered a new period of internationalism which makes it desirable that there be a number of Canadian controlled corporations with headquarters in Canada and with the kind of institutional strength and management capabilities to compete successfully in Canadian and international markets.
I say again, Mr. Speaker, that in principle we agree with this, but I owe it to myself to emphasize that this hang-up about international trade, international industry, international competition, is worth just that. Some time or other, it will be necessary to revert to a more elementary, more positive, more realistic principle, which is the following: If Canada has everything required to feed and clothe its population, to improve its comfort, in short, all the required manpower to that end, and all the primary resources required, and all we need is funds, we just have to make those funds available for the distribution of goods. And in saying this, I am not merely repeating a Creditiste fad.
When the country's economy is being paralysed under the pretense that we must join the international community of nations, often we go too far in that direction. And it was no doubt in virtue of such a principle that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said in New Zealand about a year ago, that we would import more dairy products from that country, and that the Canadian policy in that field aimed at a restriction of local production in order to purchase dairy products elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, if this principle were implemented, if we accept to stop producing what we were able to manufacture at the same price as in the United States, Europe, Asia, Latin America and Africa, in short, if we totally applied this principle we would have only to remain idle while importing and waiting.
We do know that this is impossible. We must not be haunted by international trade. Rather we should say: We have everything needed here to make products; let us make them. People are ready to consume them, let us give them the opportunity to do so. This is a principle of balance and sound accounting that should have been implemented long ago.
It would also be necessary, before establishing any new firm, to think of laying more stress on assistance to existing industries. In fact, there seems to be very poor
Canada Development Corporation co-ordination in the matter. Through the Department of Regional Economic Expansion, we lend haphazard assistance to some firms while we seem to ignore difficulties thus created for other existing concerns.
It seems that it is not so much a matter of bad faith as of poor co-ordination and poor leadership. If certain businesses cannot progress, or even survive, owing to the insufficient purchasing power of consumers, we will not settle the problem by helping such enterprises. We should insist, and in any case this is anticipated as on February 22 the Minister of Finance spoke as follows:
The CDC would seek to achieve its first objective by investing in the equity of existing corporations, by helping in the expansion and establishment of significant new enterprises and by assisting the expansion of existing ones.
Mr. Speaker, I wanted to point out that I agree with that. But, one must surely not forget existing undertakings, and one must surely not favour, through lack of co-ordination, some sort of dead-end in this field, protecting one at the expense of the other or creating a new industry at the expense of others already in existence. As a matter of fact, one must first of all see to what is already there, and help if necessary.
Mr. Speaker, one must always, in everything, naturally with regard to undertakings, in the sense that is meant in the establishment of the Canada Development Corporation, be wary of such direct action by the government. The powers that be may have the best of intentions, but the next year or a few years later, others may have taken their place and their intentions may not be quite the same, and then there may be very dire and disastrous consequences.
I disagree here with the too direct role the government intends to play in that Corporation, especially when we read at page 5 of the statement made by the Minister of Finance and I quote:
During any period when the government's voting shares exceed 50 per cent, of the outstanding shares issued, the Deputy Minister of Finance and the Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will be appointed ex-officiofortunately he added:
[DOT]-non-voting members of the board.
Mr. Speaker, we always look disapprovingly upon this direct action of the political members of the government in undertakings which in a sound economy should be entirely managed by Canadians, but exclusively according to the needs of the people and the spirit of initiative of those who wish to participate in the production. And when we realize that the government is considering direct action such as the minister sets out, we feel greatly reluctant. The minister goes even further when he adds in another paragraph:
Initially the government will be the sole shareholder and it will always be the largest single shareholder. Because of the significant role the corporation has been given by its purposes and objects, the government will want to show a continuing interest in it, and it is expected that the government will always want to hold at least 10 per cent of the voting shares. Thus, it will always be in a position to exercise the degree of influence on the over-all policies of the corporation which would be appropriate to its shareholding at any particular time.

March 2, 1971
Canada Development Corporation
It is clear enough that the intention is to control the Corporation through politicians in government and then-


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


René Matte: Mr. Speaker, I barely need a minute to finish.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Five o'clock. Is the hon. member granted the privilege of continuing for a few moments?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


René Matte: I thank my hon. colleagues.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that basically I agree with the creation of this corporation. Still, with regard to the means that are to be taken and specially the control the government will exercise, I agree less because what Canada needs, what Canadian enterprises need to develop, to improve, to better serve all Canadians, is precisely assistance to enable them to do more. It is not that Canadians lack initiative, that they are not energetic or industrious, that they cannot achieve that goal; it is always for the same reason: they lack the money, the capital.
That being the case, we could do every bit as well by easing credit. With very low rates of interest, the same results could probably be achieved.
Hoping that the government can lessen the intensity of the role it intends to play, I feel the proposed corporation could be helpful.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 40 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave)-National Defence-Dockyard employees wage dispute-Intervention of industry specialist- Amendment of offer to remove disparity; the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale)-Regional Economic Expansion-Incentive grant to Micro-Max products to establish plant in Magog, Quebec-Assistance to Canadian Drug industry; the hon. member for Vancou-ver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis)-Administration of Justice -Federal intervention in action brought by teachers respecting British Columbia Order in Council.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, public bills.
(Mr. Matte.]



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


Robert Jardine McCleave: that Bill C-30, to amend the Divorce Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, one of the great accomplishments of the Parliament which preceded this Parliament was the act to amend the Divorce Act which was passed in 1967 and 1968. It brought progress in this important field to a country which for many years had suffered under archaic laws relating to divorce. I believe it is a law which has stood up remarkably well, even in changing times over the past three years. Perhaps I might give the reason, although it is not really germane to the debate. We know the British have again amended their divorce act in order to get rid of the so-called fault concept. I suggest to those in this House who might favour this approach that in a large measure we did that when we dealt with the three year breakup of marriage in addition to retaining some of the older fault grounds, such as adultery and cruelty.
There may be a disposition some day to take a look at the Divorce Act and perhaps move entirely away from the fault basis, but I do not believe there is really any burning need in that respect. I think our Act is good. If I were to make any suggestions in respect of improvement I would say we could bring down the cost of divorce to Canadians. A number of cases are uncontested. I suppose about half the cases really do not involve the rights of children or property rights of the husband or wife. In that situation, it seems to me there is a fearful waste of courtroom time and a fearful cost to the people who must go through a rather elaborate legal procedure when something better could be devised. However, I do not suggest that in this rather modest measure we are discussing in this particular hour. What I am suggesting is an area of correction in the present section 11 of the Divorce Act. I believe I have made my argument pretty well in the explanatory notes that accompany both suggested changes.
The first suggestion involves giving some flexibility to the judges when they are in the process of granting a decree nisi. As perhaps everyone is aware there are two stages of a divorce decree. There is the decree nisi in the first instance, followed in three months' time by the decree absolute. The decree nisi procedure is what I am concerned with here. I am concerned about this because, at a meeting in Toronto a few years ago, the judges decided that all the major issues really had to be dealt with at the decree nisi stage in view of the way Parliament had framed this particular provision. In framing it we said that the courts, upon granting a decree nisi of divorce, may do all sorts of things with regard to orders in respect of the custody and maintenance of children and the like. We really did not give the courts flexibility in that regard. I, and other lawyers, have been involved
March 2, 1971

in cases in which we found we had to wait to get the decree nisi granted because, either we had not dealt with the matter of the custody of the children at the trial or the judge wanted to hear more evidence in respect of the custody of the children. In some cases the order was found to be defective when we tried to enforce it.
The judges have found their own cure for this defect in section 11. They make one dollar orders for maintenance and then it is quite simple under the present act to amend the one dollar order to a larger amount or cut it out altogether. This is a technicality, and sometimes technicalities are the cause of a miscarriage of justice. I am aware of cases where people have been deprived of their children just because of the lack of the two little words in my bill. I suggest that when something like this happens, it is up to Parliament to make a correction.
The other suggestion I make is an equally modest one. However, it has some relevance to those Canadians who move about. This has to do with a provision for looking into an order where a person has moved from one part of Canada to another. In this large country, it is no fun trying to chase down someone and bring him into court when an order is made in a Nova Scotia court and one of the parties has moved, say, to British Columbia. Under the law as we now have it we are left really with the court of original jurisdiction. Yet this country is over 3,000 miles wide and surely we can bring about a change that would help overcome some of the geographical distance.
What I propose here is to add about a dozen or so words, which are underlined on page 2 of my bill. This would enable the court in any province where the party for whose benefit the order is made is residing to look at the original order, confirm it or order changes or variations. One of the really motivating factors which I believe brought about a change in divorce law in Canada, although for years we were sitting around with our knees sort of knocking together when we thought about the process of changing the divorce law, was the idea that we were looking after helpless people and providing for relief to be given to children. There were social injustices, but more particularly injustices involving children of marriages that had broken up and therefore Parliament had to do something about them. Yet, sir, unless we adopt the simple variation that I am suggesting here many women who have moved from one province to another with their children will experience great difficulty if they attempt to vary an order because of changed circumstances. The person has to go back to the province where the order was obtained. I think this is an injustice which can be cured by adopting the formula I propose or by adopting some other formula.
So, it is in the spirit of bringing a new broom to reach into the few musty corners that have developed under our Divorce Act of a couple of years ago that I present Bill C-30 to the House this afternoon. I hope that it, or some measure like it can be tackled reasonably soon. I do not think we have to go into a whole new debate on divorce, but we should always have some care for good
Divorce Act
housekeeping. We should spend some time during our private member's hour to cure some of the little but griping defects that crop up in our legislation from time to time. I hope that I will not bring down the heavens or a full scale, dramatic debate on divorce by simply suggesting these two small but important areas of reform.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I have had the opportunity-and I could say the privilege-to give marriage preparation courses for 12 years and even though I do not claim to be an expert on the question, I find the subject matter of my hon. friend's proposal quite interesting.
At the outset of my remarks, I wish to deplore the ever increasing number of divorces and the regrettable situation which is thus being created.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that this intolerance between spouses, between children and their parents, is one of the causes of the problems we are facing in our modern society.
In my view, divorce is a plight, a situation which in principle should not be considered as normal. All too many people tend to consider divorce and its consequences as a normal situation and I wish to take exception to the attitude of some people for whom marriage is a situation which is not necessarily to be chosen by the majority of the people living on this planet.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that marriage is indissoluble. This should not lead anyone to conclude that I am unable to comprehend particular situations and the difficulties of some people who have chosen matrimony by interest, who have chosen to spend their lives together without first weighing the consequences of their action.
I am convinced that an adequate preparation for prospective spouses and an accepted adaptation can overcome most problems. Incompatibility of temper is undoubtedly something that can be foreseen but, what often happens is that people through self-interest or for considerations other than that of living together decide to get married.
Mr. Speaker, marriage courses are an institution that should be generalized. As a matter of fact, they are becoming more and more popular. They enable an engaged couple to know each other better and prepare themselves better for their new life. They enable individuals to realize, before it is too late, the impossibility of living together and the possibility of re-examining their choice.
Mr. Speaker, I believe one must try to face the present situation with a little more realism and that is what I will endeavour to do even after pointing out that although divorce bears the stamp of law, I believe it remains a situation that I consider, as a matter of principle, abnormal, even if I may admit that some individuals have no other alternative.
Mr. Speaker, the new Divorce Act corrects a distasteful situation. Formerly obliged to plead their case in Ottawa and to prove adultery on the part of the spouse, people from Quebec especially did not easily reconcile them-

March 2, 1971
Divorce Act
selves to divorce, but the marriage institution, one must admit, did not fare any better there than in other provinces.
We merely pretended to ignore it. Simplified as it is, divorce is nonetheless a serious decision that is far from amusing. A love story ending amidst the gloomy setting of a court is nothing to be envied.
An act likely to weaken the family, the basic unit in our society, and involving serious consequences for two adult people and their children, must, first of all, be scrutinized. It is worth knowing all about the divorce machinery and trying to learn what becomes of the individuals concerned, in such a case of permanent separation.
However, in divorce, the women are the losers. First, there are four times as many women as men available in this country; besides, because they look after the children, women accept heavy responsibilities, morally and materially. There is all the difference in the world between taking two children out on Sunday afternoon and looking after them each day of the year, answering all their questions, facing their emotional problems, explaining to a young daughter why her father is not always there, as her little girl-friend's father.
Mr. Speaker, in Quebec the family has been for some years submitted to tremendous pressures which are leaving it shaken to its very foundations. Social changes and new ideologies have both contributed to reduce significantly its traditional importance. The role of the family is different now. Contacts between its members are not so frequent and generally not so rewarding.
Even though these facts may be explained, it remains that the family is now undergoing a delicate period of adjustment. It should also be recognized that a couple's life, mainly in the cities, has become harder. Formerly marriage had a precise meaning for all Catholics. A man and a woman got married for better or worse without worrying too much about a possible separation if the worst was to overcome the best.
The Divorce Act no doubt reflects a weaker religious faith. This act has changed everything. In 1971, when serious difficulties are met, the spouses are very much tempted to resort to the final solution. In this context, perhaps we should not be surprised at the bishops' statement who deplore the present situation of the Quebec family.
The document issued by the Canadian and Quebec episcopate on the occasion of its quarterly meeting is quite clear. Among the events which influenced our people's way of thinking is the provincial legislation which permits marriage before a civil officer and mainly the federal legislation which multiplied the reasons for civil divorce and its implementation in Quebec courts.
To say that the bishops cannot but condemn divorce would be quite easy. The problems created by divorce for the spouses and the children are real and recent statistics are worth considering. From July 1, 1968 to September 9, 1970, 11,030 civil divorce cases were recorded in Montreal and 1,817 in Quebec.

When the law was implemented, it was believed that the number of divorces would decline after the first year. Now, after more than two years, requests for civil divorce continue to increase at an alarming rate. Each month, requests number about 500 at the Montreal record office-at the end of 1970 yet.
In their pastoral letter, bishops avoided denouncing directly the law authorizing divorce but did mention its serious consequences. Under the circumstances, they were right in asking the state to formulate and apply a policy likely to prevent family problems which prompt married couples to divorce.
The suggestion of my hon. friend comprises two points. The first is concerned with adding words which, in some way, would allow the court or the judge who will grant a decree nisi not to rule immediately on the matter of alimony or custody of the children. In the present situation, upon granting a decree nisi of divorce, the judge may, if he thinks it fit, and having regard to the circumstances, make an order requiring the husband to secure or to pay such lump sum or sums owing to the wife or the children.
I do not believe that the proposal of my hon. friend is acceptable, not because the judges have already expressed the opinion that it would not be advisable not to make such an order at the same time as the decree nisi, but simply because while hearing divorce cases, it is desirable that the debate be decided at the same time, and that the judge who must decide whether or not a divorce is advisable, may at the same time render a decision as to alimony and custody.
It seems essential to me that the judge who must decide to grant the divorce or not be empowered also to render a judgment on those important matters of alimony and custody. It would be a mistake, I think, to try and separate the two questions, since divorce invariably brings about the problem of the custody of the children. And if a judge, for some reason or other, had to decide on a divorce and not on the custody of children at the same time, truly abnormal and irregular situations could arise which would eventually be detrimental to the children. And the most important thing to be decided in these cases is not so much the divorce but the implications it bears for the children.
I suggest then that my hon. friend's proposal, although I do not deem it ridiculous-on the contrary, it makes some sense-is not at all desirable.
As far as the second proposal of my hon. friend is concerned, it seems quite justified to me at first sight. When two people get a divorce in one province and if the person in whose favour the divorce has been granted leaves that province afterwards, there might be practical difficulties involved for the person wishing to go to court again because of the distance and the different circumstances in which that person may be. The financial implications for anyone who has had a divorce in Quebec and who would be residing in British Columbia might well prevent her from obtaining justice for herself and
March 2, 1971

for her children if due to the circumstances she were justified in requesting a change in alimony or new arrangements for the custody of the children.
Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to say whether from a constitutional point of view this would involve insuperable difficulties. However, I would simply like to say that at first sight, the suggestion made by my hon. friend seems fair and reasonable and it would be easy to propose some amendments to the act that would help solve this problem.
In concluding, Mr. Speaker, allow me to say this: There can be no substitute for personal individual effort. It is the duty of every Christian to carry out fully the values of his marriage commitments.
Christian parents are to give their children the example of a union lived in faith and love; that is one of their responsibilities, and an irreplaceable one.
A sound preparation should reveal to future spouses that the depth of their mutual commitment will ensure their faithfulness.
Judges and lawyers, as the law requires of them, should give positive assistance to people in view of reconciliation, informing them, if necessary, of agencies and means available to help them.
All agencies involved in family problems should unite their efforts and co-operate actively in order to avoid dispersal of available resources and I am aware of the tremendous work they have already accomplished.
It is the state's duty to develop and apply policies likely to prevent the evils we have referred to. We cannot but support here what many others have already been calling for: the establishment of a "family court". The concrete terms of the organization and operation of such a court are the work of experts. They will no doubt find a source of inspiration in existing organizations.
I hope that this court will be able to solve distressing familial problems in a more simple way than presently.
Family problems in modern society are acute. I hope that, all together, we shall have the courage to face them and find efficient solutions in keeping with today's world.


Mr. Colin D. Gibson (Hamilion-Wenlworih):: Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to follow the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Marceau) who has eloquently dealt with the bill before the House. I think that the bill presented by the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) has a great deal of merit, particularly in respect of new section 11(1). As we know, the evidence in divorce cases is usually prepared thoroughly yet often the parties are ill-prepared to consider the welfare of the children; therefore the trial judge cannot easily dispose of this matter. The trial judge also faces difficulties respecting alimony and support.
New section 11(1) contains the words "or after" and the first part of it reads:
Upon or alter granting a decree nisi of divorce, the court :may, if it thinks it fit and just-
Divorce Act
And so on. If the evidence respecting the children has not been properly prepared, and if the parties have not been as careful and as frank as they ought to have been regarding that evidence, the judge in my opinion ought not to be hasty in making a custody order. In such cases he might make a serious error.
We must consider several matters if the court is to be given the power not only of deciding on divorce but also on the children of the marriage, as is proposed in this bill. In Ontario there is an office known as the official guardian. The official guardian is an officer of the court and employs welfare officers who investigate the cases of children concerned. They are supposed to do their jobs thoroughly. Sometimes they do not do so. I submit it would be wrong for us to say that the divorce ought to be delayed merely because a careful judge-and most judges are careful-considers that the report of the welfare officer is fragmentary and he is suspicious that one or more of the children is being neglected.
I say by all means let the divorce go through, but allow the court to determine the issue of custody after there has been care and preparation in bringing forward the evidence. I regret that in some provinces there is no official guardian to investigate the welfare of the children concerned. I hope that all provinces will take this great step forward which is so necessary if one is to look into the welfare of children. I firmly believe that in the matter of custody the welfare of the child is paramount. Before I deal with the second matter raised in the bill- and it raises many interesting points-I should like to read proposed new section 11(2):
An order made pursuant to this section may be varied from time to time or rescinded by the court that made the order or by the court for any province where the party for whose benefit the order was made is residing if it thinks it fit to do so having regard to the conduct of the parties since the making of the order or any change in the condition, means or other circumstances of either of them.
Let us suppose that the husband is awarded custody of two children by an Ontario court and he and the children are living in Ontario. Then the wife moves to British Columbia and before moving, pursuant to the Ontario judge's order, obtains access to the children for two weeks. She moves to British Columbia and the children go with her. Then let us suppose that the wife becomes ill, needs assistance in supporting the children and cannot get them back to Ontario. I submit that in this case the husband would be in difficulties. Which court would have jurisdiction over the children? I maintain that in order to safeguard the welfare of the children the province in which they normally reside ought to have jurisdiction.
The circumstances I have outlined would create great difficulties for the parents. Is the wife to be permitted to go to the British Columbia Supreme Court and obtain an order for the children? She may not be a fit and proper person to have their custody. And what is to happen to the husband who is in Ontario? He might apply to the Ontario court for an order to enforce his rights provided in the original judgment. Which order is to prevail?

March 2, 1971
Divorce Act
The hon. member's bill contains the germ of a good idea. I do not wish to throw mud on his proposal because it heads in the right direction. We recognize, in other words, that people move. When they move, their circumstances sometimes change. We must therefore find a way of dealing with conflicts created by modern times. I commend the hon. member for his thoughtfulness, yet I am afraid that his suggestion will not do in its present form. Two fighting parents could use this law to prevent the course of true justice. Supposing the original Ontario court order provided alimony for the wife of $300 a month: if the wife moved to British Columbia and obtained an order for $500 a month, which of the two court orders would prevail? This section does not make provision for that situation. Perhaps we should give paramountcy in financial matters-that is, alimony to the court where the original order was made. In matters of custody, paramountcy should be given to the court having jurisdiction where the children reside. In any event, we are plagued today with a mobile population, difficulties of communication, difficulties of finance and all the other matters that weigh on the problems of broken homes and these unfortunate people.
The rights of the children must be strictly and zealously guarded by more up to date Children's Aid Society reporting and more skilled and conscientious social workers being brought into this problem. There are signs of this being done. I think that Ontario has a reasonably good family court system; it is improving all the time. With the young offenders legislation and statutes like it which I hope will be before the House soon, we will improve our discipline of children. On the matter of reorganization of the courts, great consideration is being given to granting county court judges jurisdiction over divorce. I hope that these judges will maintain, under the surrogate court act of Ontario, jurisdiction over the custody of infants.
Perhaps the county court judge is better fitted in many ways to deal with divorce, custody, alimony and problems of broken homes. He is in some ways a little closer to the people in the sense that he lives in the community and is not a roving judge as are the trial judges of many of our supreme courts. Perhaps the criteria should be that the county wherein the parties reside should have paramount jurisdiction over custody, and the court granting the original alimony order should be the one to decide on problems of alimony and financial questions.
This is a very interesting problem. Divorce reform has moved forward rapidly. I can honestly say that the cases I have heard about in my area have not created a flood of abusive types of divorce. Many people who were unfortunately separated and whose marriages were completely sundered have been able to obtain a divorce without adultery being the only ground. From what I have heard there has not been a flood of divorces in the sense that every second or third family is rushing to get one. I think the bona fides of the situation have been well received by the community at large.

By and large we have progressed a great distance toward more humane laws. We have failed in respect of the problems raised by section 11(2) because that section presents a technical barrier to justice-conflicting jurisdictions; which court shall have power. It is our duty and responsibility to struggle with any technical problem as to which court has power. I think the only forum wherein this problem can be solved is a federal-provincial conference. Perhaps the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Premiers of the provinces should study the matter and establish throughout Canada a uniform jurisdictional system for divorce, alimony and custody. I think that would be useful and, in light of what my hon. friend indicated, I believe he would like to see it come about.
The judge should not be pressured in a situation where he has very little evidence. He should not be forced to decide divorce and custody issues as well as financial matters if the evidence is not there. We can be almost certain that evidence as to the breakdown of the marriage will be there. There are problems in the far north, the Northwest Territories and the Yukon. These areas were visited by the Committee on the Constitution. There were complaints that spouses had moved many hundreds of miles away and there was no way of obtaining speedy justice. I hope this Parliament will seek ways to improve the system of helping people in remote parts of Canada to obtain speedier and less costly relief than at present. Many people in the far north are unable to receive speedy justice. Their children are in the same boat. We should have a legal aid system which will assist, in particular, the children of broken marriages in the far north.
I commend the mover of this bill. I cannot agree with the details of section 11(2) but I think it is a very thoughtful and interesting proposal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, once again in private members' hour we have a bill which presents a very useful suggestion, which we support. It seems there is unanimous agreement on either one of two points, either that the bill should be passed as is or at least that the first proposal should be accepted and that further consideration should be given to the second proposal. I hope the traditions of private members' hour will not be like the laws of the Medes and the Persians, namely, that hon. members have to talk everything out. On occasion, a proposition like this does move to a further stage. To give the House that opportunity, I wish to present an amendment. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey (Mr. Mather):
That Bill C-30 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
The phrase "be not now read a second time" sounds unfriendly, but it really is not. We sometimes use this device to see that a bill which hon. members are not quite ready to pass will get further consideration in the committee. I spoke to the hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave) about this. He recognizes that this is a friendly gesture. I hope the House might favourably
March 2, 1971

consider this amendment so that the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs can give further consideration to this bill.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, the bill before the House is of particular interest to the first society that ever existed on this planet-mankind.
If I correctly understand the origin of man on earth, the family is of divine institution and constitutes the foundation of our society. Even though according to what we were taught, society has been established by God, it is nonetheless made of human beings, therefore subject to imperfection. At times difficulties arise between people who were married when they were really in love but who, owing to such difficulties, have reached the point where governments have authorized the breaking up of their marriage in order to enable them to have a new start in life, if possible and if they so desire.
The bill before us provides for a change which deserves careful consideration, as we are indeed placed before an accomplished fact.
Divorce was sanctioned by civil legislation. It happens that divorces are recognized by judicial powers. Following these divorces, the family, the children, have to face problems.
I have just read an amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to the effect that the bill should be referred to the Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. I think that this suggestion is useful. Indeed, we cannot allow ourselves to consider lightly a bill with such a wide scope and we must take all necessary means to assure that the children issued from more or less successful marriages which are finally dissolved will see their rights recognized by society, in order that they can lead a normal life.
Mr. Speaker, I think that such a question should be duly referred to a committee for thorough consideration and report and this would allow us to lessen the effects of divorce while those infortunate families and children who have to suffer from their parents' divorce could take advantage of the protection to which they are entitled and lead a normal life in our society.


Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, in my view the bill before us is a good example of the type of subject which is well brought before the House in this hour. The hon. member for Halifax-East Hants (Mr. McCleave), a lawyer by profession and very well regarded in this chamber, has given us the benefit of his experience in the application of the law and has proposed two specific amendments to it.
I believe this is the first time he has presented this bill to the House, and the debate has been most interesting. I was interested in the comments of my hon. friend from Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Gibson), in the amendment moved by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and in the comments of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert). It is clear that a number of improvements could be made to the law.
Canada Development Corporation
The second provision of the bill before us attempts to deal with the situation in which one of the parties to a marriage takes up residence in another province of Canada. As the hon. member pointed out, there is serious restriction under the present law because amending procedures can only be undertaken in the province in which the original jurisdiction lay. I am not sure I understand the full purport of the hon. member's amendment. I think he has tried to say that a remedy can be sought in the courts of the province where the party for whose benefit an order is being made is residing.
My hon. friend pointed out situations in which a possible conflict might arise in determining which of the parties was deriving benefit. The phrase might have application to both parties to the original action. This should not in itself impair the attempt the hon. member is making, because he has drawn attention to a very real grievance. I hope the result of this hour which has been spent in the House will be to provoke an examination in the press and elsewhere to determine whether the particular provisions put forward in the bill are the most appropriate.
Only a limited number of bills can go before committees of this House for examination. I agree we have to seek means by which bills are screened, to discover those of particular merit. This is as meritorious a bill as I can conceive. The problem of screening private members' bills in order to bring before the committee structure those which are attempting to deal with issues in a practical way is one which has not yet been resolved to the satisfaction of members of this House. I hope, however, that after this debate has encouraged an examination of these questions and an evaluation of public opinion on the subject the comments made by those who examine the record will assist the hon. member and others to persevere in their efforts, because I am confident that some measures will be adopted. I hope the hour's debate in which we have taken part will lead to further action.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard):: Order, please. The hour for private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair. Unlike other less fortunate people, our separation will be short. In the circumstances I will say, "parting is such sweet sorrow".
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Benson that Bill C-219, to establish the Canada Develop-
[Stage Direction]
March 2, 1971
Canada Development Corporation ment Corporation, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, and the amendment thereto of Mr. Salts-mian (page 3648).
Mr. Cliff Downey (Battle River):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard a great many words uttered on the subject of the Canada Development Corporation. A great many members who said they agreed with the principle of the bill nevertheless wondered how it might work in practice when it came down in realistic terms to financing and to human personalities. Many aspects of the bill that could be questioned and many of the fears people have of this type of legislation have already been outlined; indeed, my leader, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield), expressed them very thoroughly this afternoon.
I do not propose to belabour the reasons why this bill will not work. I must say I have a certain amount of agreement with the principle of the bill even though in practice it will be completely impractical because of the personal conflicts that will make the legislation unworkable. But in looking at a measure such as this I do not believe you can oppose it absolutely without putting forward some reasonable alternative.
I am not going to attempt to cover the ground already traversed by other speakers in the debate during the past week or so. This afternoon the leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), expressed some concern over foreign ownership in Canada and contended that we should process our natural resources here in Canada, thus creating more jobs and industries which would, if not wholly, at least partially solve our unemployment problem.
To my mind the important thing is not where the ownership of corporate entities lies; it is more a matter of how the capital and the profits made by these corporations are employed once the corporations are created. I believe this boils down to the philosophy of wanting the state to go into the business of manufacturing goods, creating wealth in this country and then distributing it to each individual according to his need. I do not believe the state should be involved in this sort of thing. Rather than the state looking after all things for all men, manufacturing goods and distributing them to each according to his need, I believe an alternative solution can be worked out.
I support the philosophy that the individual is paramount and that the main role of government is, in addition to keeping the peace and maintaining national security, the development and maintenance of a social, economic and political climate in which the individual can achieve his or her fulfilment. As an alternative to the doctrine of socialism, where the state takes all and distributes to each according to his need, we must recognize that in a technological society such as ours, the capital instruments of production-the machines and devices that produce-are rapidly supplanting labour as the
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Richard).]
major producer of wealth. We should also recognize that there are only three ways in which an individual can support himself and his dependents: by his own labour power, by the earning power of his capital or by a combination of both. It should be the policy in the future to encourage and facilitate by every means possible the widest possible individual ownership of capital, particularly the ownership of common or equity shares in our many well established companies.
I support this idea, and in this vein I want to read to the House some remarks made by Mr. Frank Capon, vice-president and director of Dupont of Canada Limited in a speech he made at St. Louis, Missouri:
We have come full circle. Originally, security was based on-ownership of land, which was capital. Today, security can come only from the ownership of the machines which produce incomes, which is still capital. Unfortunately, we allowed ourselves to get trapped in a fallacy that it was labour, or the human element, that produced the goods of the industrial revolution and that job security was therefore a legitimate and, in fact, vital right of the citizen. We must now make the choice. Either we recognize that most wealth is, and always was, produced by capital and that the security which is an innate need of the human animal can be satisfied only by ensuring a broad ownership of capital amongst our households. Or we will hold stubbornly to the concept that wages are the proper basis for wealth distribution, that job security is essential, that workers have the right to stop our whole economy short as they strike to enforce demands, and that the state will finally "guarantee" to all an income above the "poverty" level.
It is precisely because we are still on the latter course that we see the upsurge of irresponsible wage increases, the dramatic growth in strikes particularly against the community as a whole rather than against individual employers, and the inevitable destruction of our currency values by inflation. Already, interest rates have been pushed to historic highs, endangering the ability to finance government and industrial needs by bonds which are a cornerstone of our entire structure. The tolerance of all our people against hardship, poverty and unemployment was never lower, because they have been assured that we now have the ability to create affluence and that governments can be relied on to give them guaranteed incomes. In desperation youth, coloured people, unionized workers, and even school teachers turn to violence in their frustration at the absence of any effective leadership in the solution of our basic dilemma. Man must have security, even if in the final analysis it is only the security of knowing that everyone is in equally desperate straits.
We must look at the situation and recognize the fact that if we are going to perpetuate the free enterprise system as an alternative to socialism, we must design some method of increasing capital ownership and capitalists in this country. This is very basic to the direction we are heading today. I repeat, if we continue to follow the direction we are following today, we must think in terms of creating more capitalists in Canada. We must ensure that more individuals become owners of the common and preferred stock of established companies.
An alternative to socialism as proposed is the establishment of a type of insurance company or consortium of companies to ensure individual and group loans to Canadians by existing financial institutions in order to buy newly issued common stocks of publicly listed Canadian companies. I suggest that one precedent for this would be insured house mortgages under the National Housing Act, with government backing.
March 2, 1971

I suggest that it might be possible to use the ten blue chip stocks in Canada-those companies that have the best growth performance in this country-in order to ensure this type of investment. If we look to the performance of our ten top Canadian companies I suggest it would be much easier to guarantee these stocks than it would be the stocks of individual houses. One does not know the type of ownership he will get in respect of a house, in stock terms. To use the terminology of the range, it is easier to kick hell out of a house than it is to kick hell out of a house financed by ownership stock. This should be borne in mind. It would necessitate amendment to the Income Tax Act to exempt from corporate income tax the new common stock issues that companies issue to finance their corporate expansions, provided that all earnings, less depreciation and other approved allowances, were paid out to the new stockholders.
This would enable the new stockholders who have borrowed the money to buy stocks to repay their loans and the interest thereon from the earnings of the stocks rather than from their own pockets. There is some precedence for this. I refer to the rapid depreciation that is now being allowed in respect of plants being built in designated areas.
I believe when we look at the earnings of the top ten companies in Canada we will see there is a net earnings picture, before tax, of something between 16 per cent and 33 per cent. From the evidence in the United States it would seem that 90 per cent of the capital expansion of companies comes from late earnings, and 10 per cent from new share issues. I suggest that if these companies were to pay out to the shareholders the 90 per cent they now retain and finance their capital expansion through new shareholdings, it would be possible for all the basic participants in industry to get a part of the action. Obviously, loans will be insured only for the purchase of new common stocks approved by the insuring company. I think this would cover most of the new stock issues of most mature Canadian companies.
I suggest, in order to prevent what we might term the greedy taking advantage of this socially desirable situation, the purchase of such stock by individuals should be limited to perhaps $2,000 per year per adult up to a certain date each year, and that thereafter the individual's limit be progressively raised until all the new issue is purchased. The companies whose stocks are not approved by the insuring companies of course will have to be financed in the conventional way.
I hate at this time, because of the present situation, to refer to the growth trend of companies but I should like to refer to the pre-Benson days when things were running along normally in this country and the businessmen did not have the wits, as we might say, scared out of them. I could refer to the growth of the economy in Japan, as an example. The growth of Japan is probably the most dynamic in the world today. The Japanese economy has been expanding since World War II, for the last 20 or 25 years, at an average rate of more than 9 per
Canada Development Corporation
cent per year. I think it was only last year that it reached something like 13 per cent. Practically all this growth has been financed internally in Japan.
I suggest that the situation in Japan bears looking at. I see no reason why we could not create the same type of performance here in Canada, with the type of country and people we have. I do not think what I am suggesting can be brought about overnight; I believe it would probably take a decade or more to accomplish it. However, if we could establish the policy of a second income, I believe this would automatically reduce one of the many problems we have today. I refer to such things as welfare and strikes. In this way the factory workers would participate in industry, would be shareholders in industry and would feel they were part of the situation.
There are a great many government hand-outs in the society we have today, but I say again a permanent solution cannot be found in the present method of redistributing wealth, which I suppose is based on what we might term the Robin Hood principle of plundering some to give to others. In addition to plundering some to give to others, we have the government stealing from us all through inflation. This is a continual process. No one can deny that these factors are present. We are witnessing this every day, and it is growing.
In contrast, the suggestion I have made is based upon the principle of helping our people become self-supporting by participating in the economy both as workers and owners. Under these conditions I think we would find that social strife would reduce rapidly because people would be more content to do their own thing. I do not believe they would be continually attempting to get a bigger piece of a limited economic cake by means of coercion by government, by groups and by labour unions. I am suggesting that anybody in this House who believes in the principle of free enterprise, and who believes that the government should not merely take over and distribute everything, would agree-when I say everybody, I include all parties in this House-that we should see that the workers have a piece of the action. We have to make more capitalists in this country. I sincerely believe this is the only alternative to what might ultimately become a completely socialist state.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question? The question is on the amendment. All those in favour of the amendment 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 nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the members.

March 2, 1971
The House divided which was negatived
Barnett
Brewin
Burton
Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands)
Gilbert
Gleave
Howard (Skeena) Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre)
Alexander
Alkenbrack
Allmand
Andras
Asselin
Badanai
Baldwin
Barrett
Basford
Beaudoin
Bechard
Benson
Bigg
Blair
Blouin
Borrie
Boulanger
Breau
Brown
Buchanan
Caccia
Clermont
Cobbe
Code
Comeau
Comtois
Corbin
Corriveau
Cote (Richelieu)
Crossman
Crouse
Cullen
Cyr
Danson
Davis
Deachman
Deakon
De Bane
Dinsdale
Dionne
Douglas (Assiniboia)
Dube
Dupras
Duquet
Emard
Forest
Forget
Forrestall
Fortin
Foster
Francis
Gauthier
Gendron
Gibson

Division
on the amendment (Mr. Saltsman) on the following division:
YEAS Messrs:
Maclnnis (Mrs.)
Mather
Orlikow
Peters
Rowland
Saltsman
Skoberg
Thomson
(Battleford-Kindersley) Winch-17.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Givens
Godin
Goode
Goyer
Gray
Grills
Guay (St. Boniface)
Guay (Levis)
Guilbault
Gundlock
Haidasz
Harkness
Hopkins
Horner
Howe
Hymmen
Jamieson
Jerome
Kaplan
Knowles (Norfolk-Haldimand)
Korchinski
Lachance
Laflamme
Laing
(Vancouver South) Lambert
(Bellechasse)
Lambert
(Edmonton West) Langlois Laprise Latulippe Leblanc (Laurier) LeBlanc (Rimouski) Lefebvre Legault
Lessard (LaSalle)
Lind
Loiselle
MacDonald (Egmont) Macdonald Rosedale) MacEachen MacGuigan Maclnnis (Cape
Breton-East Richmond) Mackasey MacLean Macquarrie McBride McCleave McGrath McKinley McQuaid
Messrs:
Mahoney	Rondeau
Marceau	Roy (Timmins)
Marchand	Ryan
(Langelier)	Scott
Marchand	Simpson
(Kamloops - C ar iboo)	Skoreyko
Matte	Smerchanski
Mazankowski	Smith (Saint-Jean)
Monteith	Southam
Morison	Stafford
Munro	Stanfield
Murphy	Stewart
Murta	(Okanagan-Kootenay)
Noble	St. Pierre
Noel	Sullivan
O'Connell	Tetrault
Olson	Thomas
Orange	(Maisonneuve-
Osier	Rosemomt)
Otto	Thompson (Red Deer)
Paproski	Tolmie
Peddle	Trudel
Penner	Turner (London East)
Perrault	Turner (Ottawa-Carleton)
Prud'homme	Wahn
Ricard	Watson
Richardson	Whelan
Ritchie	Whicher
Roberts	Woolliams
Rochon	Yanakis
Rock Rodrigue
Yewchuk-161.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the amendment lost.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, it will come as no great surprise to hon. members to learn that I intend to move an amendment, the one which was telegraphed ahead today by my leader. I had been waiting in the hope that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and members on the government side would recognize the validity and usefulness of such an amendment and approach me during the supper hour to indicate that they would accept an amendment to the bill along those lines.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: Their failure to do so compels me to go through the formality of moving the amendment. Many hon. members, including myself, have wondered why this bill was moved at this time. We have heard the valid and articulate reasons advanced by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) for the amendment I am going to move. Why else did the Minister of Finance choose this particular time to move this bill? I wondered about this until I read the press release which accompanied the introduction of the bill for second reading. It is magnificent document, a tremendous document.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald William Baldwin: What happened? The Canada Development Corporation has been in the process of gestation for eight years.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: I assume that when the Liberal government first came to power, they prepared this press release and it has been lying around ever since.
March 2, 1971


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if we could have peace and quiet in the chamber. It is difficult for the Chair to follow the hon. member's statement.


Gerald William Baldwin: Suddenly, the Minister of Finance, having a few spare moments when he was not employed in his other activities, reached into a drawer, pulled out this press release and read it. What did it say? Let me read in part its beautiful language:
This government believes that there is a role to be played by a new institution, backed by substantial sources of Canadian capital and managed by skilled, experienced Canadian entrepreneurs, to help make possible fuller Canadian participation in the growth and development of Canada. Such an institution will be able to work closely with other members of the Canadian business and financial community and provide Canadian entrepreneurship with the access to more substantial concentrations of Canadian capital required to ensure a greater Canadian presence in the growth of our own economy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: So it goes, Mr. Speaker, nauseating page after nauseating page. What happened? On reading this press release, the Minister of Finance said, "A press release like this demands a bill to support it." That is why we have this bill today. He felt that such a press release should not be abandoned in the arid atmosphere of the Minister of Finance's drawers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: I mean his desk drawers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Gerald William Baldwin: Every time the Minister of Finance gets up to propose a bill-and I told him this today-I begin to wish that this nation were wearing a chastity belt.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Edgar John Benson: You have been reading English
newspapers.


Gerald William Baldwin: There might be one area in which a bill of this kind could be useful. Many years ago I recommended something like this: there is a place, a limited place, for risk capital being supplied at the behest of the government; that is, in the case of northern development. The minister did not mention that in his press release. Many years ago I had the pleasure of attending a meeting in Edmonton in connection with northern development. At that time it was pointed out by people prominent in the business of investment capital that though the development of the north was essential, capital was not prepared to go into the north because of the high level of risk involved. At that time I proposed that a limited area of legislation of this kind might well be developed for the purpose of helping the north.


Edgar John Benson: PanArctic.


Gerald William Baldwin: The minister is being ludicrous, as usual. There is no connection. This bill, as my leader said today,
Canada Development Corporation
is premature. It serves no useful purpose at this time. When we as members of the House of Commons are presented with legislation, we must ask ourselves: What evil is it intended to remedy? What difficulty is it intended to cure? Is it likely to achieve the results intended? On this occasion the answer from these benches must be a resounding no. We say the bill in its present form cannot cure the defects to which reference has been made in this debate. Nevertheless, we are prepared to consider what is proposed as far as principles are concerned. What the government now proposes is like giving aspirin to a man with a broken leg, or trying to cure pregnancy by applying vanishing cream. It just won't work.


An hon. Member:: That's a good one.


Gerald William Baldwin: It is for this reason we have suggested that the House, through the instrumentality of one of its committees, examine what is proposed in light of certain information. We know that the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Gray) will, shortly we hope, be bringing before the House and the country a report dealing with the whole vexed and difficult question of the national ownership of our resources. There is a real problem here. We recognize it; all the speakers from this side of the House have said so. My leader stated it categorically this afternoon. We want the remedy to be an appropriate one and applied in the light of proven, established facts. We do not yet have those facts. We want them before we continue with this bill. This is why the Leader of the Opposition suggested that an amendment at the present time could profitably be put forward.
After all, this is not only a Canadian problem; it is a world problem. It has arisen in the United Kingdom and in all the countries of Europe. The other day I was reading in the last issue of the World Federalist an interesting article entitled "The multinational corporation." Before I move the amendment I should like to read part of this article as follows:
No scheme of world order can afford to neglect either the enormous power controlled by the multinational corporations, or the special problems created both by the artificial nationality of each corporation and by the real national citizenship of the individual members of its managerial elite.
The first step in dealing with this problem is to recognize the reality that exists-the condition of anarchy, in which each multinational corporation is very largely a law unto itself. This reality was succinctly stated by the Barber commission (a Canadian royal commission study of prices of farm machinery) :
"These multinational corporations are independent of the national authority of individual countries. At the present time no international authority exists which can exercise control over them."
The article suggests three approaches, and I deal with this because it becomes apparent that the issue we are considering is not one which is peculiar to us; intellectuals, academics and politicians all over the world, particularly in the west, are deeply concerned about it. Here are the suggestions which are made in this article:
A supranational organization, an agency of the United Nations might be established with three branches:
(a)	A legislative branch which would work out by negotiation between the interested parties, experts acting for the

March 2, 1971
Canada Development Corporation
corporations themselves, other experts acting on behalf of the nations permitting the export of capital, and still. others representing nations permitting foreign investment within their territories, a comprehensive set of rules. These rules would make conditions uniform and predictable for the transfer of capital and skills across international boundaries, and from one jurisdiction to another.
(b) The judicial branch, expanded from the machinery provided in the 1966 Convention for the Settlement of Investment Disputes, would provide impartial third party judgment to settle disputes and thereby establish precedents for the avoidance of similar disputes in the future
(c) An administrative and audit branch to license the operation of world corporations agreeing to conform in their operations to the rules laid down by the legislative branch, and to submit to the jurisdiction of the panels of experts set up under the judicial branch; to audit and supervise the accounts of the world corporations, to collect taxes to cover the cost of these operations and to provide revenue for the United Nations.
I do not accept this approach in its totality, but I quote the article to support my contention that this issue is one which is engaging the attention of many people in the world and that for us to rush through the kind of inadequate legislation placed before us at this time, without knowledge of the facts which will be brought before the House in the various reports mentioned in my amendment, would be absolute nonsense. While accepting the principle that something needs to be done, we say: Let us wait until we have the facts, and then act. With this as notice for the amendment, I move, seconded by my hon. friend from South Shore (Mr. Crouse):
That all the words after "That" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"Bill C-219 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, together with the eighteenth report of that committee in the previous session on the white paper on tax reform and such report, if any, as may be tabled in this session, on the inquiry by the Minister of National Revenue into foreign investment in Canada".
Your Honour will have noted with great interest that the amendment adds somewhat to the traditional form which has been accepted in the past. We wish to make demonstrably plain the precise terms of the material we want the committee to cover. If, however, there should be some doubt in Your Honour's mind as to the acceptability of the amendment in this form, I will be prepared to omit the last words so that there will be no problem at all in connection with the amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member will appreciate that there are serious procedural difficulties about the form of the proposed amendment. The hon. member admitted he was aware of the difficulties. They relate to the second part of the amendment. He seeks to import into the consideration that would be given by the committee matters such as the eighteenth report of the committee dealing with the white paper on tax reform. This part of the amendment would hardly be acceptable from the point of view of relevancy.
I understood earlier today from remarks made in the course of debate that a reasoned amendment would be
introduced. This is, of course, not a reasoned amendment. The hon. member himself indicated that he did not propose to move an amendment which would oppose the principle of the bill, which is the essence of a reasoned amendment. I do not want to belabour the point. The hon. member said that having made the intent of his motion clear, he would be prepared to abide by the traditional form and be satisfied if the amendment were to read as follows, and I will put it formally, subject to the assent of the hon. member:
That all the words after "That" be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
"Bill C-219 be not now read a second time but that the subject matter thereof be referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs".
The hon. member indicates that he is satisfied with the amendment being put to the House in this form.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, in the course of his remarks the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) said that this bill was serving no useful purpose. I think it is serving a useful purpose. As such, it is uniting people in the opposition against the government's bill. It must be an indication of how irrational is the government today when the Conservative and New Democratic parties alike, for their own reasons, can see little good in it.
A reading of the bill makes obvious why this is so. The bill does not make any sense. It does not make any sense in setting up a body to do something that the private sector could do well and in some cases is doing well on its own. Neither does it make sense in terms of setting up an organization that should be within the jurisdiction of the public sector as an instrument of government policy. That is why we have run into this situation. Obviously, the government has found itself in a bind as a result of a promise it made many years ago. It hoped to avoid keeping its promise but found that it could not do so because of public pressure. Therefore it brought in a "nothing" bill, a bill about which no one can be enthusiastic. All that this bill will do is unite public opinion in Canada against it.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Loibiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment moved by the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) because the government wants the bill creating the CDC to be passed for two reasons.
Firstly, they want to help to maintain and develop strong private Canadian companies. Those are not the companies in need of assistance, but those which are on the verge of bankruptcy.
Secondly, through the establishment of the CDC, they would like to multiply the investment prospects in the field of economic development for Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, the return on investments made by the CDC will have to be competitive and proportionate to the risk, since its shares will be sold to the public at large.
The government wants the distribution of shares to be as wide as possible among Canadian citizens. Thus shares

March 2, 1971

will be sold to Canadian citizens only, and nobody will be allowed to own more than 3 per cent of voting shares.
I should like to analyse this. In the beginning, the outlay of the government of Canada will be $250 million and the capitalization will be $2 billion. It is anticipated that the first sale of equity shares to the public will be at a price of approximately $5 per share. As the government will always be the major shareholder, it will keep at least 10 per cent of the voting shares. The CDC will not be a crown corporation or department, but a company which will operate basically under the Canada Corporations Act. It will be managed by a board of 18 to 21 directors and the government will have a choice between naming not more than four of them or exercizing the voting right of its shares with regard to the complete list of directors.
Speaking of the CDC, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) said in substance:
No other Canadian corporation has as its objectives national interest and profits.
Such a premise is false and I am going to prove it. He also added the following nauseating statement:
The national interest and the profit motive are not always compatible.
May I point out to the minister that these two objectives rarely go together. I fully agree that the companies and their control must remain Canadian and I think the government has made another blunder in trying to achieve an impossible balance between the two objectives mentioned by the Minister of Finance, by resorting to a socialization of the Canadian capital.
Mr. Speaker, if the national interest is to be truly advocated, then the best way of solving the problem would be to pass legislation with respect to the monetary system. If, on the contrary, one wishes to make a profit, the private sector is much more competent than the public sector, as evidenced by the failure of Crown corporations managed by the government.
A mixture like that proposed by the minister will not solve any problem, but it will have all the disadvantages of both the public and the private sector. So why should we establish the CDC? They say that the CDC will remain completely outside politics and that the federal government will not interfere with that organization.
The minister maintains that according to Bill C-219 the federal government will have the choice of either appointing a maximum of four administrators or having a voting right corresponding to the number of its shares.
If the number of shares held by the government gives it voting right exceeding 50 per cent of the number of all shares issued, the Deputy Minister of Finance and the Deputy Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce will be appointed to the board but without a voting right.
Mr. Speaker, these provisions are supposedly intended to establish the necessary degree of additional co-ordination between the Corporation and the government, during the initial phase of its existence. It is added, however, that the Corporation will need some degree of independence so that it may reach efficiently its objectives.
Canada Development Corporation
But the government will always want-as is its habit- to hold at least 10 per cent of the voting shares in order to be able to exercice on the global policy of the Corporation the influence corresponding to its shares.
However, the Minister of Finance states that he will not involve himself in politics. The control he exercises, provides him with one more device for selling his tough policy to Canadians.
Since Bill C-219 outlines the Corporation's method of financing, the government will need strong control powers, and that is what the government wants.
Mr. Speaker, it is intended to offer common stock to the public at a price of about $5 per share, in order to encourage wide distribution of shares throughout Canada. That means it is hoped that Canadians who have never invested before will now do so. Those people are not really capitalists, accustomed to risks and therefore to losses, but rather workers, labourers, who will invest not because they hope to be reimbursed by the government, or the Corporation as a financial entity, but because such shares will be guaranteed by the government.
In this way, savings will be tapped, the purchasing power of Canadians will be reduced and, consequently, the gap between the rich and the poor will be widened. For these people, it is not, as it should be, a question of investing in the future development of a great country, but of investing in a company whose shares are guaranteed by the federal government. In acting in this way, Mr. Speaker, the government discourages people, because it is tapping those savings and that capital. It is preventing Canadians from investing personally in this country in which they believe.
It is a new and disguised form of Canada savings bonds. Whatever the Minister of Finance may say, the Canada Development Corporation will always be, judging by its shareholders, similar to a Crown corporation, and the government, politically, will never allow the Canada Development Corporation to sustain a loss in order to protect the national interest. And therein lies the dilemma.
Should such a situation ever come up and it is bound to come owing to the conflict between the national interest and the profit motive, the CDC will have no function to perform. At the present time each investor seeks profits. He does not need any government enterprise to find profitable investments, and companies liable to pay dividends to their shareholders will not need any capital from the cdc.
So in trying to protect the national interest the Canadian Development Corporation will be a failure. The businesses in need of its capital will not get it because they are not profitable at the present time. They will be sold to foreign interests, financed by private capital which can sustain an initial loss in order to make future profits.
As the government will be politically involved in the CDC, it will be unable to sustain a loss at the start in order to make profits later.

March 2, 1971
Canada Development Corporation
Mr. Speaker, the avowed purpose of the government in setting up the CDC is merely a political one, of course, especially in this period of our economic history when unemployment has reached a peak. The government will have to underwrite the shares and investments of the Corporation shareholders, because if the investors lose confidence in the CDC, they will lose confidence in the government. This is another reason why it will be a political organization.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, all Canadian taxpayers will be shareholders of the Corporation, since the government will hold at least 10 per cent of the CDC shares and will levy the necessary funds from the Canadian taxpayers, so that they will be forcibly involved in a socialist scheme. And this, under the disguised form of the party now in office.
So state socialism is imposed upon us. The government is interfering in another sector of Canadian life in a disguised and dishonest manner because it does not define both sides of the issue as it should. Thus, each decrease in the price of shares will be a loss for the government and, consequently, for each Canadian and it will be put down as a national liability, that is the liability of each Canadian.
From what I have just said, it is easy to see that each consecutive government will have to impose a strict control over the activities of the CDC, a control that will go far beyond its power according to the percentage of shares it holds. It is a matter of political survival and once again we have to conclude that the hon. Minister of Finance, through the CDC, wants to throw dust in the eyes of Canadians to make them forget the fundamental problem of the present economic unbalance.
As I have just said, the Canadian industry and economy are being and will continue to be increasingly controlled by two great powers: the Americans and the central government. The private sector will hang between the two, threatened with extinction, because it will have to compete. I refer to the large and small Canadian investors who will be squeezed between foreign investments and the taxing power of the government which, in its white paper on tax reform, discourages profits and growth in that sector of our economy. Consequently, it is an underhanded but sure way of taking it over and socializing it, as was the case with the Farm Credit Corporation, the Central Housing and Mortgage Corporation and all the programs of the government which tend to "lure each citizen" into repayment plans if he wishes to become an owner.
Mr. Speaker, those control programs were always dealing with the national interest and not with profitability; naturally, this has been realized. If we really wanted to protect the Canadian industry, we would not confine ourselves strictly to that criterium of profit and we would be much more interested in national values. I am surprised to realize upon reading the speech of the Minister of Finance that all along, he thought only about his political future, the future of his party, and that he forgot the future of Canadians.
There is still a way to solve that problem, which the government has not often used. It is a program of allow-

ances or subsidies given directly to the company in order to protect those who do not want to sell their concern but who are compelled to do so because of their financial situation.
But instead of rescuing borderline companies, the government will endeavour to take over the larger companies and let the smaller sink, with the hope that both will disappear for the benefit of foreign interests or of the government. In doing so, companies which are squeezed between these two sectors are placed in the same situation as the individual who has to rely on welfare. Indidentally, an ever increasing number of companies apply for grants to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion just as a citizen will go to the welfare office to pick up his handout.
This is the situation we are in, Mr. Speaker, and not only will the CDC not solve this problem, but it will increase it by depriving these companies of the capital they require.
Mr. Speaker, such a system would be similar to the Department of Regional Economic Expansion's program-and this can be easily demonstrated-except that it would be managed by only one corporation and not necessarily in a specific area. This system could be designed to protect industry instead of letting it be overtaken by foreigners; but there is no government program to assist these industries indeed, they are being left aside while we are dealing with bigger and smaller corporations. The big ones we will own, and the smaller ones will be wiped off.
We could also provide that all newly established corporations should have a given percentage of Canadian ownership; we could also restrict the sale of shares to foreign interests since some foreign capital is always necessary.
In any way, in the light of this brief survey which I honestly attempted to submit, I believe that the CDC will never work out but as an instrument of the federal government's policy and I find this very sad for we are here precisely to give Canadians instruments to help them build their own country.
This legislation will also be a policy instrument serving the federal government because Canada is now more than ever in need of a concrete policy to deal with the program of Canadian control of industry since the main requirement in this field is national interest. In view of these factors, however, this bill merely amounts to a poultice on a wooden leg. After all these surveys, we shall wonder whether, by passing Bill C-219, we shall actually settle the question. If we really want to face reality, we shall realize that we are bogged down in the system, that this is just some dust in the eyes of Canadians and that the problem has not been dealt with properly.
The participation of every Canadian citizen to the economic life of this country is necessary. Each Canadian should be given a chance to really participate, of his own valition, freely and safely to the development and progress of this country or to its building.
March 2, 1971

Through the passing of bills such as this one, we go after Canadian capital, we undermine the savings of the Canadian people and we make them overlook the real problem. In fact, we merely reduce the purchasing power of the ordinary citizens, workers, laborers, farmers, parents, students, to the benefit of big companies and the government.
Thus the Minister of Finance says at the end of the year: Our budget has increased. Of course! With money coming from the pockets of the Canadian people, it is easy to increase one's pile; but one forgets that it behooves the government to make that money available to the Canadian people. That is one thing. Our taxation system must be reformed, but not by discouraging Canadian enterprise, as the white paper of the Minister of Finance is doing by saying on the one hand that it wants to help the corporations and on the other hand, by discouraging them and bringing about their disappearance.
The second reform-and the most important one-that must be brought about to put order in this country should be a monetary one, so that instead of implementing plans and still more plans and putting poultices on wooden legs, like the CDC, would do, we should give ourselves monetary tools with real effects on Canada's economic life, give each citizen the tool he needs to invest in the Canadian economy.
Let us not ask Canadians to invest in the CDC or somewhere else in Canada if they cannot even provide for themselves. And considering the fact that more than 45 per cent of the Quebec unemployed are less than 25 years old, one can easily understand that they cannot invest in the CDC and that the CDC is unable to cope with their problem. To be honest, one must recognize that more than 35 per cent of the Canadian people live *out of public funds, especially federal funds. Those people are excluded from the economic life of this country and do not have a single cent to invest in the CDC or anywhere else. What is being done about those people? They are being forgotten and no bill is passed for them.
We are being presented Bill C-219 to encourage Canadians to invest. But who shall invest in this corporation? Those already well-off and well-to-do. The government will hold 10 per cent of the shares. This means that it will oblige our citizens to invest in this corporation.
Now we ask this question: What will be the profit margin? The profit of the well-to-do will be quite considerable, that of the small shareholders will be minimal.
Mr. Speaker, the taxpayer who can barely pay his taxes and cannot afford to embark freely in this sytem will get zero plus zero which is zero. The well-to-do who will freely choose to invest in this corporation and to buy shares will make a profit once again at the expense of the small savings and of each Canadian. Once more the Canadian government will have cheated Canadians by showing them the fine picture that the CDC is and not telling them that by creating the CDC the low income citizens are swindled out of their money for the benefit .of the well-to-do.
Canada Development Corporation
The socialists will say: let us take from the big ones and give to the small ones! But in so doing the problem is not solved since our economic system will keep on producing big ones and small ones. And tomorrow morning, the same thing starts over again.
This explains why, today, several socialist countries must return to some sort of co-operation or participation, failing which they discourage freedom, security and initiative in the individual and prevent personal fulfillment.
Mr. Speaker, if the government genuinely serves the Canadian people, if it wishes the development of this country, if it wants all its citizens, young or not so young, to invest in Canada and share in its economic activity, it must give up such poultices and stop throwing dust in people's eyes. Mr. Speaker, it must take more direct, efficient and humane means and give each citizen, especially to the small wage earner, an opportunity to contribute to the economic activity of this country.
This is the heart of the matter, this is where the tragedy occurs. Those who rely for a living on welfare or veterans allowances, or on pensions, those who eke out a living, are directly dependent on society.
Our country is tremendously rich: it is an affluent nation. However, its poor are left to decay in poverty, to keep crawling. The leader of the Ralliement creditiste (Mr. Caouette) says very vividly and truthfully: Hardship exists among plenty. Though paradoxical, the remark is true.
The government, allegedly to help the humble people, the unemployed, the poor and the people on welfare, refuses to listen to their representations. Instead of really trying to solve their problems, by giving them the necessary funds to share in the economic activity of this country and also invest some money, it turns its head away and keeps providing incentives for the better off.
Not so long ago, I read an article which appeared in he Devoir and bore the signature of Mr. Brody, a lecturer at the Industrial Relations Department of the University of Montreal.
This reporter said that an economic policy is mostly a choice between several options.
The successive governments for many years never felt free to introduce such legislation because they were under the control of high finance.
I see that the Minister of Finance is frowning. That is all he can do before high finance, because he dares not speak. Here again is a proof of it: a bill is introduced about the CDC, a corporation at the service of high finance and not of the Canadian people.
Mr. Speaker, governing a country means first, to make a choice, and when you cannot make that choice, then you should pull aside. We are anxious to push these people aside, Mr. Spaker, because they seem unable to make that choice.
We have to choose between taking from the rich and giving a little to the poor or putting the economic system

March 2, 1971
Canada Development Corporation in the service of all Canadians, whatever their language, their race, their religion, the thickness of their wallets, their goodwill or their good heart. There will come a moment when this choice will have to be made.
There is a third choice: to put everybody on an equal footing and say: Today, we run the steam-roller; we crush all Canadians and have them all fit in the same mold.
Those are the three options.
Encourage the present system, get bogged down even further, change nothing, or else introduce rash reforms through white papers and millions of dollars, without ever attempting the monetary reform. That is the first option, and precisely the one the Minister of Finance opted for.
That is the choice made by the Progressive Conservatives and that is why we say that there is no difference between the two major parties.
There is a second option, that of socializing everyone, and a third, which we support aggressively, that of giving every Canadian, while respecting his freedom and his security, the necessary monetary power, on the basis of our Canadian production, so that he might receive the dividend based on our production.
Indeed, what is the objective of the Minister of Finance? That amounts to giving to a small group of persons, to big finance, the possibility of drawing dividends from the investments of the CDC.
Mr. Speaker, if the Minister of Finance says that it is good, we say that it must be good for all Canadians. If that is good for a small group of persons in Canada, he must organize a similar system, not through the CDC but through the Bank of Canada, in order to give each Canadian enough purchasing power to buy our production and allow him too to get the benefit of his work, of his investment, of Canadian production.
Such is the spirit of Social Credit, Mr. Speaker. It is not a revolutionary spirit, but a spirit of reform aimed at putting money at the disposal of the human being so that the individual will be in a position where he will be able to use the money, not only to his personal advantage but also to that of all Canadians.
Evidently, neither the unemployed, nor the recipients of welfare, nor the physically handicapped are interested. And even if they were, they do not have the means required for participation in the economic life of the country.
If the government truly wants to give those people a chance to be real Canadians, if it has faith in the future of Canada, in Canada's resources, in the human value of the Canadian people, then what is it waiting for to give the Canadian people the monetary means permitting each citizen to receive his share in Canadian investments and Canadian production?
In short, Mr. Speaker, I am strongly against the bill because it will not solve the problem, because it diverts our attention from the real issue. Besides not being real solution-and this is worse-it moves us away from the

answer because it continues to patronize the financiers who already exploit Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, this bill not only does not solve anything, but it will further discourage Canadians from participating in economic activities. The gap between rich and poor will widen.
Mr. Speaker, this is a basic question. We in Canada are living in a climate of crisis and tension. Each Canadian is searching for his identity, whatever his language, his religion and his birth place. Everyone would like to do something for his country, because everyone from coast to coast has a feeling that there is something the matter.
Mr. Speaker, now is the time to bring in the only reform that this government, like those which preceded it, never dared introduce, namely a monetary reform whereby the Bank of Canada would be put at the service of the people of Canada. This would make it possible to distribute the difference between Canadian production and consumption as dividends so that every Canadian would receive his share of profit and production.
Mr. Speaker, those were the remarks I wanted to make. I hope the government will consider this proposal seriously and will agree to respect Parliament by listening to whatever the members of the opposition have to say. We are not here as members of the opposition wereby to object to legislation but mainly to submit proposals and express useful criticism. This is why I say that this bill not only will not solve the problem but that it will draw us further away from any true solution which would consist in putting money at the disposal of each and every Canadian through the Bank of Canada.


Mr. Ian Watson (Laprairie):: I should like to participate briefly in this debate, Mr. Speaker. I understand that there is a member on the other side of the House who also wishes to speak tonight. I wonder if there is disposition by the House to agree to sit past ten o'clock so that I would not have to rush through my speech.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: No.


Ian Watson: I am one member of this House who has for a number of years impatiently awaited the creation of the Canada Development Corporation.


Max Saltsman: Ten o'clock.


Ian Watson: We have talked about the CDC inside and outside the House since 1963. Initial public reaction, primarily business reaction, to the CDC proposal of several years ago was not favourable and this adverse initial reaction has undoubtedly influenced the present Bill C-219. Reassurance for the initial detractors of the concept of the bill is nowhere more clearly spelled out than in the last three lines of clause 6, the objects clause, which provide that the objects of the CDC "shall be carried out in anticipation of profit and in the best interests of the shareholders as a whole."
March 2, 1971

I approve the major objectives set out for the CDC, which are to develop strong Canadian control and manage corporations in the private sector of the economy and to provide broader opportunities for Canadians to invest and participate in the economic development of Canada. I am confident that the CDC will play a major role in future Canadian development and that it can contribute to improving Canadian competitiveness in world markets in the corporate rationalizations, amalgamations and arrangements which we expect the CDC to take.
The CDC, by stimulating and encouraging such changes in Canadian industry, will strengthen our industrial structure and consequently render this structure less vulnerable to foreign takeovers.
May X call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, what brings me here this evening is the negotiation that is currently going on between Treasury Board and
I,	750 east coast ship repair workers at the Halifax dockyard and about 1,200 west coast ship repair workers at the Esquimalt dockyard. As anybody who was in the House earlier today is well aware, the groups on both coasts have taken strike votes after turning down a conciliation offer, or the latest offer from the employer, the government of Canada. In both cases the vote is in favour of a strike, so that very large ramifications arise from the fact that the government is not able to make peace with its dockyard employees.
I shall not deal with the whole of this problem, Mr. Speaker, because I am rather close to the scene in the Halifax area and since 1957 I have been working on the side of the east coast employees and trying to better their lot. I am rather hesitant, as well, because as a Maritimer and the member for Halifax-East Hants I have been annoyed at the discrepancy in the salaries for essentially the same type of work on the east and west coasts. There are other things that annoy me. One is that the bargaining group for these craftsmen was certified on January
II,	1968, and-believe it or not-it is now working on the agreement to be effective from October 1, 1968, to September 30, 1970. This makes the subject under discussion rather historical. However, the men involved have not been paid a proper wage for that period of time and now we have to start with the period since September 30, 1970, and bring their wages up to date. Some hon. members may recall the remarks of my colleague from Dart-
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion mouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall) who mentioned another group not involved in this dispute, unless the situation should change with the setting up of picket lines. I refer to the general workers in the dockyard, who also will be looking for an increase in salary.
Mr. Speaker, I think the shame of the matter is that when we set up bargaining legislation a couple of years ago we thought that steps would be taken to come to grips with bargaining positions and collective agreements within the public service of Canada. That has not been the case, despite the assurances given in committee. I was a member of that committee and believed those assurances. The fact is, however, that government bargaining with employees in those categories is hopelessly out of date.
What are we faced with now? A conciliation report was issued by Mr. R. Gallagher, chairman, Mr. Peter Sadlier-Brown, the union nominee, and Mr. James P. Nichol, the government nominee. Mr. Gallagher and Mr. Sadlier-Brown recommended, for the east coast, 37 cents more an hour this time around and 37 cents more an hour next time around, for a total increase of 74 cents. For the west coast they recommended 42 cents and 42 cents. This would have brought the east coast rate from $3.31 to $4.05 an hour and the west coast rate from $4.16 to $5. Mr. Nichol, the government nominee, proposed 27 cents and 29 cents for the east coast and 34 cents and 36 cents for the west coast. In its offer to the employees the government proposed a 42 and 42 cents formula for the west coast and a 28 and 28 cents formula for the east coast. In effect, this was taking the majority figure in the conciliation report for the west coast employees and the minority figure for the east coast employees.
This was so incredible that I immediately asked for leave under Standing Order 43 to have the matter debated in this House, but I was denied that opportunity. I suppose the enormity of the crime had not sunk in with hon. members because I asked for leave before anybody had learned what was going on. On subsequent days I asked questions. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) has also asked questions as have my colleagues from Dartmouth-Halifax East and Moose Jaw.
I say that this is an outrage and everyone ought to ask questions about the government's approach in dealing with these employees. The odd thing is that under the new collective bargaining agreement many side issues were resolved very nicely. When the whole business is done with and this matter is part of the collective bargaining agreement, some of the long outstanding grievances will have been cleared up. Unfortunately, however, when you get down to the bread and butter issues you get down to wages.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, may I conclude with one sentence?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.

March 2, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. Alastair Gillespie (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board);: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to reply on this occasion to the question raised by the hon. member opposite. By way of introduction I might point out, as I think he already knows but as other hon. members of the House may not, that negotiations with the ship repair bargaining agent, Federal Government Dockyards Trades and Labour Council, commenced on August 19, 1970. After 13 meetings which occurred between that date and the middle of October, they broke down. On that occasion the council applied for conciliation and the conciliation board met in January of this year. Pay was the only real issue throughout the negotiations.


J. Michael Forrestall: Then why was money never
mentioned?


Alastair William Gillespie: The hon. member has commented on the recommendations of the majority report and of the minority report.


J. Michael Forrestall: Why was money never mentioned?


Alastair William Gillespie: It seems to me that in his remarks he overlooked one of the key questions with which the government in dealing with employees must concern itself. It must concern itself with two questions. First, it must consider the fair treatment of the employee, as the hon. member emphasized in his remarks, and it must concern itself, in these approaches, with the fair treatment of the taxpayer. After all, in a situation of this kind the government, as a negotiator, represents the public purse.
The hon. member used the phrase "the proper wage". I think he will agree with me that in the process of negotiations many factors are considered, not the least of which, and perhaps the most important, is the going wage rate in the area. I am sure that he knows these figures. It might be helpful to the House if they were placed on record. When we compare the so-called disparity between east coast and west coast rates as represented by this contract, we must also bear in mind that there is a significant disparity between the east coast rates proposed by the employer in the contract and rates paid in the Halifax area by employers who are competitors of the federal government.
I am informed that in May of last year the basic rate in the Halifax shipyards was about $3.30 an hour. In May of 1971, the rate would have been $3.50, which would compare with-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The parliamentary secretary's time has expired.



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION-INCENTIVE GRANT TO MICRO-MAX PRODUCTS TO ESTABLISH PLANT IN MAGOG, QUEBEC-ASSISTANCE TO CANADIAN DRUG INDUSTRY

Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Mr. Speaker, a few days ago I asked a question of the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. Marchand) with respect to the $3.8 million incentive grant that had been made to Micro-Max Products Limited of Kalamazoo,
Michigan, to assist in establishing a drug plant in Magog, Quebec. The minister replied that the grant had been made according to the regulations of his department. When I attempted to follow up the question and inquire if grants had been made to hard pressed individual Canadian pharmaceutical manufacturers, no reply was forthcoming.
I have raised this question in the adjournment debate because there seems to be a fundamental conflict in the government's attempts to assist in the development of truly Canadian industry. I would like to know from tonight's spokesman for the government why it is blowing hot and cold on this issue, in one instance saying we must support our native industry and on the other hand providing large incentive grants to companies which are obviously foreign-owned.
The independent Canadian pharmaceutical industry is relatively small. However, it has been playing a significant role in the continuing campaign to bring down the high cost of drugs in Canada. More recently, the independent segment has been hard pressed, largely because of the passing of Bill C-102 two years ago. That bill was piloted by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Basford). Instead of bringing down the high cost of drugs, even with the 12 per cent relief from federal sales tax, it has tended to threaten the one segment of the industry that had been making a substantial contribution in the war against pollution.
I do not have time to go into the subject in detail but there is an excellent article in the February issue of Executive magazine headed, "High-priced drugs are still, well, high-priced". The subheading reads, "And who really expected anything different?" Before the government moved to make compulsory licences mandatory on request, these small independents were carrying out the same kind of operation. Since Bill C-102 passed in 1969, 60 compulsory licences have been granted. All of these have been for importation, none for manufacturing. This has caused several unfortunate side effects with respect to the Canadian industry. It is downgrading the research activities of the larger companies. For example, Ayerst moved their research activity across the border into New York state because of the bill.
I would like to receive answers to the following specific questions. What steps have been taken by the government to financially strengthen the independent Canadian segment of the pharmaceutical industry as promised at the time Bill C-102 was passed? If possible, I would like the reply to be in terms of a figure for the grants that have been made to companies like Micro Chemicals, Empire Laboratories and Delmar Chemicals. If it is not possible to provide the information during the course of this discussion, perhaps it could be supplied in the form of a statement on motions or in a letter to myself.
We are all concerned about the continuing high cost of drugs in Canada. The Ontario government, through its Parcost program-that is, prescriptions at reasonable cost-has made the first real break in bringing down the

March 2, 1971

high cost of drugs. Another device talked about at the moment is bulk buying for hospitals, which would perhaps provide cheaper drugs through this particular outlet. I think it is quite unfair to penalize the small segment of the independent Canadian pharmaceutical industry, which pioneered in this field, by providing incentives assistance to American-based companies and on the other hand allowing existing Canadian independents to be absorbed by the larger American companies which are continually knocking at their door. I trust the government will take action to remove this anomaly.


Mr. Martin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, one of the principal purposes of Bill C-102, which involved changes in the Patent Act, was to increase competition in the Canadian pharmaceutical industry with a view to supporting the legitimate Canadian interest in keeping down drug prices. This objective may well serve to strengthen the Canadian pharmaceutical industry. Moreover, the grant offered by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion may also serve to strengthen the Canadian pharmaceutical industry although grants are offered in this case, as in others, to create new jobs in designated slow-growth regions where they are badly needed.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: And phase out old jobs.


Mr. O'Connell:: The hon. member is laughing.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I said "And phase out old jobs".


Martin Patrick O'Connell: There are some 375 jobs connected with this grant. The products which Micro-Max Products Limited will be manufacturing are basically new to Canada. They will not duplicate what is being done by existing Canadian companies. This project in Magog, therefore, represents an expansion of the total industry rather than a new competitive factor within it. Indeed, most of its products are intended for the export market, implying a total expansion of the industry in Canada. The company will also be bringing new technology and research capacity into Canada and this, too, should help broaden the base of the industry as a whole.
The hon. member asked how the grant which has been offered compares with assistance given to the independent Canadian drug industry. I am informed that no other pharmaceutical company has applied to the department for financial assistance in locating or expanding in one of the designated regions. If such an application is received, it will certainly be considered in the same way as this one was considered.
In summary, the offered grant of $3.8 million relates to a total investment by the company of some $17.8 million. It will help to create an estimated 375 new jobs directly and it may well broaden and strengthen the total Canadian industry while serving national export goals as well.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-FEDERAL INTERVENTION IN ACTION BROUGHT BY TEACHERS RESPECTING BRITISH COLUMBIA ORDER IN COUNCIL


Winona Grace MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, on February 11 I questioned the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) in regard to consequences arising out of an order in council issued by the government of British Columbia on October 22, 1970. This order in council declared it as public policy that no person teaching or instructing the youth of British Columbia in educational institutions receiving government support shall continue in the employment of the institution if they advocate the policies of the Front de Liberation du Quebec or the overthrow of democratically-elected government by violent means.
Five teachers from such institutions promptly challenged the authority of the British Columbia government to issue such an order in council. In the first place, they declared there is no law passed by the legislative assembly of British Columbia delegating to the executive council or the Lieutenant-Governor in Council the power to pass such an order in council. Secondly, they declared that such an order in council is ultra vires the powers of the province, falling within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada under the British North America Act. The case was slated to come up for trial before the Supreme Court of British Columbia on February 25.
Because of the fundamental issues involved, I asked the Minister of Justice two questions. First, does the federal government plan to intervene in support of the action brought by the five teachers against the government of British Columbia? Second, will the federal government challenge the constitutionality of the order in council? To the first question the minister's answer was in substance no. To the second his answer was silence. Neither answer indicated that he is prepared, as Minister of Justice to uphold the law of this country and the civil rights of the citizen which are endangered when it is flouted.
In defence of his government's action, the Attorney General of British Columbia declared that if the said order in council were passed without legislative authority-which he specifically denies-then it is merely a declaration of government policy, without binding effect, and that therefore the teachers have no reason for their action. Further, the Attorney General disputes the right of the plaintiffs to bring his action in the courts, alleging that none of them has a legal interest which allows the bringing of the suit. But there are features about this order in council which constitute an extremely dangerous threat to the civil liberties of teachers in British Columbia and which should call forth the active interest and involvement of the Minister of Justice, who is charged with protecting the fundamental rights of Canadian citizenship, including freedom of speech and expression.
The British Columbia order in council requires the dismissal of teachers in certain circumstances, but pro-
3902

March 2, 1971
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion vides no guarantee that those accused and dismissed will be dealt with in accordance with what is usually called due process. There is no mention ol who is to judge whether persons accused are in fact guilty, whether they will have the right to know and face their accusers, the right to legal counsel, the right to cross-examine witnesses, the right to the other various safeguards which are essential. Apart from this backdoor attack on civil liberties, it should surely be the concern of the Minister of Justice to protect the federal jurisdiction. When a provincial government attempts to usurp powers which rightly belong to the federal government, it is extremely important that the federal Minister of Justice join in laying before the courts the reasons for striking down such attacks on federal powers.
History teaches that where civil liberties have been destroyed such destruction rarely, if ever, took place overnight; rather, there was an insidious, creeping erosion of the rights of the citizens to which those in authority turned the deaf ear and the blind eye. I appeal to the Minister of Justice to exercise his rightful authority in this case and to show the people of Canada that he is prepared to accept his full responsibility for protecting federal law and federal jurisdiction.


Albert Béchard: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure for me to act as spokesman for the Minister of Justice (Mr. Turner) with such a gracious interlocutress. Unfortunately, I am once again unable to accede to the wishes of the charming representative from Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Maclnnis).
Whatever the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway may think, the Minister of Justice has given a very clear answer to the question that she asked him on February 11, 1971 when he said, and I quote in the language of Shakespeare:
[Englisli\
Mr. Speaker, the matter that Is before the court is a provincial order in council. The hon. lady says that the minister did not reply to the second question, but I would point out that he replied that we did not plan to intervene.

Mr. Speaker, this is a matter of administration of justice which, as far as I know, falls under provincial jurisdiction. I believe this was repeated time and again during the October crisis. It is therefore a sub judice question at the present time owing to an order in council passed by the government of British Columbia.
Consequently, as the Minister of Justice so aptly said in reply to a question by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway, the federal government and Department of Justice do not intend to intervene, and they never do, in an area of provincial jurisdiction.

Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.25 p.m.

Wednesday, March 3, 1971