1971-06-09

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Fourth report ol Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry-Mr. Goode.

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration-Mr. Turner (London East).
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


Mr. Melvin McQuaid (Cardigan):: Mr. Speaker, with the unanimous consent of the House I rise to propose a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Next week a conference takes place in Victoria on the most important questions of patriating the Constitution and devising an amending formula. Additionally, other substantial constitutional questions will be discussed. The meeting will be in closed session. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has refused the request of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Stanfield) that the opposition parties be permitted to send observers. The Joint Committee on the Constitution has held more than 100 meetings in 40 cities and towns throughout the 10 provinces and in the Yukon and Northwest Territories, and 1,000 Canadians have voiced their opinions in 5,641 pages of evidence. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale):
That this House is of the opinion that the Special Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Constitution should be permitted to attend the Federal-Provincial Conference on the Constitution being held next week at Victoria as an observing body and that the committee should be permitted to give the conference the benefit of the knowledge accumulated by the committee at tremendous expense to the taxpayers of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion proposed by the hon. member for Cardigan. This motion is
proposed under the terms of Standing Order 43, and requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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



REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 41 (2) I wish to table copies of agreements signed recently between the federal government and the governments of Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec, Manitoba and Saskatchewan within the framework of the ARDA program.


Mr. McGrath:: On a point of order, the translation system was not working when the minister was speaking.


Jean Marchand: I am tabling the ARDA agreements with Newfoundland, Nova Scotia, New Brunswick, Quebec and a few other provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope the translation system was working this time.



QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER

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

Mr. Skoberg: With reference to the return made to question No. 779 on February 10, 1971, how much money did (a) Edgar Lewis Cook, Birch Hills (b) Peter Demong, St. Benedict (c) Joseph Gorieu, Reynaud (d) Ward Jo HefEeman, Birch Hills (e) John Markowsky, Wakaw (f) Regis Arthur Reynaud, Reynaud (g) Dominique Rocher, St. Brieux, all in Saskatchewan, receive?


Hon. H. A. Olson (Minister of Agriculture):: Cook, E.L., Demong, P. B., Gorieu, J. G., Heffernan, J. W., Markowsky, J. A., Reynaud, A.R., Rocher, D.M., employed as part-time inspectors, receive the standard rate of $16 per day plus travel expenses for the period August 1,

June 9, 1971
Questions
1970 to July 31, 1971 on an, as and when required basis, in accordance with the terms contained in order in council P.C. 1965-1/2020 of November 16, 1965 and para. (2) of order in council P.C. 1964-1/1508 of October 1, 1964.


HIJACKING-AMENDMENTS TO CRIMINAL CODE AND EXTRADITION TREATIES
Mr. Fortin: 1.	At what stage are the studies concerning amendments to the Criminal Code making the hijacking of planes a crime?
2.	At what stage are the negotiations concerning amendments to the extradition treaties to include the hijacking of planes?


Hon. John N. Turner (Minister of Justice):: 1. The
studies are well advanced.
2. Negotiations for amending the Canada-U.S. Extradition Treaty are already underway. Officials of the Canadian Department of Justice and the Department of External Affairs held discussions on this matter in Washington last March. Further discussions are scheduled to be held in Ottawa in June.


DEPARTMENT OF NATIONAL HEALTH AND WELFARE, QUEBEC CITY-EMPLOYEES' GRIEVANCES
Mr. Godin: 1.	Since 1965, have any grievances been made by employees of the Department of National Health and Welfare, family allowances and old age security division, in the Quebec City office and, if so, (a) on what dates were they made (b) on how many occasions?
2.	How many classification officers have investigated and how many employees have been personally consulted on the matter?
3.	Is the report of the Investigations available to (a) interested employees (b) Members of Parliament?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Yes, since 1965 grievances have been received from employees of the Department of National Health and Welfare, Family Allowances and Old Age Security Division in Quebec City, (a) Departmental records show that these grievances were submitted in November 1968, December 1968, July 1969, March 1970, September 1970, February 1971, March 1971. (b) Departmental records show that 65 grievances have been submitted.
2.	Three classification officers have investigated these grievances and 12 employees have been personally consulted.
3.	(a) The reports of the investigations are confidential internal documents and are not available to the public, (b) The reports of the investigations are confidential internal documents and are not available to Members of Parliament.


NATIONAL FILM BOARD-PRESENTATION OF JOHN DE VISSER'S &quot;NEWFOUNDLAND&quot;
Mr. Peddle: With regard to the National Film Board photographic presentation of John de Visser's "Newfoundland" on April 15, 1971
(a) is Mr. de Visser a Canadian (b) in the use of the name of the Province, both on the official invitations and in the background display at the Photo Gallery, for what reason are the letters F and L capitalized (c) since Newfoundland became the tenth province over 22 years ago, for what reason was the opening of the photographic presentation presided over by the Associate Under-Secretary of State for External Affairs?


Hon. Gerard Pelletier (Secretary of State):: I am informed by the National Film Board as follows: (a) Mr. de Visser, foreign born, became a Canadian citizen in 1952. (b) Letters F and L were capitalized as a design technique, (c) Mr. Paul Tremblay, Associate Undersecretary of State for External Affairs, presided in his capacity as a Member of the Board of the National Film Board.


POSSIBILITY OF CLOSING OF AIR STRIPS IN JASPER AND BANFF NATIONAL PARKS
Mr. Woolliams: Is it the intention of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to close down the air strips in Jasper and Banff National Parks in the near future?


Mr. Judd Buchanan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: 1. It is
National Parks' policy to end the use of established airfields in national parks as alternative airports are established outside park boundaries. The question of the Banff and Jasper airfields was included in the recent public hearings on the provisional master plans for these parks. No decision on the future of these airfields will be made until the submissions made at the public hearings have been thoroughly reviewed. Therefore, it is not the intention of the department to close these airports in the near future.


STORAGE OF CANADIAN ECONOMIC DATA IN U.S. DATA BANKS
Mr. MacDonald (Egmoni): 1.	To the knowledge of the government is economic data on the Canadian economy stored in data banks in the United States.
2.	Does the government provide this information?
3.	Is this data available to the Canadian government?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of Finance):: 1, 2 and 3.
Public data may be stored by anyone.


REDUCTION IN PAYMENTS UNDER WAR VETERANS ALLOWANCE ACT
Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	What was the total reduction in payments made under the War Veterans Allowance Act, in lieu of the increases in the old age supplement and the guaranteed income supplement, during the fiscal years 1969-70 and 1970-71?
2.	What is the projected reduction in such payments for the fiscal years 1971-72?

June 9, 1971


Hon. Jean-Eudes Dube (Minister of Veterans Affairs):: 1. Nil.
2. The reduction in war veterans allowances and civilian war allowances expenditures has been forecast at $5,375,000 as indicated on page 29-14 of the Blue Book on Estimates for the year 1971-72. However, because of recently approved increases in rates and income ceilings, individual war veterans allowance and civilian war allowance recipients who are also in receipt of old age security pension and guaranteed income supplement will benefit from a higher income than they did in previous years.
INCENTIVE GRANTS TO REMBOURRAGE INDUSTRIE!, KEBEC, INC. AND POLYETHYLENE KEBEC INC.


Mr. Caouette: During the past three years did the Department of Regional Economic Expansion make any grants to (a) Rembourrage Industriel Kebec Inc. (b) Polyethylene Kebec Inc. and, if so, in what amounts?


Mr. Marlin P. O'Connell (Parliamentary Secretary of Minister of Regional and Economic Expansion):: As listed in the report on the operation of the Regional Development Incentives Act for the month of April, which was tabled in the House of Commons May 11, 1970, accepted offers were: (a) $125,000 (15% of approved capital cost and $1,000 per job); (b) $321,000 (16% of approved capital cost and $1,000 per job).


GOVERNMENT INTENTION REGARDING DOLLAR EXCHANGE RATE
Mr. Yewchuk: Does the government intend to (a) maintain a floating exchange rate (b) return to the fixed exchange rate before January of 1972 (c) experiment with a new de facto parity, with a wider band of permitted fluctuation before January of 1972?


Edgar John Benson: The government's intentions in this regard would be announced in the normal manner.


CONSIDERATION OF REMOVAL OF EXCISE TAX ON TELEVISION SETS
Mr. Robinson: Will the government consider the advisability of removing the 15% excise tax on television sets?


Edgar John Benson: This is a matter of government policy. If the government should decide to make any change in the taxation of television sets, it would be announced at the appropriate time.
Orders for Returns



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. Robinson: 1.	What is the total amount of tax on alcoholic beverages obtained by the government in each year 1960 to 1970 inclusive?
2.	What amount of money has been utilized by the government toward the problem of alcoholism in each of the same
years?
Return tabled.


APPLICATIONS FOR CANADA COUNCIL DOCTORAL FELLOWSHIP GRANTS
Mr. Rose: 1.	For each of the past five years, how many first applications have there been for Canada Council Doctoral Fellowship Grants in Category I for each Canadian University by main discipline of study?
2.	For the same period of time, how many new applications have there been for Canada Council Doctoral Fellowship Grants in Category II (b) by main discipline of study?
3.	How many applications in each main discipline of study were accepted in Category I and II in each of the past five years?
4.	What per cent of the income available for grants in each of the five years went to Category I and Category II (b) doctoral fellowship grants?
Return tabled.


GRANTS THROUGH DEPARTMENT OR AGENCIES OF SECRETARY OF STATE
Mr. Paproski: What grants, in what amounts, have been authorized since April 1, 1970, to organizations and associations through the department or agencies for which the Secretary of State has responsibility?
Return tabled.


Mr. Orlikow:: Mr. Speaker, question No. 79, which has been on the order paper since the first day of this session, asks for information about consultants hired by the Prime Minister's office. Can the parliamentary secretary tell me whether I can expect an answer shortly or, if there is to be no answer, can the hon. gentleman so advise me in order that I may seek the information I want by other methods?


Mr. Jerome:: The preparation of the reply to that question is not under my personal supervision. Accordingly I am not able to make any statement of the kind requested at the present time.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

James Alexander Jerome: Mr. Speaker, would you be so good as to call Notices of Motions Nos. 214, 215, 216, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228 and 229.

June 9, 1971
Motions for Papers



COPY OF STUDY OF NORTHERN MINERAL EXPLORATION ASSISTANCE PROGRAM

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 214-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study conducted by the Development Analysis Section of the Northern Economic Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on the evaluation of the operation of the Northern Mineral Exploration Assistance Program.
Mr. Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I notice that 13 motions in the name of my hon. triend from Skeena are being called today, namely, this one and 12 more. If by any chance the answer is to be the same to all of them, perhaps we could have it just once. If they are being refused, I would ask that they be transferred for debate individually.


James Alexander Jerome: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is here to give the answer, but I believe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has anticipated the situation correctly. It might be we could save a lot of time by following his suggestion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May we at least
have the statement of refusal?


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, the study referred to in motion No. 214 was prepared for internal use only and as such it is considered confidential. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If that is to be the answer to all 13, may I ask that all 13 be transferred
for debate?


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.



COPY OF STUDY OF MINERAL DEVELOPMENT OPERATIONS OF ANVIL MINES LIMITED

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 215-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study conducted by the Development Analysis Section of the Northern Economic Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, on the economic analysis of the mineral development operations of Anvil Mines Limited.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 216-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study conducted by the Development Analysis Section of the Northern Economic Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, on the economic evaluation of the benefits to the Company and to the Crown, under different alternatives, of the proposed operation of Baffinland Iron Mines Limited.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 219-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study conducted by the Development Analysis Section of the Northern Economic Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development evaluating the mineral potential of the property of Mount Nansen Mines Limited.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 220-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study conducted by the Development Analysis Section of the Northern Economic Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on the evaluation of the mineral potential of the property of Echo Bay Mines Limited.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 221-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study conducted by the Development Analysis Section of the Northern Economic Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development on the evaluation of the mineral potential of the property of Venus Mines Limited.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 222-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study conducted by the Development Analysis Section of the Northern Economic Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development evaluating the proposed exploration program of Selwyn Explorations Limited.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 223-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study conducted by the Development Analysis Section of the Northern Economic Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development evaluating the mineral potential of the property of Arctic Mining and Exploration Limited.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 224-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study conducted by the Development Analysis Section of the Northern Economic Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development evaluating the mineral potential of the Clinton Creek property of Cassiar Asbestos Corporation Limited.
Transferred for debate.
June 9, 1971

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 225-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study conducted by the Development Analysis Section of the Northern Economic Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development evaluating the mineral potential of the property of New Imperial Mines Limited.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 226-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study conducted by the Development Analysis Section of the Northern Economic Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development evaluating the mineral potential of the property of Canada Tungsten Mining Corporation Limited.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 227-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study conducted by the Development Analysis Section of the Northern Economic Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development evaluating the mineral potential in Canada Cement Company lands adjacent to Banff National Park.
Transferred for debate.

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 228-Mr. Howard (Skeena):
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the study conducted by the Development Analysis Section of the Northern Economic Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development evaluating the mineral potential on CTR lands in Banff National Park.
Transferred for debate.
James Alexander Jerome: May I ask that the remaining Notices of Motion be allowed to stand?


Mr. Speaker:: It is the wish of the parliamentary secretary that No. 229 in the name of the hon. member for Vegreville be allowed to stand?


Mr. McCleave:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege concerning Notice of Motion No. 211 which asks that the letter from the Prime Minister of Quebec to the Prime Minister, and the response thereto, dealing with the extension of the Public Order (Temporary Measures) Act be laid before the House. Since these letters have already been published, in effect, by the Prime Minister's office, I cannot understand why the government does not show me the courtesy, as a Member of Parliament, of tabling this correspondence in a proper manner in accordance with my motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps I might return to motion No. 229. A moment ago I inquired whether it was the wish of the parliamentary secretary that this motion stand.
Motions for Papers


James Alexander Jerome: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker. It is not. The reply to that Notice of Motion will be the same as the reply to the others which have already been dealt with. I would assume the result would likely be the same.


Mr. Woolliams:: What does the distinguished member mean by "the same"? Does he want us to withdraw it? I do not follow him.


James Alexander Jerome: Perhaps it would be simpler to withdraw it.



CORRESPONDENCE PERTAINING TO OPERATIONS OF ELK ISLAND NATIONAL PARK

[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 229-Mr. Mazankowski:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, telegrams and other documents exchanged between the Canadian Wildlife Service and the Parks Administration of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, pertaining to the operations of Elk Island National Park, relating to all research studies and recommendations with respect to the maintenance of a healthy and viable wildlife animal population balance, taking into consideration such factors as climatic conditions, availability of natural food supplies, artificial feeding program, predators and all other factors affecting the proper population of animals and management of same in relationship to their habitat.
J. Judd Buchanan: The
study referred to in this motion was prepared for internal use only and as such is considered confidential. I would therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw his motion.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I have never heard of such nonsense. We will have to debate it.


Mr. MacEachen:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate. Shall the remaining motions stand?


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, I raised what I regard as a legitimate question of privilege. Either I am a representative of the people and must be given certain rights in this place or I am not. If the government feels it can release correspondence completely oblivious of this Notice of Motion that I put on the order paper, perhaps we should be asking what we are here to perform. I put his motion on the order paper in good faith on April 5, 1971. There has been no response whatever to it except by the lefthanded action of releasing the correspondence in some other fashion. As a Member of Parliament I think I am entitled to the courtesy of some response from the government to what is a serious Notice of Motion.


Mr. Speaker:: About the only answer that the Chair can give the hon. member at the moment is that I will look into the matter and see whether there is any way the Chair can, through its interest in this question, obtain redress of the hon. member's grievance.

June 9, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Robert L. Stanfield (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I do not know whether he has found it necessary to flee the capital, but in any event I will address it to the Acting Prime Minister who is very knowledgeable in the field of welfare. Has the federal government offered to pay half the cost of comprehensive social security programs, along the lines being advocated by the province of Quebec, to any province adopting such a program and, if so, would the government now table the proposal in view of the leaks that have already taken place?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I had an opportunity to discuss the question of the conference with the Minister of National Health and Welfare last evening and asked him what it would be possible to state respecting the discussions that took place yesterday. As a result of that discussion I must advise the Leader of the Opposition that it was understood that the discussions and points of views expressed at the conference yeterday were confidential among governments and that a communique had not even been issued in view of the private nature of the discussions. For that reason, I regret that I cannot throw any further light on the question that has been raised by the Leader of the Opposition.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, this really makes one wonder what Parliament is for, but I will put my question in a way that I hope will enable the minister to answer. Is the government of Canada prepared to offer to pay half the cost of such a program adopted by any province? What is the position of the government with regard to that, regardless of what may have been said at the conference?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the details of the government's policy respecting the whole field of income security have been outlined in the minister's paper. As the Prime Minister stated only yesterday, I believe, that document was the main basis for discussion with the provinces at the conference yesterday. There is nothing I can add to that particular statement today.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, is the minister saying that the position of the government of Canada is the position outlined in the white paper presented in the House last December? Is he making the assertion that this is still the position and that the government has not made a different proposal or adopted a different position from that outlined in the white paper tabled in the House? In other words, is the government just playing games with the House?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman will appreciate that it would be difficult for me to disclose the discussions that took place yesterday because of the
understanding that was reached at the conference. What I did say was that the basic document in the field was the document put forward by the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Obviously there will be discussions centred around that proposal and points of view will be put forward by the provinces at the conference.



MAINTENANCE OF RIGHT OF FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND PARLIAMENT TO SET NATIONAL STANDARDS

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the Acting Prime Minister. Will he assure the House that in all of these dealings and discussions with the provinces over social security and other matters the federal government will not bargain away the right of the federal government and the federal Parliament to set national standards in the field of social security?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, there may be various interpretations as to the precise definition of "national standards", and I do not want to debate that point. But I really want to repeat what the Prime Minister has already stated, that the position of the federal government is not to bargain away the jurisdiction it already possesses in this field.



INAUGURATION BY PROVINCES OF GUARANTEED INCOME SCHEMES UNDER CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN

Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, my second question is a supplementary to the other part of the question asked by the Leader of the Opposition. Can the minister tell us if the provinces have been advised whether they cannot already under the Canada Assistance Plan inaugurate guaranteed income plans in respect of which the federal government would pay 50 per cent?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, that is a slightly different question to the one put by the Leader of the Opposition. I am not aware that any official advice has been given to that effect by the minister. I am simply not aware that that advice has been conveyed.



MANITOBA SUGGESTION THAT FEDERAL GOVERNMENT'S SHARE UNDER CANADA ASSISTANCE PLAN BE INCREASED

David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the government is giving further consideration to the proposal of the government of Manitoba at the conference yesterday that in view of the very sharp increase in provincial payments under the Canada Assistance Plan as a result of increased unemployment the federal government should assume 65 per cent of the cost of Canada Assistance Plan programs?

June 9, 1971


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Prime Minister stated, and this is still the view of the government, that all suggestions made by the provinces in respect of changes in the Canada Assistance Plan would be considered, but no decision regarding additional sharing by the federal government has been undertaken up to the present time.



CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE


Mr. Roch La Salle (Jolielle):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary I wish to direct to the Acting Prime Minister.
Since all parties are deeply interested in the Victoria Conference, would the Acting Prime Minister be willing to invite House leaders to agree on the holding of a debate on constitutional matters tomorrow or Friday, in other words prior to the Victoria Conference?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe that the position of the government on this point has already been discussed and stated in the House by the Prime Minister.



REQUEST THAT JOINT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTION BE PERMITTED TO ATTEND

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Lancasler):: Mr. Speaker, in view of the motion today under Standing Order 43 by the hon. member for Cardigan, will the Acting Prime Minister see that some consideration is given to the seating of the constitutional committee of this House or a subcommittee, at the constitutional conference in Victoria? Otherwise their work will be completely taken out of their hands.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we might go on to the next subject at this point.



PANARCTIC NATURAL GAS DISCOVERY-AREA FARM-OUT AGREEMENTS WITH OIL COMPANIES

Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development arising out of his answer to a question I asked him yesterday in which he confirmed the fact that Panarctic Oils have made a farm-out agreement with Imperial Oil Company. In view of the fact that the government of Canada has a 45 per cent equity in Panarctic Oils and the Canadian people therefore have a vital interest, may I ask the minister if he would be prepared to table these farm-out agreements setting forth the terms and conditions under which these farm-outs have taken place?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether I could table this agreement. Personally, I have no objections. I shall ask the companies involved for their permission. I understand that this is a perfectly normal agreement in oil operations and I should even be ready to discuss it before the Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the company is disposing of property, part of which belongs to the Canadian people, can the minister tell us what compensation is being paid by Imperial Oil or what share of any finds it makes will accrue to Panarctic Oils in the event of oil or gas finds in the areas farmed out?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: From memory I think Panarctic will keep a 50 or 60 per cent interest if there are any finds on those lands.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if what he is saying means that a 40 per cent equity will be held by other companies in any finds they make, and is this principle to be applied to all farm-outs by Panarctic?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, there is a difference depending on the land made available to the contracting companies. As to the negotiations between Panarctic Oils Limited and Imperial Oil Limited as well as other farm-outs, these are agreements whereby Panarctic Oils Limited reserved for itself generally 30 to 60 per cent of the potential of the wells.



FINANCE


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is absent, I should like to put my question to the Minister of Finance.
The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce stated last night that Marine Industries Ltd. had landed a $123 million contract for the construction of cargo ships for two French companies. The Minister added that the federal government would award a $21 million grant to Marine Industries and that the French companies would benefit from a $82 million loan at a low interest rate.
Is the Minister of Finance in a position to say what is the interest rate that will be paid on this $82 million loan to the two French companies?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take this question as notice.

June 9, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry THE CANADIAN ECONOMY



FACTORS ON WHICH PREDICTED UPWARD TREND BASED

Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Last evening the Prime Minister expressed confidence that the economy is embarked on an upward trend and will gather momentum throughout the balance of 1971 and in 1972. Could the minister please indicate to the House the specific factors on which the government's confidence is based, mindful of what has occurred in the recent past?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member's question of course is a very interesting one, but I would suggest to him and to the minister that the information sought should normally be given to the House by way of a statement on motions. The question in those terms would not be in order.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Speaker:: It is difficult to ask a supplementary to a question which is not in order, but the Chair will recognize the Leader of the Opposition.



DECLINE IN INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTION IN APRIL

Robert Lorne Stanfield: Thank you very much for your leniency, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether the decline in industrial production in Canada for the month of April of 0.8 per cent, as reported by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, is something that has been foreseen by the Minister and is simply some kind of seasonal fluctuation, or does the minister intend to take any action with regard to what appears to some of us to be a rather disturbing development?


Edgar John Benson: The April fall of 0.8 per cent for the durable goods manufacturing group was due to a sharp drop in automobile production. The Ford Oakville plant was shut down for a week because of a strike at a major United States parts supplier. Excluding the auto group, durable goods manufacturing actually rose by 0.6 per cent.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, I would like to provide the Minister of Finance with an opportunity to reconsider the answer he gave me a few moments ago when I asked him about the decline in the adjusted index of industrial production in Canada, issued by the Dominion Bureau of Statistics, which according to my information showed that all divisions shared in the decline.


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I will stand by the answer I gave.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: I should like to address a question to the Acting Prime Minister. It has come to my attention that a number of graduating nurses are willing to go to India to assist in the refugee and cholera emergency, and I am sure there are many more who are anxious to help. Does the government intend to make a survey of how many would be willing to go and immediately make all financial and other arrangements to make this possible and, if so, when?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: will be happy to draw the suggestion of the hon. member to the attention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs for his consideration on his return, I hope later today. From my knowledge I believe there has been no request yet by India for personnel from Canada.


Philip Bernard Rynard: Since modern medicine does not even seem to have the resources to provide the known preventive for this terrible disease of cholera on time, is the government willing to initiate an investigation of what are the present priority global medical needs and to make suggestions about how medicine can more effectively meet those priorities when they arise as emergencies?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The effort in this situation is being co-ordinated by the World Health Organization, and Canada is participating actively in WHO, as my hon. friend knows. The point that has been made by the hon. member will be, as I stated, drawn to the attention of the minister.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington):: I have a supplementary on the very important matter that has been raised, and I should like to address it to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. Would the minister use the Manpower offices across Canada to make an immediate survey to find out how many registered nurses are unemployed and would be available for such work?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: I am sure that if the question of sending expert assistance arises there will be no difficulty in finding available manpower.
* # *


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the decision of the Canadian Medical Association favour-

June 9, 1971

ing the removal from the Criminal Code of the provision for approval of abortions by a hospital committee of doctors, thus making abortion a matter of decision by a woman and her doctor, will the government reconsider soon introducing the necessary amendments to the Criminal Code to bring this about?


Some hon. Members:: No.


John Napier Turner: We are
studying a number of resolutions that were presented and passed by the council of the Canadian Medical Association to analyse the total impact of those resolutions. The Prime Minister stated yesterday that there will be a day set aside for a debate on this matter in the House of Commons but probably not until after the summer recess.




Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Hillsborough):: I should like to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Considering the proclamations of Canada on the whole matter of the sale of arms and military equipment, is he able to advise the House whether or not an investigation has unearthed the information that it was Canadian arms that were found at Ascot yesterday?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am aware of the report to which the hon. member refers, but we have no confirmation that these were in part Canadian arms.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Since the minister, being a fellow Scot, would not want us to be involved in an Irish affair, perhaps he would look into it very carefully.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, may I clarify an answer I made to the hon. member for Hillsborough in reply to his question about arms. I said we had no information that would confirm that any part of these arms were Canadian arms. At the same time I should say I have no information denying the same. We are seeking information.



REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ON ADEQUACY OF SUPPLY FOR EASTERN CANADA IN EVENT OF EMERGENCY

['Orders of the day.']
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: In the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources I will direct my question to the Acting Prime Minister. When does the government expect to table information showing that Canada has a secure supply of oil to supply eastern Canada adequately as well as to maintain export commitments to the United States if an emergency arises in regard to the supply of Venezuelan oil?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Otto Emil Lang: The matter of the availability of supplies in Canada is constantly under study by the National Energy Board and from time to time reports are made. I will bring this specific further request to the attention of the minister.


Robert Norman Thompson: My question was, when is the government going to make such information available to members of the House, and what about the oil export arrangements with the United States in the case of an emergency? It seems to me that the government has a responsibility to the House.


Otto Emil Lang: These matters are continually studied and from time to time reports have been made. As I said, I will bring the matter to the attention of the minister in the event that further reports are available now or in the immediate future.



Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board the following question. In view of the fact that the National Energy Board has alleged that it does not have sufficient money to hire enough staff to give the information to which the Minister of Manpower and Immigration referred in replying to the hon. member for Red Deer, would he look into the matter and provide the National Energy Board with sufficient staff to supply that kind of information to Parliament?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Presidenl of Ihe Treasury Board):: will be glad to look into the matter.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Robert Jardine McCleave: My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Would the minister consider referring in the next session the legislation which deals with the government's relationship with its public servants to a committee of the House for review, with power to recommend changes?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: We will certainly give consideration to that. I think there is no doubt that any legislative proposals which the government would put forward would go to a parliamentary committee.

June 9, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry POLLUTION


LAKE ERIE-DISCUSSION WITH UNITED STATES OFFICIALS -AGREEMENT WITH ONTARIO RESPECTING CANADIAN COMMITMENT
Mr. Charles Turner (London East):: My question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Forestry. Is the minister going to Washington tomorrow to discuss pollution of Lake Erie and, if so, has a firm agreement been reached with Ontario to honour the Canadian commitment to clean up our side of Lake Erie?


Hon. Jack Davis (Minister of Fisheries and Forestry):: The answer to both of those questions is yes, Mr. Speaker. The Secretary of State for External Affairs and I will be in Washington tomorrow to discuss the recommendations of the International Joint Commission. We are going there with an understanding in principle with the government of Ontario that we on our side of the international boundary line will carry out all commitments, including the construction of the capital works necessary to meet the high standards which the IJC has set for all of the Great Lakes.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Rod Thomson (Ballleford-Kindersley):: My question is directed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. Can the minister indicate whether the government of Saskatchewan and the participating company have accepted the offer of an industrial incentive grant for a pulp mill north of Meadow Lake, Saskatchewan?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I know that the offer has been made but I do not know whether it has been formally accepted. I will inquire and advise the hon. member at a later date.


FINANCE
Mr. Henry Latulippe (Compton):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
Could he advise the House whether the recent drop in the value of the Canadian dollar augurs well for Canadian business or whether it will have an adverse effect on the domestic market?


Edgar John Benson: I think that with regard to an analysis of what has been happening to the Canadian dollar my hon. friend will have to wait for my budget speech next week. The Canadian dollar has moved down marginally in the past couple of weeks.

This, of course, is a boon to Canadian exporters. It helps Canadian exporters.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Edgar John Benson: On the other hand, of course, it increases the price of imports-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The minister should not
make the budget speech now.


MEASURES TO RELIEVE EFFECT OF FREEING CANADIAN DOLLAR ON PULP AND PAPER INDUSTRY
Hon. Martial Asselin (Charlevoix):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance.
We learned this morning that Price Bros., of Kenogami, will suspend its lumber operations before the end of the year, which will put 245 people out of work. This company also intends to close its plant for a month, thus laying off 1,200 employees. Of course, the situation of the Canadian dollar is blamed for that.
Since several pulp and paper companies are in the same circumstances, I would like to ask the minister whether he will take the necessary steps to assure the survival of those companies, when preparing his budget.


Mr. Speaker:: I take the liberty to point out to the hon. member that his question must be interpreted as being a suggestion which the minister should take into consideration when introducing the budget.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, could I rephrase my question?


Mr. Speaker:: We will return to it in a moment. [Later:]


Mr. Speaker:: I believe that the hon. member for Charlevoix wishes to put, in a different form, the question that he has asked a short while ago.


Martial Asselin: Mr. Speaker, in view of the difficult situation in which the pulp and paper companies find themselves, I should like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he will consider this situation in his budget so as to readjust the financial situation of the pulp and paper companies which, from day to day, face difficulties and are forced to lay off workers precisely because of the unpegging of the Canadian dollar?


Edgar John Benson: Mr. Speaker, I disagree with the conclusion reached by the hon. member. Of course we will take into consideration all submissions when preparing the budget. I would say, however, that the pulp and paper industry throughout the world has overcapacity at the present time. In the United States its profits went down by 333- per cent in the first quarter.
June 9, 1971


FINAL PAYMENTS ON WHEAT, OATS AND BARLEY IN CURRENT CROP YEAR
Mr. R. R. Southam (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Can the minister indicate whether in fact any final payments will be made to farmers for wheat, oats and barley in this crop year from the Canadian Wheat Board account and, if so, when?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the question as it relates to the current crop year is rather premature in view of the fact that the pools are all still open and active. In the case of the previous crop year, as the hon. member knows, the wheat pool is in the process of being finalized and the final details will be made known before very long. In the case of barley final payments have already gone out.


INCREASE IN WHEAT QUOTA FOLLOWING SALE TO RUSSIA
Mr. Jack Murta (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. In view of the wheat sale to Russia announced last week, can the minister say whether the wheat quota will be increased in excess of the proposed eight-bushel quota which was mentioned earlier?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, it is not anticipated that the quota will move beyond eight bushels in the current crop year.


INFORMATION
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister without Portfolio in charge of Information Canada. Were the recent advertising and public information programs implemented by the government with respect to the census and the proposed expenditures with respect to taxation changes approved by an independent board of advertisers as recommended in the report of the government task force on information?


Hon. Robert Stanbury (Minister without Portfolio):: No,
Mr. Speaker, but the report did not recommend any such approval.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am referring to the report recommending the establishment of Information Canada, the usefulness of which I would not want to debate now, but can the minister tell the House when the government is going to implement the second recommendation in that report with respect to advertising, which does in fact set out that an independent board should be established to
Inquiries of the Ministry
recommend policies to the government on whether contracts should be let and/or how much should be spent?


Robert Douglas George Stanbury: Mr. Speaker, when the policy has been established it will be announced in due course.
* # *


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. John Gilbert (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the excellent practice he established in June last year when he presented the bail reform bill for first reading and allowed time for the purpose of it being studied by organizations and persons across Canada, would he do the same thing with regard to his proposed amendments to the Criminal Code, in particular the amendment proposing that criminal convictions should not be imposed on young persons who have been found guilty of offences that are not serious?


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to do that with respect to certain proposed amendments to the Criminal Code.
sfc


CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the government House leader. In view of the great amount of time and money spent on the work of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution, and the stress placed by the government on the importance of the work of that committee, can the hon. gentleman assure the House that that body will be represented at the discussions in Victoria next week?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the joint chairmen of the Special Committee on the Constitution have been invited to attend the conference as observers, but that is information I would like to check.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that one of the joint chairmen of the Special Committee on the Constitution is a Liberal Member of Parliament and the other is a Liberal Senator, would the government House leader reconsider his position and permit the leaders of the opposition parties to attend the constitutional conference in light of what he has just said, or is this to be a Liberal cesspool?


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Greenwood.

June 9, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, my question is along similar lines. Would the government consider sending to the conference not simply the representatives of one party but the steering committee of the Special Committee on the Constitution so that all parties might have representation there?


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, my question was for the Minister of National Defence, but as he is absent I shall direct it to the Acting Prime Minister.
Representations were made this afternoon in order to point out that the Montmagny armouries which, in recent years, accommodated some fifty young cadets during the summer, are not yet open. May I ask him if the Department of National Defence intends to keep these armouries open during the summer months?


Mr. Speaker:: Once again, that is a suggestion or a representation made by the hon. member. He must assume that it will be considered. Maybe, in due time, the minister could answer the question.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion if he plans on meeting with the four Atlantic premiers at the constitutional conference in Victoria to discuss with them the recommendations and strategy proposed to the government by the Atlantic Development Council?


Jean Marchand: I will surely meet with them, Mr. Speaker, but I do not have any agenda at the moment.


James Aloysius McGrath: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, may I ask the minister if the federal government has decided on a position with respect to the recommendations of the Atlantic Development Council?


Jean Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I think I mentioned in the House previously that my intention was to meet with the premiers, and on the next possible occasion I am going to do so.


CONSTITUTIONAL CONFERENCE
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question relates to an earlier question on the constitutional conference. To remove the pollution or the cesspool part of the question, I would like to ask the President of the Privy Council, in his capacity as house leader, this question. If the joint chairmen of the constitutional committee are to be invited to the conference as observers, surely an invitation could be extended to the Leader of the Opposition, who is one of the main officials in the whole parliamentary process in Canada, to be there also as an observer. Will this be given just consideration in the just society?
Hon Allan J. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council): Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. gentleman on a number of counts, namely, the importance of the role of the Leader of the Opposition, and I believe that importance has been recognized by the government with respect to the constitutional conference.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I have not received an invitation to attend anything except the open sessions. May I ask the Acting Prime Minister whether the joint chairmen of the constitutional committee are being invited to attend all sessions of the conference or simply the open sessions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the joint chairmen have not been given any opportunity greater than that which would be accorded to the Leader of the Opposition. I am sure that would not be the intention of the government. It was because of the importance that we attach to the Leader of the Opposition's role that the invitation has been extended. My hon. friend may be just a little bit impatient. The opportunity to participate fully may come in some distant time for him.


An hon. Member:: After the next election.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, since the President of the Privy Council in his answer to the Leader of the Opposition referred to the respect and honour in which the Leader of the Opposition is held and the position of the Leader of the Opposition at any conference and his position in the parliamentary process, may I ask whether this participation is to be a one-way street? Is the Leader of the Opposition to hear but not speak and really not see the conference which is at hand?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member for Calgary North has a supplementary.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I should like to hear some clarification. I did not really understand what the House leader said. Are the joint
[Mr. Speaker.)
June 9, 1971

chairmen to attend? If they are to attend the conference, will they be left out on the porch or allowed in the conference room? Let us have the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the minister might like to reply to that question, but I point out that there are only a few minutes left before the end of the question period and perhaps we should go to another subject immediately after the minister's answer.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think it ought to be made clear that this is a conference among governments, the federal government and the governments of the provinces, and the full representatives of all those governments will participate in the conference.


James Aloysius McGrath: Including a leader of an opposition party.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The conference is closed to all persons except the representatives of the governments. That is the rule of the game. The fact that others who do not happen to be members of any government are not included is not intended to be a slight on any of them. My hon. friend should understand that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Lorne Stanfield: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but in view of that answer I must ask a further supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the Leader of the Opposition. I suggested a moment ago that, in view of the limited time left at our disposal, we ought to go to the next subject. However, the Leader of the Opposition will be recognized.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: Does the Acting Prime Minister mean to imply that if a provincial government brings with its delegation someone who is not a member of that government, someone who is, for example, the leader of the opposition party in that province, he would not be admitted to the conference?


Robert Jardine McCleave: That is what the minister said.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Mr. Speaker. I made no such statement.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, as it is important for all points of view in this country to be represented at the conference so that there may be an opportunity to hear the discussions, and as some of the provincial delegations will include opposition members, if it is decided to allow provincial representatives of legislative assemblies to sit in on the closed sessions, does the federal government intend to invite the Leader of the Opposition and the leaders of the other political parties also to sit in on the closed sessions at the conference in Victoria?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I believe I stated that the Leader of the Opposition had drawn an unwarranted conclusion, or had stated that I had stated something I had not stated. My hon. friend has, on that unstable premise, built another question which is as far from reality as the original observation of the Leader of the Opposition.


Thomas Miller Bell: Explain.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We have just about reached the end of the question period. Perhaps we might take up the last minute or two with supplementary questions on this matter.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, the premise of my question was not based on anything that was said by any previous questioner. I have attended some of these conferences and I know-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member kindly ask his question, because we have run out of time.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: As some of the provincial delegations made up of representatives from various political parties are to be allowed to sit in on the closed sessions, will the same principle apply to the representatives from this parliament who will attend the conference in Victoria?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I would have to check. I am not disputing-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister has told us four different stories today.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -the factual statement made by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands. It is not my statement. I have stated the position of the federal government. It is that the conference is a conference between governments. It is not a public conference. I am not speaking on behalf of any provincial government as to the composition of its representation at the conference. I am not answering the final point because I have not the knowledge as to what decision might be taken by the conference on the point raised by the hon. member.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council has answered in part the supplementary question that I wish to put to him. Could we have an assurance from the Acting Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, that the Leader of the Opposition in Ontario will be in no better or higher position than the Leader of the Opposition in the Parliament of Canada at the Conference?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I should like to give that assurance to my hon. friend.


Robert Lorne Stanfield: The minister would like to.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: But would he?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

June 9, 1971
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that we are coming close to the end of our time, but this is a very important question. Will the Acting Prime Minister in the Parliament of Canada give us that assurance and not his desire to give it? Would he make the affirmation and say affirmatively that he will give it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I am perfectly satisfied to see both of them where they are at the present time.


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


Mr. Simpson:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege respecting the rights and privileges of Canadian citizens living in smaller communities and particularly in the community of Lynn Lake, Manitoba. My question of privilege arises as a result of the tremendous amount of publicity and advertising which has been distributed to Canadian householders with respect to the census now being taken.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member kindly resume his seat. He will appreciate that the only privileges he can claim at this time are his own parliamentary privileges or the privileges of this institution. He cannot rise at this time and claim the floor to claim the privileges of the citizens of Canada or of individual citizens. Parliamentary privilege is the privilege of the hon. member, individually. I assume that this is what he proposes to indicate to the Chair.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Smerchanski:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We will have one question of privilege raised at a time. The Chair recognizes the hon. member for Churchill.


Robert Simpson: Mr. Speaker, my point of privilege arises from the fact that I am also a Canadian citizen living in a small community.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows very well that parliamentary privilege has nothing to do with the statement which the hon. member is making now. He says that as a citizen he has privileges and he is attempting to claim those privileges now. That is not a point of parliamentary privilege, which is the only privilege the hon. member can claim and the only privilege he can put to the Chair at this time. Perhaps the hon. member might come to the point and indicate as quickly as possible what his point is.


Robert Simpson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was trying to bring to your attention and the attention of the House the advertising that the government is putting out in relation to the census. I have in my hand a letter originating from the office of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce outlining the method by which the census will be taken. In the letter it is explained how the census will be taken, and it says that there is one-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether the hon. member has considered that under the rules he has to give notice to the Chair. I have received no notice of the question of privilege which he now proposes to bring to the attention of the House. A question of privilege can be raised for the consideration of the House and the Chair without notice if it relates to a matter which arises as a result of current or immediate debate; at that point an hon. member may rise and state that he has a question of privilege. But this question relates to facts which to my knowledge did not arise earlier this day as part of the debate.
I cannot see how the hon. member can rise at this point and raise a question of privilege without giving notice to the Chair. I am anxious to be as lenient as possible in allowing the hon. member to state his point briefly, but it seems that he is getting farther and farther away from a legitimate question of privilege.


Robert Simpson: I will be very pleased to give notice and bring this matter to Your Honour's attention tomorrow.


Mark G. Smerchanski: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I notice that the seating plan for the third session of the twenty-eighth Parliament is somewhat confusing. I would like clarification as to whether I occupy seat No. 167 or No. 168. I do not represent the constituency of Nickel Belt; I am the member for Provencher. There seems to be some confusion in this comer of the chamber about where the Liberal members are seated according to the numbers under the present seating arrangement. I would like clarification of this matter.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, June 8, consideration of the motion of Mr. Benson that Bill C-219, to establish the Canada Development Corporation, be read the third time and do pass.
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse).


Mr. Crouse:: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair was under the impression that the hon. member was rising on a point of order or a question of privilege. The hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) had the floor when the debate was adjourned yesterday.


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo):: Mr. Speaker, in trying to assess the reasons for the government's injecting the profit motive into the Canada Development Corporation

June 9, 1971

as its primary operational motivation I noted three explanations. The first was to get rid of Crown corporations which have been an embarrassment to the government by virtue of their success. The second was the necessity of satisfying the investment interests of corporations in Canada which have funds they want to place somewhere. This would take care of both the first and second objectives. They could take the common property of all Canadian Crown corporations, such as Polymer, and turn it over to private investors. The third reason was to do something, after waiting around for eight years, so that the government would not be subjected to the embarrassment of having to put this matter in the next Throne Speech.
There seems to be a fourth reason. The fourth reason for having the profit motive in the Canada Development Corporation is really a form of political cowardice. It gets the government off the hook. If the Canada Development Corporation makes a decision that is not in the national interest and which is not approved by Parliament, the government can say that the objective of the CDC is to provide profit and therefore we cannot fault the government. The government is looking for an invisible hand to guide the Canada Development Corporation rather than to guide the objectives of national priority as determined by the Parliament of Canada. Judging from experience, this kind of political cowardice is not going to work. The government may get away with it for a little while, but it is not going to work.
We have had a similar experience in this respect. The government tried to operate the regional development program on this basis. Initially the program had hard and fast rules as to which areas would be entitled to assistance. The reason for adopting rigid formulas was to take the government off the hook with regard to making decisions as to the kind of development that should take place in various parts of Canada. That program had to be changed because it was too inflexible and did not work in the way that was promised. The government has now moved into a new area in respect of regional development. It exercises a much higher degree of discretion in terms of to whom grants shall be made and where development shall take place. When that change in the legislation was introduced in the House we pointed out that the government was embarking upon a dangerous policy. However, it was at least a policy that offered some form of success. The program has been notably successful. This area of discretion has given it any measure of success to which it can lay claim.
The same will happen to the Canada Development Corporation. It cannot be operated on a profit motive. You cannot avoid political responsibility when establishing a national development corporation. The government will learn this as the situation progresses. In discussing the Canada Development Corporation, one of the arguments of government members has been that to have the CDC under the jurisdiction of the government and subject to scrutiny by Parliament would be politically dangerous. They argue that people will exert political pressure on the government for development in certain areas
Canada Development Corporation
and to support some industries which are not viable, suggesting that social problems be looked after rather than economic problems.
What is Parliament for but to tackle problems of this kind? Surely if a proposal is put to the government that it does not feel is justified or viable, it can deal with the situation. The government does not have to buckle under every kind of political pressure. No government and no Parliament has buckled under all kinds of political pressure to which this Parliament must be responsive. We cannot turn over the responsibility of Parliament to something that is profit motivated, namely, the Canada Development Corporation. That is what Parliament is all about: it must be responsive to the political pressures of our society and not evade them as is being attempted through the Canada Development Corporation. This is what it really is, political cowardice and an evasion of governmental responsibility. It is an attempt to have a profit-motivated body do the thinking which the government is refusing to do on behalf of the Canadian people.
This debate is drawing to a close; we are summing up our positions. Those of us who have fought hard and long for a Canada Development Corporation are disappointed with the dishonest approach the government has taken in the creation of the CDC. We are certain the Canadian people will understand this and that eventually the kind of CDC our party advocates will stand in place of the emasculated thing that the government is presenting to this House.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on third reading of Bill C-219, an act to establish the Canada Development Corporation. Back in the beautiful and fabled province of Nova Scotia there is a story told around an area called Mahone Bay. In the days of the privateers a ship named the Teaser was being pursued. It sought refuge in Mahone Bay, where it was blown up by one of its crew who did not wish to be captured. Legend has it that today if you are in that area on a stormy and foggy night you can still see the ghost of the Teaser sailing before the wind with bare spars burning brightly in the fog. This is a ghost. Bill C-219 reminds me of the ghost of the Teaser because it has been around for a long time. Now it would appear that its skeleton has taken on some form and it has come back to the Commons.
Away back in 1963 the Speech from the Throne stated that the government planned to introduce a measure to establish a Canadian development corporation. Nothing happened during that session, however. In succeeding sessions the measure was mentioned but it was never introduced in the House. Finally, in 1971, a bill providing for the establishment of a large private corporation under government control has been introduced in the

June 9, 1971
Canada Development Corporation
Commons. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) describes the corporation in these words:
It will help develop and maintain strong Canadian-controlled and Canadian-managed corporations in the private sector and provide greater opportunities for Canadians to invest and participate in the economic development of Canada.
According to the Minister of Finance, the corporation is supposed to help shape and secure future Canadian development. It is to be a large-scale source of capital to create major new enterprises. It will join others in acquiring and rationalizing existing companies where competitiveness may be improved by merger, amalgamation or other corporate arrangements. These changes, the minister says, will reduce the risks of an undesirable degree of foreign control of the enterprises concerned.
The Minister of Finance states that the activities of the corporation will involve close relationship with the business and financial community. Able and experienced entrepreneurs will direct the corporation's operations to areas of critical importance in economic development-to high-technology industry, to resource utilization, to northern-oriented companies and to industries where Canada has a special competitive advantage. Generally, the CDC will not seek to exercise direct operating control of the corporations in which it invests and these corporations will not normally become CDC subsidiaries. Shares are to be sold to the public in competition with those of all other investment vehicles, and the bill specifically directs the CDC to invest for profit in the best interests of the shareholders.
The Canada Development Corporation is to have an authorized share capital of 200 million common shares without nominal or par value, and preferred shares amounting to $1,000 million with a nominal or par value not exceeding $1,000 each, divided into any multiple of $5. According to the minister, in order to enable the corporation to begin its operations without delay once the bill has been approved, the government will make $250 million available to it by undertaking to purchase its shares either directly or as an underwriter. Under this arrangement the government will subscribe $100 million in the first year and $75 million in each of the following two years. In addition, the bill provides authority for the government to lend up to $100 million to the corporation.
Again according to the minister, the Governor in Council will be given authority to sell to the CDC at a fair and reasonable price its interests in certain Crown-owned corporations such as Polymer Corporation, Eldorado Nuclear Limited, Panarctic Oils and Northern Transportation. The board of the CDC is to consist of between 18 and 21 directors, and until government holdings have been reduced to less than 50 per cent of the total issued and outstanding working shares the deputy ministers of the Department of Finance and of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce will also be members of the board.
CDC shares will count as authorized investments for insurance and loan and trust companies, subject to existing federal law. The CDC will not be an agency or a
Crown corporation responsible to Parliament, but because it is created by an act of Parliament any change in its capital structure or in the powers of the corporation will require approval by way of a resolution passed by both Houses of Parliament.
In retrospect, we see that it took the government eight years in which to prepare this bill and present it to the House. I cannot help wondering why it has chosen this point in time to present the measure, bearing in mind that there are so many more pressing matters confronting us. Obviously, the government chose to wait eight years because it did not consider the establishment of the Canada Development Corporation essential to the economic development of the country. At the present time, when unemployment is high and inflation is still with us, it seems to me the bill provides a good diversion from the real problems of the day.
I cannot but wonder how many jobs will be created by the CDC. Where will it invest? How will it help curb inflation? The government gives the impression of being concerned about the economic development of the country, but it is by no means certain that the proposed corporation will be an instrument of such development. At the outset of its operations it will acquire four corporations, two of which are profit making, namely, Polymer and Northern Transportation, one which is losing a lot of money-Eldorado-and another, Panarctic, which is not yet making a profit. So much for development!
The assumption appears to be that an investment company established under government control will promote the creation of more capital for investment in Canada. I challenge this assumption on the basis that the government does not create capital. From my study of economics I conclude that additional capital can be created only by marshalling savings which would not otherwise be organized.
It is said the corporation will provide increased opportunities for Canadians to participate in the economic development of their country. I would remind hon. members, Mr. Speaker, that there are in Canada today many institutions which provide excellent opportunities for the small investor to participate in the economic growth of Canada. I am referring to the mutual funds. These funds are the custodians of sums exceeding the $2 billion proposed for the CDC and they are without exception eager to sell more shares to the public and enlarge their own investment operation.
The best expert advice and experience are available to serve the small investor in those funds. Shares are available at low cost, and in my opinion it is impossible to conceive an easier way in which Canadians may acquire a share in what the Minister of Finance calls the ownership and direction of business operations in this country. These funds hold enormous, sound investments in Canadian enterprises. Under legislation passed in 1960-I believe I am right in this-operating companies must derive 85 per cent of their gross revenue from Canadian investment sources if they wish to enjoy certain tax benefits.

June 9, 1971

It seems to me there can be no justification for the government entering into competition with existing business, especially when that business is competently and responsibly serving the public. The use of the enormous power of government in competition with Canadian business cannot fail to undermine confidence and create further uncertainty as to the future. The proposed arrangements for selling the stock of the corporation should be clearly understood.
When the shares go on the market the initial price will be $5 and no doubt all the resources of the government, all the advertising media to which it has access, will be marshalled to spur sales. Sales promotion will be extremely costly. Since the government's prestige will be at stake in the response of the public to the offering of the stock, we can expect the government to use every advantage open to it to push sales. The minister has plainly stated that support will also be sought from a wide variety of Canadian institutions including insurance companies, banks and trust companies. I consider this proposal dangerous in the extreme. I feel the government has no right to press such institutions to subscribe for stock in this new corporation. The government should not have the right to exert pressure on institutions to invest assets which are generally held in trust. There have been times in the past when governments have applied direct pressure on financial institutions to purchase their bond issues when facing difficulties in finding a market. In my opinion this type of tactic should not be permitted to be revived in any form.
The corporation is to provide financing for large Canadian enterprises which might otherwise be led to seek funds outside Canada with a consequent loss of ownership and control to non-Canadians. Just think what this particular clause means, Mr. Speaker. Any enterprise that can scare up a foreign takeover bid can then apply to the Canada Development Corporation and demand a bigger and better price. It seems to me that the corporation will provide a relatively captive market for businesses which their owners are anxious to unload at inflated prices.
It is also to be the function of the corporation to share in financing the initial development or expansion of large-scale industrial projects in Canada. It is said that existing channels in Canada are not adequate to finance large-scale projects, that a new channel must be created for this purpose. In my opinion this is simply not true. The fact that the yield on good equities at the present is around 3 per cent, compared with 5-3/4 per cent on government bonds and 8 per cent on five-year term certificates, clearly shows that Canadians are equity conscious and that existing channels are adequate to meet such needs if the investment is sound. Every experienced financier and businessman knows that the selection of risks is the essence of the success of any enterprise operating in the investment field. Good investments, including equities, are finding markets in Canada today. The riskiest of all would remain to be offered to the Canada Development Corporation.
Canada Development Corporation
If these are taken up and the corporation incurs heavy loss in consequence, I ask, Sir, will the Canadian taxpayer be required to bail-out the corporation? One of my concerns is the great pressures that would be exerted upon such a corporation in its selection of risks, that is to say, in the purchase of the capital stock of corporations engaged either in risk development of resources or marginal industrial projects. I can picture Members of Parliament, especially those on the government side, making special entreaties to the corporation on behalf of shaky enterprises in their constituencies. The responsibilities of management under those circumstances will be enormous. I cannot help but wonder where sound, experienced and competent management for such a mammoth corporation is to be recruited. It will certainly take a very long time to set it up with efficient management.
Another matter that puzzles and concerns me is the statement of the minister when he speaks of ensuring the independence of the corporation. The minister says that by selling shares to the public and having the shareholders elect some of the directors, the corporation will stand on its own feet, free of government control. At least the minister appears to recognize the inherent dangers that are implicit in the relationship between the government and the corporation, but the suggestion that the corporation will be independent of government is in my view a fantastic illusion.
It seems to me that if the treasury of Canada is to be called upon to purchase large blocks of the stock of the corporation, if it is required to purchase debentures of the corporation or to make loans to it up to an amount of $100 million, how then can the government and Parliament divorce themselves from their responsibility to the Canadian public for its operations? If Polymer and other Crown corporations are to be sold to the new corporation, how can the government and Parliament ignore their responsibility with respect to the operation of these Crown corporations? These are questions that have not been answered to date. Certainly they have not been answered in any of the debates that have taken place in this House.
In my opinion, neither the government nor Parliament can properly abdicate their responsibilities for such an institution, and the alleged independence of the corporation is a myth. If the day ever comes when this corporation shows a profit, can we be assured that the exigencies of the government, political or otherwise, will not enter into the declaration or withholding of dividends? In light of all these factors I cannot assume that this new corporation will operate independently of government. If the Canada Development Corporation grows to anything like the size pictured by the minister and invests substantially in the stock of other corporations, in my view its tentacles will spread like those of an octopus throughout the entire Canadian economy. When this happens we will be marching on the slippery slope to socialism from which there will be no return.
Another matter that puzzles me is this. Why have we not heard from the hon. member for Trinity (Mr. Helly-er) or the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans) in

June 9, 1971
Canada Development Corporation
the debate on this bill? These former Liberal cabinet ministers, when speaking outside this House are loud in their condemnation of the government and its policies, and rightly so. I know that confession is good for the soul, Mr. Speaker, but this chamber is the place to make your voice heard. This is the place to stand up and be counted. So I ask, where are these two former cabinet ministers this afternoon? Why are they not here to speak out against the policies of this government and to stand against the worst government our country has ever had?
There are other objections to this legislation that cause concern to serious-minded Canadians. For example, what kind of persons are likely to constitute the board of directors? It is evident that the government will appoint the initial directors. The minister has indicated that as the sale of the capital stock of the corporation proceeds, the government will retain the right to appoint a small proportion of the directors. Who can guarantee that these men will be appointed without regard to partisan considerations? Who can guarantee that they will not feel obliged to act as representatives and mouthpieces of the government in all the important decisions that are taken by the board? In fact, decisions on the scale to be taken by this board might conceivably at times involve the prestige, even the political life of the present government.
In theory, the shareholders will be free to elect the other directors. But if the policy pursued by the board should be embarrassing to the government as principal shareholder, I ask you, Mr. Speaker, how long can the independence of the board be expected to continue? The stock of this corporation is to be redeemable at any time at the option of the investor. The price paid for common shares will be the closing sale price of the share on the principal stock exchange on the business day immediately preceding the date of giving notice of redemption, or if no bids or asking prices on the exchange are quoted for that business day the last closing sale price recorded on the exchange will be the price paid.
I would point out that to meet redemptions mutual funds are always in a position to liquidate high-class securities. Is this corporation to dispose of stocks in its portfolio on the market to meet redemptions? If so, in my opinion investments of the type that it is expected to hold would in many cases be unsaleable except at substantial loss. I believe that the size of this corporation and its position as a creature of the government will create a significant danger to its market operations. It could by its transactions influence and disturb the market in the most serious manner.
If the corporation purchases large blocks of stock of companies engaged in the development of resources or industries, is it going to be content to accept a minority position in such companies, or will it insist on holding control to protect its investment? In either case it would have to insist on the appointment of some directors, and in light of past performances these will all be Liberal supporters, which will give a political bias to this national corporation.
There are many other points of view which I could put on the record, but I believe I have said enough to indicate the reasons members of my party will not support this legislation when it comes to a vote in the House.


Mr. Steven Otto (York East):: Mr. Speaker, having heard the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) and the hon. member who has just sat down, it seems to me that the days we have debated this bill will go down as black days in the House and the Canada Development Corporation will be the most awful thing to reach the Canadian people. If we listen to the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) we realize we have not yet reached the Valhalla their party would wish to accomplish through a Canada development corporation. Then we heard the minister state the government's position. I think it is about time I put forward the Liberal rationale behind this bill.
I direct the attention of the House back to 1962 or 1963 when discussion originated about a Canada development corporation. At that time Mr. Walter Gordon was the man who recognized some of our problems, and they were easily recognizable. One of the problems lies in why Canadian enterprise was not making headway compared with enterprise in the United States and other countries. It did not take long to find the answers. First, Canadian corporate law was not really suited to a wide distribution of shares. In most provinces the laws governing private corporations make it very costly for them to become public; and by and large we find that the market in Canada is speculative-people want to make a buck quickly and get out. It has not been an investment market. In the United States these corporations are under the control of the Federal Securities Exchange Commission and they operate under a definite set of laws. There are avenues through which a private entrepreneur can proceed. They can set up a syndicate and change a private corporation to a public corporation with wide distribution of shares, and at all times the minority shareholders are protected by the law. This was one of our ills.
Possibly the most difficult problem is that Canadians do not have investment capital. It was always presumed that money put away in savings as a result of hard work would be invested by Canadians in speculative or risk capital. It was found this was not so. The reason other countries have had greater success, especially the Un ted States, is that there is a fantastic accumulation of capital, going back to the whaling days, and the investment of that capital has generated more money for risk investment. It was also a different type of investment.
Canadian history of investment in enterprise with public distribution of shares has never been very good. By and large public investment has been in gold and uranium mines. These ventures usually wound up in the hands of a small group in Toronto or Montreal living on Bridle Path or Post Road making a few million dollars and everybody else losing a few hundred dollars. The

June 9, 1971

history of investment has not been bright. That is the reason for the thought behind the Canada Development Corporation, namely, to assist enterprise to develop. Since 1962 we have seen many examples of development corporations. They have existed from the Maritimes to British Columbia, and invariably few have been successful. I am speaking of the Newfoundland Corporation and the Maritime Corporation, among others. Very few have worked out and have been, if not unsuccessful at least not warranting further development.
Now the government has taken a new approach. It wants to develop an "instant" giant corporation. This, again, is not the answer because it loses sight of the original concept. I only intend to speak briefly but I would remind hon. members of some very cruel facts of the business world. A corporation or enterprise is successful because of the greed or selfishness of an individual or a small group of individuals. They want to make money and gain power. They want to gain an equity position in a structure which will be theirs. I put it to the House that corporations which have grown large and have lost control by a small group have usually wound up in bankruptcy.
There is no such thing as a corporation controlled by directors who have nothing to gam. Normally, enterprises work out well if the directors, the president, the vicepresident in charge of sales, advertising, and so on, have something coming to them; usually it is share equity. A president is appointed and told that if the enterprise is successful he will be given or will have the option to buy a hundred thousand or a million shares, whatever it may be. The desire for power and gain keeps these corporations growing and becoming successful.
Naturally, a government type of development cannot offer this incentive and unfortunately we wind up with apprehensions of the type expressed here today. We build a mediocre-type corporation which does not do the right thing. Creating an "instant" giant of the four or five Crown corporations which Canada now has will not solve the problem. All it might do is diffuse the ability we now have in this field.
This will be the last chance 1 will have to advise the parliamentary secretary and the minister that there is still a great opportunity for the Canada Development Corporation if we return to the original purpose, and that is to assist the development of enterprise. When you examine all these problems you find that there are no buyers for shares because the law does not protect minority shareholders. The history of Canadian investment is such that if you guarantee an investor a return on his money, he will buy. Canadians are not too easy with the money they have saved and they will not invest if there is risk.
The position of the Canada Development Corporation could be very strong if it adopted an approach similar to that of Central Mortgage and Housing in the mortgage field. The corporation should work toward a program by which it could examine new or existing enterprises. It could then set a certain premium to be paid by the
Canada Development Corporation
corporation. The corporation could put its stamp of guarantee on the shares. Then you would find growth.
This is not so strange. What I am really asking is that the small shareholder be put in the same position as large corporations. Many times I have invested money for clients on a short-term basis. I have purchased shares in large corporations. My clients were not willing to take the risk of a loss in the future. I went to a commercial banker and showed him a portfolio of shares which I required to cash six months hence. I asked how much it would cost to ensure the return of that amount of cash. He told me the premium, which I paid, and I was sure that six months later there would be at least that much money available. If there was more because the shares increased in value, my clients prospered: if there was less, the commercial banker took the loss.
What Canadians need, and must have before they invest in small enterprises and in the growth of an enterprise with a wide distribution of shares, is this type of guarantee. In a similar way the Canada Development Corporation could be very successful. It could examine and scrutinize all corporations and then approve some as good ventures. It could give the stamp of approval to sound enterprises which warranted a wider distribution of equity shares. The CDC should state to shareholders that it will give a guarantee on the premium.
If the contemplated approach is used, I do not think the future will be entirely black-but let us face it, it will not help the individual enterprise in Canada grow and there will still be the tendency for Canadian entrepreneurs to sell out to Americans who can do this sort of thing on a large scale. I urge the government to review its position within the structure of the act so that, as I have stated, it will have the power to use the CDC as an instrument to guarantee the shares of companies with a promising and worth-while future.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the bill I intend to be very short, which perhaps will be a surprise to some of my colleagues in this chamber. However, it is possible to be short and still be succinct and relevant.
As I rise to speak on Bill C-219 to set up the Canada Development Corporation there are many mixed thoughts in my mind. But in a philosophical sense, when we speak of the CDC in this day of the abbreviated form, whether it is IBM, GMC, 3-M or ATT-and now CDC-one can almost write a poem about abbreviated forms of iambic-pentameter time according to Shakespeare and everything else.
My concept of the CDC, which differs from that of several of my friends to the left, would be more in the form of another abbreviated phrase. I suggest that rather than "CDC" it could be "4S's". The four S's are "sop, sham and shabby substitute". Without going into detail, I believe the bill we are debating is a real sop to the nationalistic mood in Canada as in our 104th year we Canadians still try to define our national id, our national
24107-63J

June 9, 1971
Canada Development Corporation identity. I have nothing against that, but I question whether the CDC will produce some of the strength for the national identity that we all want.
It may sound fine to some intellectuals who think we are trying to buy back the past or preserve the future, but from the debate we have had we know there is disagreement in this House concerning whether the bill will do all that its backers and opponents would like it to do. It may be fine for the founding fathers of an independent Canada movement to point to the CDC and say it will help us control our economy and the integrity of the corporate enterprise and/or individual enterprise. But having read the bill and having listened to some of the debate in the House I say that because it does not go far enough-like my friends in the NDP-it is a sop to the nationalistic mood of this country.
The second "s" in my equation is that Bill C-219 is a sham to realistic economic planning because it attempts to balance the unbalanceable. It attempts to equate the motive for profit and all the enterprises where profit is the incentive. I am not against profit and certainly not against incentive, but I suggest that in this type of corporation which is supposed to do so much for Canada you cannot have the profit equation on the cash register on one hand and the necessity for development on the other. I suggest they are almost irreconcilable. I do not mean by that that you cannot have, through development, some profit. Obviously you can in the way private enterprise works in Canada, with all the state control we have.
My friends to the left may want more state control. I understand their point of view. I sympathize with it but I do not agree with it on all occasions. Through development may come profit, but you cannot have it the other way around if you are planning for the logical economic development of Canada. If your profit motive is the incentive for what you do, obviously you will remain outside a lot of the barren areas of Canada which need development.
My first "s" was a sop for the nationalistic movement in Canada and all the founding fathers, including Walter Gordon and other notables. The second "s" is that I believe sincerely-I do not like that word very much-it is a sham to realistic economic planning because you cannot balance profit with development. Through development may come profit, but through profit you may never have development. I have listened to the learned arguments of my friend from Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and all those who have contributed so constructively to this debate, and I say that the last "s" in my 4S's is negative suggestion. That is admitted, but perhaps we in the opposition are cursed because we can only be negative from time to time. My last two "S's" are for the words "shabby substitute". I suggest the proponents of this bill are trying to perpetrate upon the Canadian public a shabby substitute for a relevant and viable vehicle for economic growth.
There is no doubt, as we look around and see all the indices, tables and so forth which are available from the Bureau of Statistics and other places, that we need economic growth in this country. But I question very definitely whether Bill C-219-giving it all the benefit of the doubt, having read all its terms and having heard the explanations of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Benson) and his parliamentary secretary-will produce the relevant and viable vehicle for economic growth which we so desperately need and anxiously await in Canada. Here I may differ very much from my friends to the left and perhaps many of my friends across the way who sometimes seem closer to my friends to the left than I am. That may be the case and they will have to live with it. However, my philosophy in the whole question of economic growth is that government should stimulate policies for development, and not develop legislative structures or legislative vehicles like the CDC in an effort to pretend that we have development.
We need over-all economic policies to move us up to the next step on the ladder. No one pretends we have reached our goal, but I suggest that in that step by step process up the economic ladder it is a shabby substitute to perpetuate Bill C-219 for the concept that was developed by the Walter Gordon's of Canada, and to pretend in this chamber that this bill even comes close to what the Walter Gordon's and the Alvin Hamilton's used to say about the necessity for legislation which would allow Canadians to develop our country and invest in Canadian industry.
It is anticipated that we will have a budget on June 18. I do not know why there is not yet an economic, across-the-board policy which would discriminate in favour of Canadians developing Canadian industry. During the life of the twenty-eighth Parliament it has been an accepted fact in committee hearings, because of the white paper, the evidence of the Minister of Finance and of many other Canadian economists, that there should be a capital gains tax in Canada. I am not arguing for or against that question today but I hope to have the opportunity when we debate the budget, depending on what the Minister of Finance does, to express my opinion that in this area alone there is potential for a viable policy for economic growth with a capital gains tax which would discriminate in favour of Canadians.
If I or other Members of Parliament-whether or not we have a pay increase-had any money left to invest after meeting our tax load, which is the same as that of the people in the press gallery and of people outside, although some misguided people might think we are protected, and wished to invest in a Canadian industry and realize a profit, it might be good policy for us to reinvest in a Canadian enterprise and not have to pay a capital gains tax on it. On the other hand, if I invested in an invidious U.S., British or French company I would have to pay a Canadian capital gains tax. In that way I suggest seriously we would be doing more for our economic development potential than is pretended in Bill C-219, which is supposed to develop a corporation to stimulate growth of Canadian industry.
Having said all that, I shall have no hesitation in voting against Bill C-219 because it is a sop to the nationalistic fervour of this country as we are trying to reach
[Mr. Nowlan.l
June 9, 1971

out and discover who we are, and I am all for that. However, I say it is a shadow and a pretence to think we will find solace in the CDC. 1 say it is a sham and it is not realistic economic planning because, as my friends to the left have said so well, especially the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. Saltsman) in his contribution to this debate, you cannot have the profit motive and the development necessity. If you turn them around, you may get some profit, but you will never get development if you use profit as the catalyst. Third, it is a shabby substitute for a relevant economic policy.
For those reasons, which I say add up to "4S's", sop, sham and shabby substitute, I will vote against this bill- and those are better reasons than many others which have been advanced for voting against other government bills. I wonder, in a philosophical way, if the CDC as it will be established under Bill C-219 is not another example of this government's preoccupation with culture and constitutions. I say this advisedly, not wanting to detract from the necessity of defining what Canadian culture is, whatever it may be, and it is an opening process, an evolving process. The culture that we have today is obviously far different from what we had 50 years ago and from the concept of the Fathers of Confederation.
In like fashion, when I refer to constitution I do not refer solely to the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) and his government's preoccupation with an amendment to the BNA Act, with an amending formula or with the division of powers as between one provincial government and other provincial governments and the federal government. All these are very necessary and important- but in so many bills that we have had before us as legislators the government opts for the structure, for the Constitution, rather than for the reality which the Constitution is supposed to maintain.
You only have to consider the farm bill, Bill C-176, which was supposed to set up a framework to bring about a new millenium in agriculture in Canada. The minister responsible for the Wheat Board has contributed in part to that debate and so have hon. members on this side from time to time. But a bill like C-176, which creates a national farm marketing agency, by itself does nothing for agriculture. It is the producers who count in agriculture, and only then is there need for some regulation and control.
In like fashion we have here the CDC. Everyone talks about economic development and about Canadians owning Canada. I suggest that we go about it back to front, which is a kind way to put it, because the CDC by itself, and especially with the restrictions in this bill, will not do much to help the average Canadian to produce and participate in our economic growth. I almost hope I am proven wrong, although I do not think this will be the case. I submit that, for example, a change in the fiscal or the taxation policy could do more with a sweep of the pen than we are doing with all the words in this bill.
The government thinks that the government reorganization bill will make for more efficient government. I
Canada Development Corporation
question that. But before trespassing too far let me say that I hope I will have an opportunity to make a speech in this chamber on what I mean when I say this government is preoccupied with culture and with constitutions in various forms. Even though I am a member of a party that is opposed to the government, I went through the election in 1968, as the Prime Minister did, with the secret hope that we might accomplish in this chamber and in the country something that he was given a mandate to do. But I suggest that because of his preoccupation with constitutions, with culture and with all the structures that are involved, he has fallen by the wayside. Now he has to rely on sorties to Russia, China and other romantic spots in order to gild the lily. But that is another debate.
So far as Bill C-219 is concerned, I firmly believe the government should stimulate policies for economic growth and not create companies for the Canada Development Corporation to invest in, which is all we are doing here.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, for a long time members of the New Democratic Party and of the Co-operative Commonwealth Federation before that, were in favour of establishing a national organization through which average Canadians could invest some of their savings to develop various segments of the Canadian economy. Socialists across Canada have for years supported that proposition. Now it is a matter of regret to us that the government, which has stolen so many planks from our program, has taken this particular plank and dressed it in such garb that it is unacceptable to those who believe in the principle that it is supposed to espouse.
It seems to me that only those Liberals who believe in political expediency, who believe in a return to themselves, could support the Canada Development Corporation as proposed in this bill. It seems to me that the CDC is unlikely to do much for the Canadian public despite the fact that the government has decided that its investment decisions must be profit-oriented.
I have been listening to the speeches made in this debate. I was particularly interested in the speech made last night by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hast-ings (Mr. Hees). When he was a minister of the Crown he was able to develop the philosophy that everybody in his department should get out and participate in the achievement of its aims and objectives. That was the Department of Trade and Commerce. He gave everyone in it a set of cuff-links inscribed to the effect that they should get off their fannies and go to work. If leadership is given it is well known that it will attract large-scale support. I think this was proven in that case.
I am not interested in a profit-motivated corporation. While I am not experienced in finance, not even to the extent of handling my own finances with any great ability, I was impressed with the remarks of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) who pointed out a number of

June 9, 1971
Canada Development Corporation important facts. The first fact he mentioned is that the Canadian public only invests in sure returns. Canadians do not want to speculate and, God bless them, I can realize why. For many years I was a miner. I saw Bay Street and James Street sell every kind of moose pasture in northern Ontario, moose pasture that did not have a trace of minerals in it. These people made their sales on the basis of all kinds of promises. I say that the gangsters in Toronto have financed Toronto by selling moose pasture in various parts of the country. Anyone who knew where those moose pastures were simply was not interested in investing money in that kind of game.
Other investors are those who want to invest a buck in a lottery, hoping, on a million to one chance or a hundred million to one chance, to win half a million dollars. The odds are fabulous but they are willing to speculate a small amount of money. But as the hon. member for York East pointed out, most people who invest have saved their money diligently, usually at some cost to themselves, and they put it into long-term, low-interest investments in the United States from which they are sure of getting their money back and are satisfied with a reasonable though low interest return.
I believe there is a new kind of investor emerging in Canada. These are the young people who have not had things so hard in earning their money. Of course, many young people now are having difficulty finding jobs through which to earn money. But young people are interested in the development of Canada, in the development of Canadian industry, in the development of businesses that will employ other young people. They would be willing to invest through a Canada development corporation such as that envisaged by my party.
Comments have been made about the investment of public money in the Maritimes, about particular investments in Newfoundland and in Saskatchewan. The hon. member for Nana:mo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), who is responsible for the development of many fine programs in Canada, told me that the government of Saskatchewan launched many developments through a provincial corporation similar to the CDC, and that less than 1 per cent of its investment was bad. The Saskatchewan investments were not made for the purpose of profit. They were made for the purpose of development. A large number of them had to do with utilities, the development of water, sewage and electricity services on which the return averaged 6 per cent, and on investments other than in utilities the return to the people of Saskatchewan averaged 16 per cent.
It is true that the provincial corporation lost money investing in a shoe factory. Why did it invest in a shoe factory? The reason was that the people of Saskatchewan were paying prices that were a third higher than those charged Canadians elsewhere for shoes. The people concerned admit that the Saskatchewan shoe factory produced a coarse product which did not meet the high standards set by Hart, Dack and other major shoe producers. But within a very short time the price of all shoes sold in Saskatchewan was greatly reduced, so the
local factory was allowed to fail. However, through the result achieved it did serve the people of Saskatchewan very well.
It seems to me that any Crown corporation interested in development should have as its first and prime interest not profit but the interest of the people it serves. Are we to get rid of Polymer simply because that corporation, in making money, is performing in a manner that goes against the government's philosophy? The government is not unhappy when the CBC loses money; it thinks that is justified. It is not unhappy when Canadian National Railways do not make money. We forget that we carry the original debt with the original interest and that we did not contribute to the original purchase of CNR. The government carries this debt and is pleased to see that railway lose money. Why, Mr. Speaker? It is a Crown corporation, and Crown corporations are supposed to lose money!
On the other hand, the hon. member for South Shore (Mr. Crouse)-who I am sure is more of a Conservative than many of his colleagues-expressed the Conservative position with respect to this bill. He suggested that the government has no business monkeying with the financial development of this country. That, I thought, was a good Conservative position. The hon. member, however, does not remember that one of Ontario's largest Crown corporations was developed by Sir Adam Beck, an outstanding Conservative. He instigated development of a hydroelectric complex and wanted to manufacture cheap light bulbs which would burn forever, if that could be done. They were not to be like General Electric bulbs which will last 200 hours if you are lucky, or which will last 800 hours if you buy the better ones, if you are lucky. The company makes a commercial bulb which will save a man climbing a lamp post every few days because it may last up to 20 years. The hon. member does not realize that many Conservatives believed that people were more important than enterprises, than profits, and so on. They believed that people were the important factor and that governments should be more concerned about people and less about profits, prices or the other considerations that are involved in industrial profits.
The government has hamstrung this corporation. It will not be allowed to invest in corporations with a capitalization of less than $1 million. CDC is to take over and, I presume, operate corporations that are now successful. CDC will not be allowed to enter highly speculative areas and will not be allowed to go into areas of little or no profit. Mr. Speaker, the young people of Canada today believe that we should buy back Canada,, that we should get control of Canada, and they do not particularly sympathize with the big companies. I heard a representative from the pulp and paper industry on television last night saying that his industry has done much to control pollution, that this has cost a great deal of money and "nobody gives us any credit".
The Manitoba government is suing a pulp and paper company for about $35 million because the company

June 9, 1971

polluted a river 600 miles away. Sure the industry has done something about pollution. Our young people say to them, "You must either clean up the pollution or close down." They are also saying, "Let's buy back Canada." Many of us believe that this will be difficult. I am sure that even the most conservative person believes that it is possible for private investment to help the development of natural resources in a way that may mean that the returns, if there are returns, are not necessarily in the form of profits.
A long time ago we decided that many public utilities should not be in the profit-making field. Many of us believe that investment in development areas need not be considered as coming within the profit-making field.
I have heard all kinds of nasty remarks about the intrusions of government into the development of industries in the Atlantic provinces. I am an outsider so far as the Maritimes are concerned, although I have visited the maritime provinces a number of times in the past few years. I was in Nova Scotia a week ago and was surprised on visiting the town of New Glasgow, to see the terrific amount of development which has taken place in the area. Of course, the development was not like that of the suburbs of Toronto. The town was not like Calgary. It was not going ahead like Hamilton. But the change that has taken place since I was there previously is remarkable, Mr. Speaker.
It may be that the Atlantic Advisory Council and agencies of government which have participated in the development of industry in the area have not made money from some of these developments. In that way the agencies have not been successful. Nevertheless, in the sense that the community will grow and that industry will develop in future years, those agencies have been successful because the development could not have been possible without their intrusion.
Today a number of questions concerning Panarctic Oils were asked. Panarctic is a corporation 45 per cent owned by the government, the rest being owned by private industry. Why the government did not have the guts to make its share of that venture 50 per cent or 60 per cent, I do not know. They certainly did not take any chances on that investment. There is now a fabulous development on islands off the Northwest Territories, and they have only scratched the surface. This company has been successful, destructively successful. If the company develops the large area it has blocked off, it will be even more fabulously successful and the government will be embarrassed. So what has the government decided to do? The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Chretien) indicated today that Panarctic has begun farming out its business to Imperial Oil. Has Imperial Oil ever farmed out anything to Panarctic? Would it ever do that? I will bet they would not. Yet Panarctic is to farm out its business because it has become too successful and the government is embarrassed.
I hope that the investment which the public will make in the Canada Development Corporation will meet with success. The corporation ought to be successful. On the other hand, there ought to be some failures inasmuch as
Canada Development Corporation
the corporation should undertake development that private enterprise will not touch. The days when you could make a fast buck are gone. You cannot move into a forest, take out 10 per cent of the resources, destroy the rest, pollute the area, take your money and get out. You cannot go into a mine, take out some ore, if you are lucky, then take your money, invest it in another area and get out. Those days are finished. They are not finished by reason of the introduction of this bill. They are finished because our young people will not stand for the environment being ruined. They will not stand for the exploitation in which industry indulges.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that there is a role for a Canadian development corporation. It should develop complexes in various parts of Canada and primarily in the primary resource areas. It should develop our resources, process them in a logical fashion and sell the finished product. Japan, the United States and most of the industrialized countries of Europe will be crying out for any raw materials that we can produce. I am aware that we have a surplus in uranium, copper and perhaps nickel. We certainly have a surplus of every agricultural commodity that we produce. However, this surplus situation is only temporary. Anyone who wishes to project the world demand for industrial development will realize that these resources must come from the countries which have the resources. Canada is one of these. In my opinion, as far as industrial processing is concerned, Japan will buy our iron, steel and other resources that can be developed to a degree. I do not suggest that we go into prefabrication in these areas, but that we finish the materials.
During my recent visit to Nova Scotia I was surprised when asked whether I was interested in subsidizing the transportation of steel to the province for the manufacture of boxcars. I said absolutely not. There is a steel mill in Nova Scotia. It can produce the steel that is required for these boxcars; they have foundry facilities and they can produce steel. If we provide the wherewithal by subsidizing the cost of moving sheet metal from Hamilton to Nova Scotia to prefabricate boxcars, why not prefabricate the boxcars being made in Hamilton?
Canadians are in a position to invest their savings in a corporation that will develop many of the resource-based industries which are desperately needed to provide jobs in areas in which it is almost impossible to create employment. Some of these projects will not be successful. They should not be successful; some should fail. There is no reason why the shoe factory in Saskatchewan should not fail. It does not matter a damn if it fails. It did not matter when the brick factory failed, because it served a purpose for the people of Saskatchewan; it enabled them to get the benefit of a better product at a lower price because the government was willing to develop it even at financial loss. Who carries the financial loss? It is all the people, and they have expressed a desire to do so.
Most of the resource-based development in this country could be developed in a highly successful way. It could

June 9, 1971
Canada Development Corporation
be a success for all the people of Canada. It would prohibit buying-out new resource areas and would prohibit their pollution. As sure as I am standing here, no Crown corporation of any description would be allowed to pollute to the degree of the exploiters of the resource-based areas of Canada.
I will oppose the Canada Development Corporation as a matter of expediency. I will oppose the proposition that it must be based on profit. I do so because the Canadian public demand the development of a corporation in which they can invest their money. Despite what is being said about the importation of foreign capital, Canadians invest more in the United States than Americans invest in Canada. Canadians will invest in finance companies, insurance companies, AT&T and other American corporations. On the other hand, American corporations invest very little in Canada. Most of the money they invest in Canada is returned to them in a very short period. The former Minister of Communications, the hon. member for Duvernay (Mr. Kierans), has said that our tax laws permit a write-off of between $1 billion and $2 billion per year through tax concessions. This means that investors who put their money into corporations in Canada will get their money back right away.
In my area Texas Gulf is being allowed a five-year tax-free period. This corporation will make millions of dollars in the first few years. It will probably be able to pay off its total capital investment with the money which is given to it in tax concessions. We have made concessions to industry and this has not worked. A large portion of Canada is not developed to any extent except in the basic resource development area. In the basic resource development area large sums of capital are being invested. A very small labour content is involved in that investment. In most cases it amounts to between $50,000 and $150,000 per job. I suggest that other industries dependent upon that resource will provide a very large labour content with much smaller investment.
As the Canada Development Corporation develops it must be made a Crown corporation. The government must control the development. This must be a partnership with the Canadian public so they will know where they can invest their money. As the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto) pointed out, Canadians should be able to invest their money and get back as much as they invested. Canadians want to invest their money in the development of this country and be able to withdraw it when the need arises. They are not interested in making a huge profit on their investment. I am not talking about the speculators or the buyers of penny football pool tickets; I am talking about people who are interested in participating in the orderly development of Canada. They will participate if they are given an opportunity to have a say in how this country develops. This will not be done at a board meeting; it can only be done through Parliament.
The corporation must reflect the wishes of those who will be investing. These will be the people who wish to invest $1,000 or $2,000 in a corporation which will develop their country. They will do this on the basis of patriotism and the desire to have Canadian financing and, above all, Canadian control over our industries. For this reason they will participate in the development of the corporation. Canadians are not interested in investing in a corporation in which most of the companies have a hand, in which most of the companies will make their maximum investment, in which there will be a large amount of money and where the government will be making concessions so that the corporation will be successful. The only people who will benefit from that kind of corporation are those who have shares and participate as they would in any other company. That is not what Canadians want. They want an opportunity to participate in the development of Canada by Canadians, for Canadians. This is what they want and what they will demand.
If the government, with its majority, passes this bill it will find it will be unacceptable to the public. The public will demand that it be changed to make it their corporation so they can invest and participate in its development. The general public will demand that a corporation of this kind should build a pipeline through the Mackenzie Valley for the transportation of gas. Others would be able to use it on payment of a fee, but the Canadian people would own it. Thus, Canadian institutions responsible to Parliament would decide where the development would begin and where it would end. It would be in a position to control the amount of gas which could be exported. Such a corporation would have an immediate interest in building an oil line from western to eastern Canada so that all Canadians could benefit from the abundance of Canada's western oil and would have no need to depend on the whims of Nixon as to how much Canadian oil should be admitted and what would be traded in return for other concessions.
The young people of Canada are not tied to money as our generation is. They are not tied to the idea of bigness being necessarily good. They do not believe that corporations are bound to be right because they are large. They will be informed in their universities that most of the big corporations are extremely inefficient, that most of the leaders of big corporations are incompetent. We can see this from the names of those appointed to the boards of many of these corporations. There is no need for them to be efficient. They need only be big enough to buy up the competition. Then they can be as inefficient as they wish and still take all that the market will bear.
The new generation of Canadians has a different outlook, different aspirations. If the government is not smart enough to change, it will find that passing this emasculated document which is masquerading as a bill to develop Canadian resources, masquerading in the form of a crusader to buy back Canada, will not serve their interests in the least. If they think this bill will satisfy a much more enlightened electorate than we have had before, they are due for a big surprise.
I oppose this hoax on the Canadian public. I look forward to a day when more Members of Parliament believe Canadians should participate to a far larger

June 9, 1971

extent in their own development by contributing through their taxes and investing their money in this country so they can be masters in their own house. I look forward to that day and I believe it is not far off.


Mr. Randolph Harding (Kootenay West):: It is not my
intention to take much time on third reading, Mr. Speaker. I fully endorse the speech which my hon. friend has just delivered. He has very ably outlined the position of the New Democratic Party so far as the Canada Development Corporation is concerned.
Needless to say, our group is disappointed that no amendments have been accepted by the government. In the last two or three days we have moved a number of amendments which we believed would improve the legislation, but of course they were steam-rollered down. Unless the economic tactics of the government are changed, the only place in which it will have a majority will be on the floor of this House. The people of Canada are demanding that economic changes be made, and they are not getting these changes: they are not getting them through legislation, they are not getting them through this emasculated CDC bill we are now debating.
The legislation before us is woefully weak and it is deliberately designed to further weaken the small publicly-owned and controlled sector of the Canadian economy. It is a sop to private enterprise and a clear indication that the government intends to do little to arrest the increasing control which foreign ownership is exercising over the Canadian economy. In fact, the legislation proposes to phase out some of our most successful Crown corporations. It is an indication that the fire sale of our best Canadian resources will continue to be the policy of this administration. I have no hesitation in saying this. All the indications of the last three years are that this is to be the program of the government.
The legislation we are considering limits investment by the CDC to the shares of corporations in the $1 million and over bracket. The corporation will not be allowed to invest in smaller companies, to channel money into new resource projects which are needed to bolster our economy. This point has been raised time and time again in the debate. The corporation will be allowed to purchase four of our highly successful Crown corporations, Polymer, Eldorado Nuclear, Panarctic Oils and Northern Transportation Company. These corporations are now 100 per cent Canadian owned and controlled. They are being run efficiently and over the years they have returned substantial dividends to the Canadian people. Yet the government insists that the CDC be given a chance to take these corporations.
The fields which should be tackled are those which are foreign-dominated and foreign-controlled. As my hon. friend from Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) has just said, the young people, the new generation will not stand for this type of nonsense very much longer. Either these changes will be brought about by the House of Commons or they will vote in people who will be ready to make the decisions necessary to bring our economy back under the control of Canadians. Why must we sell these 100 per
Canada Development Corporation
cent Canadian-owned corporations to the CDC? There will certainly be some investment in the corporation on the part of foreign-owned Canadian subsidiaries. Let us start investing in those secondary industries based on present resource development projects or in those sectors of the economy which are owned and controlled by foreign interests.
In my opinion the government has its priorities in a real mess. Its whole approach to economic problems over the last three years has been a tragedy for the Canadian people. The results of its economic program have been massive unemployment, inflation, a shortage of adequate housing, an environmental crisis and a tax structure which is completely outmoded. There are increasing indications of dissatisfaction with government policies. This is evident from the resignation from the cabinet of the former Minister of Transport and the former Minister of Communications; they resigned because of their dissatisfaction with the government's program and policies. This mood is spreading rapidly and the government should pay heed to it. As an example I would quote from the Toronto Star of June 4, 1971. This article, written about an economist who is disillusioned by the program presented by the government, reads:
Another economist, Max Stewart of the University of Alberta in Edmonton, who supported Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau in the last federal election, said, "I think Kierans' analysis is very sound, sounder than the one the government has."
But "it will have zero impact on Ottawa. They've closed their minds and they're impregnable."
There are dozens of other quotations I could make. The signals are up. Has the government lost all sense of reality that it does not recognize trouble when it sees it?


Mr. Francis:: Get to the subject.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I heard remarks to my right to the effect that the hon. member who has the floor might be wandering a little and I think those remarks might have some substance. I would ask the hon. member to remember that we are now on third reading of the Canada Development Corporation bill.


Randolph Harding: I thought I was pretty well on target here, Mr. Speaker. This party has fought for Canadian control of our economy and we hope to bring that about. One of the instruments to bring it about is a CDC along the lines that my colleague has just finished explaining to the House. This is why we are very unhappy with the piece of legislation the government has brought in called the Canada Development Corporation Act. We have pointed out on many occasions that Canadian industry was being bought up by foreign-controlled corporations with the profits they made in this country. We have pointed out how many foreign-controlled corporations were receiving preferential treatment and did not pay just taxation on their returns. It seems that many economists in Canada share this view that was so ably put by the former Minister of Communications-


Mr. Mahoney:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
6546

June 9, 1971
Canada Development Corporation


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Parliamentary secretary is rising on a point of order.


Patrick Morgan Mahoney: The hon. member appears again to have left the bill and to have returned to his text.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It seems to the Chair that the
hon. member who has the floor was returning to the bill. He was dealing with foreign ownership of Canadian corporations and Canadian assets and this seems to me relevant to the subject of the CDC.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: But it is a forbidden subject on the other side.


Randolph Harding: My Liberal friends do not like the views expressed by their former colleague in St. John's. I am just putting some of his remarks into this context in order to show the need for amendment to the bill even at this late stage. I was indicating that the former Minister of Communications, in a speech to the Canadian Economists Association at their annual meeting at St. John's, Newfoundland, six days ago made some very interesting remarks on the subject of taxation, investment, where we as a nation should be going-


Cyril Lloyd Francis: What has that to do with this bill?


Randolph Harding: It has a lot to do with the bill. This is one of the instruments for getting Canadian investment in Canada, one of the things at which we should be aiming. The former minister was pointing out just where the government was going off the rails. His speech is worth reading and quoting and I congratulate him on speaking out on these fundamental problems, for we must face them if we are to solve the economic problems of this country. Some of the comments on foreign investment made by the hon. member for Duvernay are interesting. He pointed out that he felt investment stimulants or incentives have contributed more than any other single policy to the concentration of U.S. ownership that now exists in Canada. He went on to say:
-it is not what the Americans have done to us but what we have done to ourselves.
In other words, he is saying that it is the problems that we in this House of Commons have created which have caused the economic trouble in which we now find ourselves. He went on to point out that investment incentives apply precisely to those industries where foreign ownership is most	concentrated-in the mining,
petroleum and manufacturing industries. This is very pertinent to the bill and I should like to quote from page 11 of his speech as follows:
Investment incentives (depreciation, depletion, three year exempt mining income) apply precisely in those industries where foreign ownership is most concentrated, i.e. mining, petroleum and manufacturing. Total sources of funds for American subsidiaries in Canada in 1968 amounted to $2,611 million-
That figure is taken from a U.S. survey of current business.
Funds from the United States amounted to $127 million or less than 5 per cent. Within Canada was provided $1,027 million in net income, $864 million in depreciation and $539 million from Canadian financial institutions. Legislation to inhibit further inflows would be useless. Our tax laws are such that increasing ownership, takeovers and control of Canadian firms can be entirely financed from within our own economy.
What the hon. member for Duvernay is saying in simple language is that Canadian resources and industries are being bought up by Canadian money. And he is right. He then suggested remedies that could be taken. He pointed out that in 1968 less than 5 per cent of the funds of Canadian subsidiaries in Canada came from the United States, that over 95 per cent came from within Canada. This was also clearly indicated by surveys made last year by David Belli, an economist with the United States department of commerce who did a survey of U.S. subsidiary operations in Canada. He indicated that about 94 per cent of U.S. subsidiary investments in Canada are effected with Canadian funds, and that is in the records. He also indicated that in 1968 only $127 million were provided directly by parent companies or other United States financial institutions, and the ratio in the financing of U.S. subsidiaries in Canada in that year was about 19 to one in terms of Canadian and U.S. funds. For 1969 the picture is worse than that.
He also spoke about taxation, and this question ties in very closely with the bill since industry must make an adequate return to the Canadian people. The hon. member for Duvernay had some very interesting comments to make on taxation and produced some more than interesting tax tables which bear repeating. He pointed out, as I mentioned earlier, that incentives are provided for investment in certain industries. He also made crystal clear-


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Again I raise a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) is rising on a point of order.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I have tried to relate the hon. member's remarks to the subject before the House. He is now talking about tax tables, tax yields and investments. The budget debate is not very far away. Perhaps the hon. member should go back to his files and pick out the speech that he intended to make in this debate instead of the one he is making at the moment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 
Randolph Harding: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Yours are words of wisdom and I appreciate them very much. I felt I had been keeping to the topic because all this is relevant. I was referring to some remarks of the hon. member for Duvernay in connection with foreign ownership. I have one more quotation and then I shall deal with one or two tables. The hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) can relax a little, and he need not be as embarrassed as he should be about the remarks of the minister. I quote from another statement about the results of tax policies in Canada as follows:
If foreign ownership dominates the mining and petroleum industries, our tax system has clearly invited this concentration. We have not only extended a warm invitation to foreign capital, but we have told it where to go. If you invest in the service industries, we say, you will have to pay taxes on 87 per cent or 90 per cent of your profits. On the other hand, in metal mining you will only have to pay on 13 per cent and in petroleum on 5.7 per cent of your profits. The invitation says in effect, "come and gut us".
There are one or two tables I should like to deal with. They were raised in the House the other day. They are worthy of repeating because they should indicate to hon. members and the Canadian people the trouble we are in as far as resource development is concerned. Table No. 2 given by the hon. member for Duvernay in his speech refers to metal mining. The hon. member pointed out there was a book profit of $1,707 million from metal mining, yet the taxable income was only $222 million. Only 13 per cent of the total book profit was taxable. That was not the total tax taken in; it was the amount of which tax was payable. There were $1.5 billion of book profits in the metal mining industry on which Canadians received no return. It is in this area that we are referring to the CDC and investment in Canadian resources. Some thing like $1.5 billion could not be touched; it went out of the country. And you wonder why people are fed up, sick and tired of the programs and policies this government had laid down over the years. It is not improving on them.
Let me refer to mineral fuels, which include oil. This is a pretty touchy point. There were $795 million in book profits in the mineral oil industry and we only taxed on $45 million. Only 5.7 per cent of the total book profits in the mineral oils industry was used as the tax base. We never received $45 million out of $795 million; the $45 million was the total on which we based corporate taxes. The government calls this a fair share, when other groups of individuals and corporations in the country are receiving a shellacking from this government. No wonder there is an uproar from one end of the country to the other.
Then we come to the category of "other mining." There was a book profit of $374 million. The taxable income was $120 million or 32 per cent. Let me move to the end of the table, where we find the retail trades. This is very interesting. What is the composition of the retail trades? I suggest it is a host of little businesses from one end of Canada to the other. Out of $1,620 million, this industry was taxed on $1,445 million, or 90 per cent of its book profit. There is a big difference. We come to the other end of the scale and find that for mineral fuels,
24107-64J
Canada Development Corporation which are dominated by foreign-controlled corporations, the taxable income is only 5.7 per cent. This is the point our group has been trying to make in this House. We are fed up with policies that allow this to go on and we are asking for changes. That is why we raise these issues.
Here we are in this country, with from 600,000 to
700,000	people unemployed in addition to students who cannot find jobs. Thousands of students cannot find even a summer job. I suggest the reason behind this can be found in the resource development programs of this government. We have allowed corporations to come in and get a stranglehold on the key resources of our country. They go into the north, to the mining areas and extract the choice minerals. Almost without exception they are shipped out of Canada without any fabricating taking place. This is the sort of thing we suggest the Canada Development Corporation should change. We should be fabricating these materials. The fabrication of our raw materials should take place within the confines of Canada. This would give jobs to Canadians, in a Canadian setting. The measure before us will not accomplish that objective. The CDC will not go into these fields and return the ownership of the economy of Canada to Canadians.
We take objection to this measure and we are speaking out now. We urge the government to consider some of these clauses and even now accept some of the amendments we have suggested. There is a host of arguments, as my friend suggested, which can be saved for the budget debate. Again I suggest through you, Mr. Speaker, that members of the Liberal government should, for goodness sake, have another look at the legislation. Let us get something in here that will give Canadians the hope that we will start moving into these fields and gradually regain control of our economy for the people who live in this country.
At the rate we are going, so far as investment and resource development programs of this government are concerned we are becoming squatters in our own country. Again, in closing I urge that the government take another look at this measure before we vote on it and it is passed through the House in its present form.


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


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The question is on the motion by Mr. Benson, seconded by Mr. MacEachen, that the bill be now read the third time and do pass. Is it the pleasure of the House to accept the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion
will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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

June 9, 1971
Division


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.



PRAIRIE GRAIN ADVANCE PAYMENTS ACT


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Monday, June 7, consideration of Bill C-239, to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose on Monday, June 7, 1971, it was considering motion No. 8 standing in the name of Mr. Gleave. Is the House ready for the question on motion No. 8?


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. Gleave, seconded by Mrs. Maclnnis, moved:
That Bill C-239, an act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance payments Act, be amended by deleting the following words from subclause (1) of clause 11, in lines 35 to 38 at page 10:
"or has, otherwise than by delivery to the board, disposed of all or part of the grain in respect of which the advance was made,"
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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

June 9, 1971


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Stanley Howard Knowles: On division.


Mr. Speaker;: I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 8 (Mr. Gleave) negatived.


Mr. Korchinski:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I earlier indicated that I was not prepared to go along with motion No. 8. There are several motions standing in my name on the order paper which according to your earlier ruling, were to be taken as a group. Are these now to be taken?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member is quite right. The House will now consider motions Nos. 2, 3, 4 and 5 standing in the hon. member's name. Perhaps the Chair could put at the same time all the motions standing in the name of the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski) which will be debated at the same time. First, motion No. 2. The hon. member for Mackenzie moves the following:
That Bill C-239, an act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be amended by adding in clause 5 the words "the type of grain on which an advance was taken'' after the word "grain" in line 31 at page 3.
Motion No. 3 is as follows:
That Bill C-239, an act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be amended by deleting in clause 5 the words " the making of the advance payment" in lines 5 and 6 at page 4 and substituting the following words therefor "the final delivery of grain on which collection was made in repayment of an advance".
Next, motion No. 4:
That Bill C-239, an act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be amended by adding in clause 5 the words "except where such discharge is by delivery of grain where a deduction is made which is greater than the rate of advance" after the word "payment" in line 15 at page 4.
Lastly, motion No. 5:
That Bill C-239, an act to amend the Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act, be amended by deleting in clause 6 the words "the making of the advance payment" in lines 8 and 9 at page 5 and substituting the following words therefor "the final delivery of grain on which a deduction was made for an advance".


Stanley James Korchinski: Mr. Speaker, the committee of the House of Commons dealing with agricultural matters did what I thought was a fairly extensive and thorough job in bringing in amendments to Bill C-239. To some extent those amendments were necessary simply because a different quota system has been arranged. Therefore, the committee was more or less dealing with a housekeeping chore. At the same time, certain new aspects were introduced to the cash advance legislation. It had previously dealt with the repayment of loans. It was not so much the repayment of loans question that concerned many hon. members, as the interest aspect of the legislation and the method of collection. This aspect of the bill disturbed us.
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act
The government says that interest rates have fluctuated. Following policy lines which had been pursued in the last several years, the government proceeded to amend other items of legislation including the cash advance legislation which to all intents and purposes was intended to provide interest-free cash advances, as its earlier title suggested. However, by way of amendment and the introduction of new clauses to the bill, the minister managed to slip in provisions whereby the government could collect interest from the day on which an advance was first requested. We argued against this proposition. We felt that interest-free cash advances should be continued because cash sales were limited and a requirement for cash existed. A similar requirement for cash was evident two years ago.
When speaking on June 7, the minister told us that $272 million had been taken out on 112,000 advances, if my memory serves me correctly. As I have said, through the amendments there has been introduced a change in the method of collection. Instead of injecting or infusing money into the western economy, the government suggested to farmers that they avail themselves of the cash advance legislation and take out loans. The farmers took out loans. I understand that some 50,000 loans were requested but that only $90 million or $92 million was taken out. While the government was professing that this was a method of infusing money into the western economy, it brought in restrictions or applied impositions with respect to the method by which advances would be collected.
Secondly, the interest aspect reared its ugly head. Although the minister told farmers that the quickest and easiest method for them to obtain money was by utilizing the cash advance legislation, the farmers ran into difficulties. In the last few years conditions have been difficult. A depression was brought on through a crop failure. Then because of wet weather farmers were faced with the added burden of drying their grain. In addition we have record low sales. Last year's sales were the lowest in 15 years. Sales were so poor that farmers, in a desperate attempt to obtain cash advances, may in some cases have overestimated the amount of grain they had available.
One must know the complexities of the grain business to realize that two grain bins of identical volume and size may contain different quantities of grain. The quantity will depend on grade, and so on. Thus, one bin may contain perhaps twice as much grain as another bin of the same size and volume. The grain in the two bins may be of different grades and the grain in one of the bins may be damp. On the basis of past history one would think the farmer could accurately estimate what he had. On delivering the grain, however, he might find that it is out of condition and that the dockage and shrinkage is much more than he expected. It is very possible that farmers legitimately overestimated. He can only work on estimates. There is no formal inspection; the farmer simply signs an affidavit. When this happens, the farmer can be in the position of having overestimated and taken an advance on grain far in excess of what he actually

June 9, 1971
Prairie Grain Advance Payments Act had. In most of these cases the farmers are back in business next year.
The government started dabbling in the cash advance repayment field for their own purposes, to pull them out of a political situation that was very embarrassing. There was a desperate need for cash. The government came out with a double amount of cash advancement. The sole purpose of doubling cash advances was for the government to get the money back into the economy as quickly as possible. In doing so they have changed the rules of the game. In changing the rules of the game the government may have intended to confuse the producers. Now that the producers have availed themselves of these new conditions, the government says, "We have caught you in the act. You had your hand in the cookie jar. You have to start paying interest in a different way than you have been accustomed to in the past."
The method applied was that when a producer committed himself to delivery of a six-bushel quota, if and when the quota was available, he had to deliver in a reasonable time. If he did not deliver when called upon by the Wheat Board, he was told that he was in default and that 6 per cent would be applied on the amount of the advance that was not repaid. The rules have now changed because the government wanted them changed. The government wanted that infusion of cash into the economy.
On June 7 the minister said that the producers had availed themselves of this cash advance program. The government now says that if the producer is in default, even by a very legitimate overestimation, he has to repay the cash advance in the same way as if he had borrowed the money from a bank. The principle is that the government wants to get its money back in a hurry. This is the prime purpose of the legislation. I could see that some parts of the legislation were working contrary to the original intent. I felt that some of it was tying the hands of the producers.
There are three types of grain on which cash advances are made, wheat, oats and barley. If, for example, I had
2,000	bushels of wheat that I could commit to the Wheat Board, I could take a cash advance on it. I may also have some oats and barley for sale. The amount on which I might be able to take an advance would be $6,000. If all I wanted to commit to the board or mortgage, was $2,000 on grain which I was prepared to deliver to the Wheat Board, the advance could be made. If all I am committing to the Wheat Board is my wheat, I should be able to take an advance on only that type of grain. I may have reason for wanting to keep my oats and barley available. The barley could be used as a cash crop.
Under the former practice, if one delivered a load of wheat, half the amount of the sale would normally be deducted in repayment of the cash advance. There may be a quota available and I may want to deliver a full load of barley because of my cash requirement. I may not want the Wheat Board to get its money back immediately. This should not be the prime requisite. The people of Canada should not have to work in the interest of the
government. The government should be working in the interest of the people. Our thinking has become twisted somehow.
One of my amendments in committee was to the effect that it should be possible for producers to have a cash crop which they want to deliver. I do not suggest that producers should take an advance on only one grain. My amendment suggested that they should have the option of taking an advance on three grains. The minister said this would disturb a principle. The principle was interest free cash advances. Now it is interest-full cash advances. The original principle was to benefit the producer. The principle now is that the producer should benefit the government because the government is in a hurry to get its money back.
The government says, "We gave you an advance and, boy, you had better give it back tomorrow." This is why the committee, including government members, supported the amendment I made in committee. The minister then said, "What is the matter with you? The people have to work for the government. You are supporters of the government, but you have lost sight of the principle." Over the years they may have had the right slant on what is required of the government and what should be given to the government, but the principle now is that the government comes first. Regardless of what the minister said, I felt it necessary to correct a shortcoming in the amendments presented by the government.
I met the minister half-way in one of my amendments. Under the amendments suggested by the government a producer may have paid back everything except ten bushels and still be found in default. On an advance of $6,000 which you may have taken you could technically be found in default and have to pay interest on the whole amount at the interest rate the Governor in Council might suggest. The minister shakes his head, but technically this could be done. Maybe he would say, "Well, we would bend over backwards in a case like that. It would probably not be worth making a big issue out of it." But technically that is the effect of the amendment the minister introduced.
If a farmer had taken an advance of $6,000, he would still have to pay, even though he had delivered $5,000 worth of grain and had repaid $5,000, interest on $6,000, according to the changes. I have suggested in my amendment No. 4 that when a delivery is made and you have repaid $5,000, from there on in if you are found in default you should be prepared to pay interest. I did not say one should not pay any interest. I was quite prepared to go to the extent of accepting the minister's own suggestion that it should be at a rate which the Governor in Council himself had prescribed. That is bad enough. But I was willing to concede a point and say that from the date the last delivery was made, whether it was made at the end of January-or if you took it in faster, so much the better-or any date, from the date when the final delivery was made on which an advance was repaid I could be called upon and told, "You should have delivered, but you did not. We can legitimately say you have no more

June 9, 1971

grain." If that situation should arise, then interest should be charged.
But what has happened in the past? Even if the final delivery of grain was made in January, and there was no more quota until the end of March and when the quota opened up and the producer did not deliver, the board informed him he had ten days or so in which to deliver. If he did not deliver in that time he was found in default and he paid interest from March. So as a compromise I said, "Let's go half-way." But the minister wants it all. The government is hungrier than some of the people who took the advance because they did not have the money. They do not take an advance unless they have to.
The repayment performance under the old scheme was that only about 1 per cent of the advances were not repaid. And that was only because of some extreme difficulty, changing hands or sometimes fire or loss of grain from flooding, and so on.
Then suddenly the government changes the rules and says, "We have to get away from this. We are a high-interest government, so let's apply the principle all over the place. After all, this works hand-in-hand with our original intention. We will make it a little tougher for the farmer to get an advance. It will not be interest-free. He will have to pay interest." That adds to your cost, and we all know the net result. It's the last straw that breaks the camel's back, and combined with some of the other philosophies projected by this government one finds it easy to understand why they would want these changes. It is easy to understand why they would want to reject an amendment which even some of their supporters felt was necessary.
Mr. Speaker, there was great emphasis placed on the committee system and I, along with many members of the committee from all sides of the House, applied myself to the point where we even sat all night on occasion. Genuine ideas came forward from all sides; government supporters do not have a prerogative in this respect. I have sat in committees where it required the minister to tell his supporters what they should approve and what they should not approve.
This practice makes a farce of the committee system. It frustrates the work of committee members and the work of Members of Parliament who feel they have a contribu-
Business of the House
tion to make either on the basis of experience or because of having listened to briefs submitted by people who genuinely think they are doing something to change legislation. Some farm organizations go to great lengths to get the information. They go out into the country and get as much information as possible from individual producers. Then they compile the information, co-ordinate it and work together.
The executive sit around and say; "What is our final position to be? What is our submission to be?" Committees hear representations and some of us, even on the opposition side, can understand what the briefs suggest. We suggest amendments and on the basis of those amendments we think we are helping to improve legislation. But it seems that the government, or a group of civil servants who are hard at work advising the minister-who may or may not understand the situation- what will be good for him, and telling him he had better not accept any more amendments from the opposition, ignores our suggestions. The government accepted two of mine before the dinner recess and then suddenly they held a caucus and-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member because it is six o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Thomas Miller Bell: Could I ask the parliamentary secretary to tell us the menu for tomorrow?


James Alexander Jerome: Yes, Mr. Speaker. It is our intention in tomorrow morning's supplementary portion of the day to continue with this measure, that is to say, until the luncheon adjournment. Then there is to be a meeting of the House leaders in the morning and the afternoon's schedule will be drawn up from this meeting-the Judges Act, the pilotage bill, or unemployment insurance which was originally announced as being tomorrow's business, and the Canada Labour (Standards) Code.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Thursday, June 10, 1971